Subscription Center
May 12, 2009 06:05 PM | 12
When it comes to energy policy in the U.S., not very much has changed since President Jimmy Carter declared more than three decades ago that achieving energy independence was "the moral equivalent of war."
Today, Carter had his “I-told-you-so-moment” in testimony on energy policy before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving lawmakers a bit of a history lesson (while acknowledging that some of them were also in government then).
Two weeks after becoming president, Carter famously appeared in a cardigan and urged energy conservation on a resistant American public. Ultimately, that and other efforts led to a more energy-efficient economy as well as cutting oil imports in half by 1982.
But just a few years later, the U.S. became even more dependent on imported oil and many of the alternative energy efforts inaugurated during his administration—solar thermal power plants, electric cars and biofuel from algae—limped along until finally getting more traction recently.
Carter reminded the lawmakers that more than 30 years ago, his administration pushed successfully for legislation to penalize gas-guzzling cars, force utilities to encourage energy conservation and mandated better-insulated buildings and more efficient electric motors and appliances. All of which are efforts duplicated by the Obama administration more recently.
While giving the senators the energy security history lesson they requested, he also detailed some of the insights gleaned from his globe-trotting in recent years. For instance, he noted that China is building more efficient coal-fired power plants while the U.S. has yet to build a single power plant demonstrating carbon capture and storage technology and Brazil's biofuel industry has far surpassed American efforts.
"We also lag far behind many other nations in the production and use of windmills, solar power, nuclear energy, and the efficiency of energy consumption," he noted.
He ended with a reminder that the decisions we make today will determine our place in the hierarchy of nations, the health of our economy and, ultimately, the very fate of the planet. The global climate is changing but the debate in Washington, D.C., remains largely the same.
Tags:
energy conservation,
carbon capture and storage,
oil,
jimmy carter,
energy policy,
ex-president,
peak oil,
energy efficiency,
renewable energy,
energy security
More News Blog:
Next: Space shuttle Atlantis closing in on Hubble
Previous: Google adds options to help searchers get to the point
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ RT @ccziv: ‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror http://t.co/FE0fh5q7zY BoraZ Recipe for a Photograph #2: Bee in Flight http://t.co/43FSw01eWI by @Myrmecos at #SciAmBlogs
sciamblogs Recipe for a Photograph #2: Bee in Flight http://t.co/yQgIK9TE5U by @Myrmecos at #SciAmBlogs
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
12 Comments
Add CommentIf history can forgive Nixon, surely it has also redeemed Carter. I'd like to see an alternate history where the solar panels on the white house roof were only the beginning and the war in Iraq was never fought because Hussein lacked the revenue to beat back Iran in their civil war. But that would require peak oil to happen 30 years earlier than it is... oh well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd sure like to have seen that alternate world Mims describes. I would however disagree, but with complete respect, that history has redeemed President Carter. Some of us have believed in the ideas and actions of Mr. Carter during and after his presidency. Others, including some I've had extended professional relationship with, won't hesitate to smear Mr. Carter at every opportunity as the source of any number of ills they've felt "plagued" our country since and has required strong capitalist remediation. I can only shake my head; I've grown so tired over the years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember the Carter presidental election,I voted for him. Dumbest thing I ever did. It was said he had the highest IQ of any US president, was a successful business man and farmer, and could get the country moving forward again. All lies, and for over 25 years he has been trying to rewrite the history of his administration. It was a desaster. The Carter alternative energy legislation was badly put forward and drawn up. Jimmy told the American public not to buy anything from the existing alternate energy equipment suppliers until the legislation was passed and for a year and a half those of us in the business starved to death and went broke. Then after it was passed the conmen flooded everyone with scams that didn't work and gave us all a bad name. Now the conmen are ready again, The Obama administration will warp economic reality and cause another setback in real solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany thanks to Reagan and the Republicans for setting the U.S. back 30 years. Instead of leading in efficient energy we are in the mess we find ourselves today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCandide; actually most of the alternative energy producers were put out of business during the Clinton administration
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarter's "Atoms for Peace" is all I need to Know the waste of my vote. He has his hate just under control. Hate is a fluid thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we are to be candid all our recent leaders have sold us out to oil nations. Now our present Geen Movement, Al G and others are being paid for by special oil intrests, this is to keep us from using our oun nat resources. As usual follow the money.Carter is a sad clown, and I take no advice from clowns.
