In the last two weeks I've had the chance to separately debate the BP disaster with two conservatives -- David Frum and Kevin Williamson (sorry, can't find video for the latter). On both occasions the conversation turned to whether or not offshore drilling is necessary, and how quickly we can transition to a sustainable energy economy. (Williamson seemed to suggest that such a shift is not even possible, which makes me wonder where he sees the U.S. in, say, 50 years.)
Both Frum and Williamson made the argument that sustainable energy practices would be impossible to adopt because of the fuel needs of cars, buses, planes, etc. (They also both derided the idea of a sustainable energy economy by comparing it to unicorns, which suggests there is a Frank Luntz memo going around that I haven't seen yet.) While the Prius has demonstrated the ability of hybrid cars to significantly impact gas mileage, it does seem true that we don't yet have a sustainable mass market solutions for the transportation fuel problem. Does that mean we need to rely on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future?
Well, no! Brad Plumer has a smart post noting that transportation only makes up 47 percent of our oil use -- leaving a variety of sectors, from heating to freight transportation, where sustainable energy could make a huge impact in reducing our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic, and the negative externalities that come along with it. Even within the transportation sector, though, there's no reason to give up on shifting our energy resources. New kinds of hybrids and fuel cells are being developed, and we need to create market incentives for that process to continue, including increasing CAFE standards.
Of course, this transition is not going to happen overnight, and we'll need oil in the meantime. Does that suggest that we ought to tap offshore oil reserves? Not really. The benefits of opening those reserves are both negligible in the face of demand and wouldn't even have that small effect on supply or price until 2030, if not longer. Rather than try to squeeze blood from a stone, we should spend the next two decades accelerating our shift.
What amazes me about my conversations with these two writers is how fatalistic they are -- they seem to have given up on the United States' capacity for innovation, and just want to accept the fact that we've harnessed our country to an energy regime that undermines national security, the environment, and will, at the end of the day, undermine our economy. We can do better than that.
-- Tim Fernholz
