Many 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.
** Craig Shields boasts a 30-year career in business and marketing consulting for clients that include IBM, Hewlett-Packard, ABB, National Semiconductor, Agfa, Oracle, Litton, Sony, Microsoft, 3M, Philips Electronics, and FedEx, as well as hundreds of smaller enterprises and venture-capitalized start-ups. Combining his advocacy for clean technology, Craig now functions as editor of 2GreenEnergy.com, where he and his team provide information, services, and investment capital to companies in renewable energy and electric transportation. His book, Renewable Energy: Facts and Fantasies, was published in 2010. Craig holds a Bachelor's degree in physics and a Master's degree in philosophy.
Subscribe to