P.S. Read his unedited books- if you can find them- then you will know.
Well, here we go again! Sloganeering is cheap!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it came to "Doing" he failed spectacularly and was swept out of office after just one term, leaving the economy reeling in stagnation and hyperinflation.
And that was even without burdening the economy with hyper-expensive alternative power cost that even today can only be built with massive taxpayer subsidies. And please give me a break with all the "green jobs". Higher energy cost caused by a combination of cap-and-trade/taxation and higher alternative energy generation cost will make our economy uncompetitive and cost jobs. Look at Spain with its 17% unemployment rate for an example, where recent studies were published showing that every one (1) green job created ended up destroying 2.3 jobs in the rest of the economy.
Every barrel of oil and every ton of coal displaced by wind and solar in the US will at a lower price end up in China and India. As a result it will amplify the competitive disadvantage of our economy even further. The reality is that independence comes at a very high cost because of inescapable interdependence.
There is no doubt that we should be concerned about dwindling fossil fuel supplies and we should strive to become leaders in energy efficiency. But there is no need to commit economic suicide because of anthropogenic global warming scare tactics. We should add alternative energy to our system guided by economic realities and forget about such nonsense as carbon sequestration. It adds benefit only to those who get a cut from cap and trade fees. Worse, it actually wastes 25% of the energy produced in the process.
Hay! zweiter, google "Bakken reserve" and do the math, we have the nat resorces. The next question is: why are we not energy independent?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is not pretty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"RMI's Approach to Energy
The inefficient use of energy causes many economic and security problems, and most environmental ones. Simply using energy in a way that saves money would avoid most of these problems. RMI therefore works to speed the free-market adoption of a "Soft Energy Path" — a profitable blending of efficient energy use with safe, sustainable sources to provide the same or better services while saving money, abating pollution and climate change, reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, and increasing global security. "
See more details about this approach at:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid249.php
In response to Internet troll's suggestion to try the RMI Approach to Energy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with the primary focus on efficiency and economics.
But there is a vast opportunity to get things wrong when trying to convert visions and noble goals into a new reality.
Let's take the reliance on the Smart Grid based on internet technologies. What a dream and what a nightmare at the same time! The consequences of failure are beyond imagination and my extensive experience in the process industries tells me that it will fail for any number of reasons. In addition it will be exposed to malicious attacks from all types of enemies that can potentially put the entire country out of business at once. If you want to get a taste of life without electricity and communication, move to the US gulf coast in the aftermath of a major hurricane. Far more than lights and A/C are gone when the power is out in a region. But it pales in comparison to a failure scenario affecting the entire country.
Companies promoting and selling the idea for profit will promise that they have considered all of this and that their technology is bullet proof. There is no such thing!
There is an eternal temptation to push the envelope of efficiency by increasing economy of scale and complexity. It is a folly to ignore the potential downsides and to ignore Murphy's Law.
"Too Big to Fail" is really no protection at all against failure but a recipe for disaster. It is a brand new lesson we should all internalize.
There is charm in being smaller, in not putting all of your eggs in one basket, in limiting federal power over state power and in diversification.
Imagine the black hole the country would be in if every state would have been as fiscally reckless as California or would have pushed the housing bubble as hard as California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona. There would be no "rest of the country" to bail "them" out!
Seems to me that in a capitalist-driven economy like ours distributed generation is the only viable answer. The bottle-neck for all forms of alt energy comes down to distribution; either logistically or lack of profit. Also, a centralized disto system is susceptible to black-outs. If we can deregulate energy utilities enough to allow municipals to buy their own (not lease) power sources, companies will find a way to sell them. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation and view the various modes of power generation. Imagine if your county, township, or neighborhood had it's own energy source. A new industry would pop up and eventually lead to personal energy sources in your backyard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to me that in a capitalist-driven economy like ours distributed generation is the only viable answer. The bottle-neck for all forms of alt energy comes down to distribution; either logistically or lack of profit. Also, a centralized disto system is susceptible to black-outs. If we can deregulate energy utilities enough to allow municipals to buy their own (not lease) power sources, companies will find a way to sell them. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation and view the various modes of power generation. Imagine if your county, township, or neighborhood had it's own energy source. A new industry would pop up and eventually lead to personal energy sources in your backyard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this