Public Works and Energy Independence
Energy independence will be achieved by producing abundant, clean and
affordable domestic energy through new technology that will enable
all countries to
do the same. American Energy Independence
will lead to global energy independence.
Using oil for energy—for fuel—made sense when oil was
cheap. But it did not remain cheap. When Al
Qaeda came along, the
real price—including the hidden
costs—of imported
oil rose to the point that U.S. synthetic
fuels and biofuels became an economically
viable option for replacing petroleum transportation fuels (U.S.
natural gas has always been a viable option).
Clearly, the amount of money America spends to protect Middle East
oil and fight a war against Islamic terrorism, if
invested in energy independence, would be more than
enough to
develop
new technology that will obsolete the need for oil
as a source of energy to power our cars, trucks and airplanes.
Over 50% of all oil produced in the world today is consumed by transportation
(50% is the worldwide average—over 70% of oil consumed in the USA
is used by transportation) in the form of petroleum fuels burned in
cars, trucks and airplanes (and in boats, ships and
trains). The development of a replacement for oil, as the world's
source of
transportation fuels, would have
the same effect as doubling the
world's oil supply.
|
“...in my opinion, there never was a good War, or a bad Peace.
What vast additions to the Conveniences and Comforts of Living might
Mankind have acquired, if the Money spent in Wars had been employed
in Works of public utility!”
— Benjamin Franklin, 1783 - quoted from a letter to Joseph Banks.
Invest in Energy Independence
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
The American taxpayer spends billions of dollars every year to pay
for military hardware such as planes, ships, and tanks. These purchases
are considered an investment in America’s security. The American
people do not expect to make a profit from military hardware; they
believe such investments are worth the cost in order to protect Liberty.
The same argument can be made for investing in a 21st Century American
energy production and distribution system; one that will free America
from dependence
on oil as the source of transportation
fuels.
For less than the cost of military operations in the Middle East (or
the price of the Wall Street bailout),
the United States could build synthetic
fuel refineries, renewable
energy farms, and nuclear
power reactors
across America. The combination
of synthetic fuels, renewable energy, and
safe nuclear power can free America from dependence on foreign sources
of energy.
Using American
tax dollars to buy the initial hardware needed
to create energy from renewables (solar, wind,
ocean waves, geothermal, and biomass), USA hydrocarbons (Synthetic
Fuels), and nuclear power would reduce
the cost of the energy produced by the hardware.
With public
funding of the initial capital investment, the cost of alternative
energy production would be equal or less than the cost of
crude oil (even at reasonable prices). Why? Because the hardware is
expensive, not the alternative energy—it doesn't cost much
to produce the energy after the hardware is paid for.
The development of a 21st century national energy infrastructure
would create and sustain tens of thousands,
if not millions,
of new good paying
jobs
in
America; and at the same time give private American
companies an opportunity to profit from the manufacture, installation
and operation of the new energy hardware.
The economic stimulus and growth resulting from
such an enormous investment would generate new local, state and federal
tax revenue that would eventually return far more than the original
public
investment.
Speech given by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar
(R-IN) on December 18, 2007 at the Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy
Security and the
2008 Presidential Election.
“Today, I would state unequivocally,
that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely
associated with it should be the most
important topics of the 2008 Presidential election. I say this deliberately,
notwithstanding the existence of extremely important immediate concerns
such as the war in Iraq and the performance of the American economy,
as well as persistent public policy struggles that have confronted us
for decades, such as deficit reduction, health care, and social security.
I say this even in the context of my own long standing evangelism related
to non-proliferation and arms reduction, issues which I believe have
not diminished in importance.
“Three factors lead me to the conclusion
that energy is the most vital topic of this Presidential election:
“First,
energy is the issue with the widest gulf between what is required to make our
nation secure and what is likely
to be achieved through the inertia of existing programs and Congressional
proposals. As such, it is the issue on which meaningful progress most
depends on the great intangible in American public policymaking – the application
of dramatic, visionary, and sustained Presidential leadership.
“Congress and private enterprise can make
evolutionary energy advancements, but revolutionary national progress in the
energy field probably is dependent
on presidential action. Our energy dependence is perpetuated by a
lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to elevate
a cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the
buying
power, regulatory authority, and legislative leadership of an administration
behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political procrastination
and partisanship.
“Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a requirement
for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era
when exploding global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of
scarcity, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to underperform. Our ability
to address social security, health care, education, and overall budget problems
will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do
not mitigate our energy import dependence. Almost any scenario for recession
will be deepened by high energy costs. Moreover, many of the most severe
recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism,
war, embargo, or natural disaster.
“Third, energy is the underlying
condition that exacerbates almost every major foreign policy issue. We pressure
Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur,
but we find that the Sudanese government is insulated by oil revenue
and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its uranium enrichment
activities, yet key nations are hesitant to endanger their access
to Iran’s
oil and natural gas. We try to foster global respect for civil society
and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments are
often diverted to corrupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism,
yet some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year on oil imports
are diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people
out
of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are further impoverished by
expensive energy import bills. We seek options that would allow for military
disengagement
in Iraq and the wider Middle East, yet our way of life depends on
a steady stream of oil from that region. American national security will be at
risk
as long as we are heavily dependent on imported energy.”
—
U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election
|
