The Gulf Oil Spill and Its Impact on Renewables

PhotobucketMany of my friends have asked my opinion on the likely impact of the Gulf oil spill on the trajectory for renewable energy. And although one might think that I’d be in a reasonably good position to answer a question like that directly and accurately, in truth, it really is hard for me –- or anyone, I believe — to predict the effect of this catastrophe on the world’s energy policy going forward.  I offer a few points for discussion:

Many people suggest that, as horrific as the spill is, it comes with a “silver lining,” i.e., accelerating the demand for a replacement for oil as our predominant energy supply, brought about by an increased awareness of the many dangers of oil. Oh really? So the general public — normally fast asleep — has awakened? So a large flock of sheep had an epiphany on the dangers of oil and created a firestorm of outrage at the oil companies? So what? The same political forces that have continued to grant oil companies enormous subsidies through the last half century and made gasoline/diesel 98+% of our transportation fuel – even when we became aware of the dangers many decades ago — are still in place. And now those forces are working harder than ever. Do you think the corporate powers and (by far) the biggest lobby on the planet are updating their résumés and looking for new careers because of a lousy oil spill?

In addition to the big politics and big money, there legitimately are technology issues. Of course, these issues would have been largely mitigated, or eliminated entirely, if we had done what we should have been doing since the oil embargoes of the 1970s: running 1000 miles per hour toward electric transportation and various forms of renewables. Now, our oil addiction is so severe that the consequences of moving away from it are, like withdrawing from any addiction, quite unpleasant.

And consider global climate change. Some people say that the oil spill negates any point that the “deniers” may have had — i.e., now the validity of the global climate change theory no longer matters. Of course, that’s been the case for a long time as well.  If you’re looking for a reason to break our oil addiction, the argument about global warming has been moot for many years; it’s been obvious to most of us that there are five or six different equally compelling reasons. I know there are people who disbelieve the climate change theory; I run into them all the time. But are there people who don’t believe in terrorism? In the consequences of a ballooning national debt? In lung cancer? In the dangers of weak national security? In ocean acidification? The spill is certain to weaken the position of the oil zealots (and whatever forces control them) — who try so hard to sell us on the idea that “oil business as usual” is a reasonable path towards a sustainable civilization.

So I suppose that there really is a silver lining here. It is precisely that now, anyone and everyone (you don’t have to be a clean energy editor/business analyst) can see the truth for what it is. There is one and only one winner in oil, namely the oil companies themselves. Recall the tobacco companies of the 20th Century, and their product — the only legal one that when used as directed causes death. At a certain point we all realized that cigarettes were very good for Philip Morris investors and executives – but that they were very bad for literally everyone else on the Earth. The issue is the same here. The oil companies are the sole beneficiary of oil. And now, finally, it’s clear to everyone.

Let’s acknowledge that we made a grievous mistake in the 1970s/1980s — and move on. And let’s keep our eye on the ball this time. Dropping the ball once is not license to drop it again. Use this as a litmus test for our leaders: an elected official who is really on your side (if there actually is such a thing) will take whatever political risks may come his way to stay the course in the development of clean energy solutions.

But it’s up to you and me to insist that our leaders do that. In case you haven’t noticed, they don’t do things because they’re right; they do them because they’re forced.

Paul Scott Speaks on the Big Oil Companies

Here’s another in a series of interview snipets that I conducted with Paul Scott, vice president and co-founder of Plug-In America. Here, we discuss the concept that the big oil companies will fight electric transportation to the death.

Full 30-minute show on electric transportation here.

Cancer Rates and Fossil Fuels

PhotobucketChip Aadlund writes:

CO2 is a problem and a huge one, but it doesn’t compare with chemical pollution. From 1973 to 1999 childhood cancers increased 26 percent. Acute childhood lymphcytic cancer is up 61 percent, brain cancer up 50 percent and bone cancer is up 39 percent. this does not include the problems caused by the chemicals leaching into food and water from containers causing dramatically reduced numbers of male babies along with reproductive issues.

Chip: Thanks very much for this. I’m reminded of some of my previous posts on the externalities associated with fossil fuels and how to quantify them. Ironically, it’s far easier to find numbers for the things that carry nowhere near the level of tragic impact as the things you’re talking about here. For example, we add up the cost of treating a case of lung cancer, but ignore the suffering of the victim and his family.

