In Favor of a U.S. Energy Policy

In response to my piece calling for an energy policy in the U.S., frequent commenter Dr. James Gover, author, speaker, and professor of electrical engineering at Kettering University, made a few interesting points, for which I thank him:

1) In the U.S., policy is established in response to the wishes of the public.  Each president establishes energy policies believed to be consistent with public wishes, with particular attention given to the wishes of those who support the president.  The process of policy development in the U.S. requires the public to be well informed on the alternatives and the costs and benefits of each. 

I’m a bit surprised to see this.  The rank and file American needs to be well-informed of this – or anything?  Obviously that’s the case in a well-functioning democracy, but haven’t we long since kissed that point goodbye?  I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that at this point, very few important decisions are made by the will of an informed electorate.

2) There is a lack of agreement on what an energy policy should be for the long haul.  Politics, the basis for all policy development, responds to short-term rather than long-term views.   The political process results in policies that support all constituents to some degree and minimizes the probability of revolution. 

You’re absolutely right that this civilization is all about the short-term, at the expense of the long-term. We apply the same “discount rate,” favoring our near-term pleasure and ignoring our long-term pain, as do teenagers and alcoholics.  But it’s interesting that you mention revolution. I was listening out of one ear as I was falling asleep last night to the TV show my wife was watching: Revolution.  Do you suppose that, given the technological advancements and the military superiority of the great nation-states that such a thing is possible, regardless of how oppressive the situation becomes? I don’t see it.

3) I have considered in some detail all of the arguments for developing an alternative to oil.  Global warming is the most compelling; however, the scientific community has not yet persuaded enough people that man’s impact on global warming is important and worthy of attention.

Yes, and that truly amazes me.  In the U.S., we have a huge number of college-educated people who actively discard what our scientists are telling us.  Could you – or anyone — explain how this could have possibly happened?

Again, Dr. Gover, thanks for your continued participation.