We’re Talkin’ Clean Energy on Houston’s “Guys Gone Green”

by craigshieldsPosted on August 24, 2011 Posted in Fossil Fuels

It’s common wisdom that environmentalism means pain, sacrifice, and inconvenience, in the form of smaller, slower cars, higher energy prices, less comfort, etc.  But I wonder if this is necessarily true.

The subject arose on a radio show I just taped called “Guys Gone Green,” which will air this Saturday in Houston, TX.  The interview went very well; I was on for two lively segments – a total of about 20 minutes.  The host, who spends most of his on-air life as a football announcer, has more bombast in his little finger than I have in my entire body — yet I think I did a reasonable job in not sounding like a wet blanket by contrast, maintaining the normal level of enthusiasm I have for the subject.

During the course of the interview, the host cautioned me about the remarks I was making on the petroleum industry, pointing out that Houston loves oil — which hadn’t escaped my notice, and is, of course, true.  But I didn’t see any way to mince words, even if I had wished to.  Oil and renewables really are at odds with one another, like razors vs. electric shavers; they’re essentially competitive goods.

Of course, this analogy breaks down quickly once one realizes two simple facts.  A) Manufacturers of razors and those of electric shavers are economic competitors of approximately equal magnitude, and B), the health and safety of mankind is serviced pretty-much equally well by each. But in the case of fossil fuels and renewables, we have a very different balance of forces.

In particular, oil and coal are true “industries,” replete with all the good stuff that comes with that status — especially lobbyists; the oil lobby is the largest in the known universe.  By contrast, renewable energy is just a gleam in the eye of a relative few who look into the future and ask questions like: What’s going to happen in a world of post-peak-oil?  What will occur when the U.S. wakes up and realizes that it has  severely compromised its national security vis-a-vis its enemies in the Middle East?  Will we experience a kind of “seller’s remorse” once we’ve bargained away our economic future to the Chinese?

Of course, a centrist viewpoint is possible, in which the US migration to clean energy takes place over a period of time; in fact, it’s the only reasonable position.  The U.S. should adopt an energy policy in which we steadily and aggressively phase out fossil fuels, while we replace them with renewables. We should set stiff targets, and adhere to them, while we employ literally millions of people in the process.

In fact, let’s start with something even more fundamental and non-controversial than renewables: energy efficiency. I propose a large but short-term public program that calls for the retrofitting of our buildings with energy efficiency systems, and I point out that the job-creation implications of this are crystal clear.  In an average project of this type in which $1 million is spent, eight jobs are created directly, and another eight jobs indirectly, meaning jobs for the suppliers, or jobs created through a multiplier effect, i.e., through people having more money because they have jobs and then spending their money.

So you’ll get 16 or 17 jobs per each million dollar expenditure in retrofit projects.  When you realize there are $800 billion in projects to be completed (not all of which will be done, of course), that’s quite a number of jobs.  It’s a win for everyone.

As I said on “Guys Gone Green, the question isn’t: “Do we have an appetite for pain in order to get to a long-term gain?”  It’s: “Why can’t we experience a gain for all U.S. interests (except the oil companies)?”  Sorry I had to say this in Houston, but it’s the truth.

I’ll post the link to the show when it’s available.