I believe that in 50 years the energy companies will be subjected to the aggression that the tobacco industry is receiving today in terms of class-action lawsuits and broad societal condemnation. We see it starting already, with pieces like 60 Minutes treatment of coal ash a couple of months ago.  (This was the quintissential 60 Minutes hatchet job — but it’s a good sample of the scorn that’s coming down the pike — both fair and unfair.)

I point out to Chevron and its shareholders that the average wrongful death award in the US is in measured in seven figures; that adds up fast, people.

People talk about the high cost of PV, wind, geothermal, etc. But that’s only because most of the true cost of coal and oil is passed along to the family of some anonymous eight-year old kid slowly dying in a hospital bed. Given any even remotely fair-minded treatment of renewables, clean energy is the bargain of the century.

Thanks again for writing.

Amazon Watch

PhotobucketReader Jacob Silver writes:

Non-absorbed carbon in the atmosphere is thickening the carbon filter of solar energy. With the loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of forest cut down in Indonesia and Brazil, the result is a gap of 25% non-absorbed carbon. This has already created an atmospheric carbon index of 390 ppm, with an increase of 2 ppm each year.

It’s coincidental that you mention the importance of the rainforests.  As it turns out, my wife, who recently exited with the world of horse breeding, will soon be speaking with the good people of Amazon Watch re: a new career as environmental guardian.  I truly hope it works out, as advocating for eco-stewardship is a great chance to make the big bucks.  (Just kidding.)

I’m reminded of the magical night I had in Los Angeles a few months ago at a screening of the movie Crude (which I heartily recommend), and meeting a few of the filmmakers. It was a great honor to hang out with people who have dedicated their lives to such an honest and beautiful cause. I’m reminded in particular of Amazon Watch’s Atossa Soltani (pictured here) whom I’ve described as “a fierce but kind fireball of passion and energy for the cause of the Ecuadorian people.”

For those who may not be aware of the story, Crude is a documentary that lays out the history of one of the world’s most horrible tragedies – tragic mostly insofar as it did not have to happen. In brief, oil giant Texaco began looking for oil in Ecuador in 1964 and pursued that goal for decades, with dirty, low-cost processes that would have landed anyone associated with them in jail had they been performed in the US. The company knowingly ruined a huge part of the rainforest, resulting in the sickness and death of tens of thousands of innocent indiginous people. Now, Chevron, who acquired Texaco in 2001, has focused its throng of lawyers on the task of evading responsibility for the crimes.

Those wishing to learn more can do so at Amazon Watch. It would certainly be a happy day for us at the Shields family to have one of on the staff of such a fabulous team of people.

Crude – The Movie

PhotobucketI was fortunate enough to have been invited to the Los Angeles premier screening of the movie “Crude” by filmmaker Joe Berlinger (pictured at left with Miss California) last night in Hollywood. It was a great honor being part of a cause so honest, and to be given the opportunity to meet people like Amazon Watch’s Atossa Soltani (below) – a fierce but kind fireball of passion and energy for the cause of the Ecuadorian people.

For those who may not know the story, Crude is a documentary – quite fair-minded in comparison to most – covering the history of one of the world’s most terrible tragedies – tragic mostly insofar as it did not have to happen. In brief, Texaco began its exploration for oil in Ecuador in 1964 and pursued that effort for decades, with processes so impure that they would have landed anyone associated with them in jail had they been performed in the US. The company knowingly ravaged the rainforest, and caused the sickness and death of tens of thousands innocent people living in the area. Now, Chevron, who acquired Texaco in 2001, is working hard to evade responsibility for the crimes of the company it owns. Those wishing to learn more can do so at Amazon Watch.

In any case, this film is truly a story of power, mystery, beauty, and evil – all presented in a straightforward manner that respects the intelligence of its audience.

Photobucket

I won’t give away the ending – in fact, I couldn’t even if I wanted to. There is no reason to believe that this litigation will ever end, as Chevron continues to astound the world, finding inventive new ways to postpone justice and fairness. If you think I’m exaggerating, I urge you to consider the case of the Exxon Valdez. No one at ExxonMobil disputes sole resonsibility for the disaster, yet they were successful in delaying paying off the damages until just this year — more than 20 years after the incident (and at the last minute prevailed upon a judge to reduce those damages by 80%). To me, it’s hard to guess when we could reach a conclusion in the case of Chevron.

But speaking of conclusions, one that I personally find obvious is that white people have treated people of color very badly all around the globe for many hundreds of years. This fine film is a reminder that there is precious little evidence that this pathology has slowed – or that it ever will.