Tuesday Jul 22, 2008

In the Trenches: An impossible dream?

Posted by David Harris
Comments: 12
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

After 9/11, I wrote what I called "The Missing Speech."

It was my imagined call from the Oval Office to confront our ever-growing - and increasingly dangerous - dependence on oil from hostile nations. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman noted, this was the first time in American history that we were funding both sides of a conflict in which we were involved.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Americans unquestionably would have set aside partisan and personal interests to respond. Yet no such call was forthcoming, nor did Congressional leaders of both parties act with any greater, much less sustained, sense of purpose and unity.

Instead, in the blink of an eye, we were back to partisan posturing, regional protectionism, industry lobbying, and name-calling. In other words, public policy as Washington gridlock had returned.

Americans weren't asked to rethink their driving habits and save oil as the modern-day equivalent of buying war bonds or knitting socks for our servicemen. No, we were asked to shop, as a stimulus for the economy.

What a lost opportunity!

Given the vested interests in any energy debate, that post-9/11 opportunity to move forward as one was unique - and fleeting.

And think where we'd be seven years later had this become a full-court press, along the lines of the Manhattan Project or the effort to place a man on the moon.

Instead, where are we?

To put it gently, up the creek.

Our oil dependence has only grown.

The prices of natural resources have skyrocketed.

Petrodollars are flowing out of the United States at a rate that some have described as the greatest transfer of wealth in global history.

Countries like Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are strutting across the world stage, their coffers overflowing with oil revenue. (The US does not buy oil directly from Iran, but Teheran, of course, has also been a beneficiary of high oil and gas prices, allowing it to pursue its nuclear and military ambitions.)

Meanwhile, American influence has diminished as a consequence of this economic bleeding, and the lack of national planning and discipline it so glaringly reveals.

Sovereign wealth funds in many dollar-rich countries, including in the Persian Gulf, are being used to purchase American (and other) assets, often at bargain-basement prices.

And, of course, we have come to understand the potentially irreversible damage to our environment due to greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels.

So, in these seven years, thanks to a virtual paralysis of public policy, we can point to further threats to our national security, the weakening of our national economy, and damage to our environment.

Yet, critics will counter, Congress passed an energy bill last year. True, something is better than nothing, but it's a far cry from the mobilization required.

Alas, the moment for that post-9/11 speech I envisioned is long gone. But another speech is needed. If I could be indulged a flight of fancy, leaders of both political parties would give it.

It might go something like this:

Even in an election year, we know that certain issues cannot be pushed back until the advent of a new administration. The need for a serious national energy policy simply cannot wait even a day longer. Nor should it be subjected to endless debate and parliamentary maneuvering, as if one party needed to prove that it wants it even more than the other.

The cost of oil today is punishingly high. We realize the pain it inflicts, especially on low-income and fixed-income families. But we need to level with you. We are not going to resort to flash-in-the-pan gimmicks to reduce the cost, be they the release of oil from our strategic petroleum reserve, which exists to guard against national security emergencies, or temporary gas tax reductions, which are ultimately nothing more than short-term pandering. That would be irresponsible in the extreme.

No, the truth is that the solution won't come overnight. But it will come because when America has the will, it finds the way.

And let's be honest with ourselves. While we as a nation dithered, allowing ourselves to believe that we could be awash in plentiful and affordable oil from here to eternity, some other nations took action.

Look around.

Brazil was even worse off in the 1970s than we are today, importing the great bulk of its oil from the Middle East. Today, thanks to the development of sugar-based ethanol, domestic drilling, and vehicles that run on flex fuels, Brazil, a country nearly as large as our own, is energy independent.

Many European countries, by tax policies, discouraged use of gas guzzlers, while making public transportation affordable, reliable, and convenient. Take train travel, for example. In many cases, cars and planes have been displaced by far more fuel-efficient trains that reach speeds unheard of in our country.

The same is true in Japan, a country with almost no energy resources of its own. Since the oil shock of the 1970s, Japan has achieved a level of energy efficiency, matched by a sustained national focus on conservation, which makes it a model for the industrialized world.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, the Israeli government announced an ambitious program to put 100,000 electric cars on the road by 2010. It's a joint venture between Nissan-Renault, the alliance of car giants, and an Israeli-American entrepreneur. Denmark has also signed on to this cutting-edge project.

In other words, it can be done.

Here's our bottom line.

First, we understand there's no one-size-fits-all answer to the energy challenge. We will be open to all serious ideas to move us away from our addiction. We recognize that an all-encompassing program must embrace three core elements - seeking new foreign and domestic sources of oil, pursuing conservation, and exploring alternative energy sources. And we acknowledge that a serious push toward energy independence will require a commitment of years, even decades.

Second, we propose the creation of OPIC, the Organization of Petroleum Importing Countries, as our answer to OPEC. By working more collaboratively with other dependent nations to seek workable energy solutions, we will leverage our strength and pool our research.

Third, our message to American corporations is: If you haven't yet figured it out, there's green in green. A veritable revolution in energy use is beginning, and it will affect every corner of America. This is a time for innovation. And the market rewards are likely to be significant.

Painful as it is to acknowledge, Detroit lost ground because it refused to see what was so obvious to its competitors in Japan - and because some lawmakers shortsightedly sought to protect Detroit from the winds of change. Instead of focusing on McMisers, Detroit chose instead to concentrate on McGuzzlers, with their higher profit margins. That has proved a costly mistake in an era of soaring gas prices.

Fourth, this is not just about what government can do for the nation. It's equally about what Americans are prepared to do for themselves. Until now, politicians of both parties have been loath to ask for behavioral changes from you, the American people, fearing that they would be punished on Election Day. Well, punish us if you must, but leadership requires us to say that we’re all in the same boat - and that boat has sprung a leak.

Two-thirds of our oil use is related to transportation, so each of us has to consider what we can do to reduce consumption starting here. Will the next vehicle purchase seriously take into account fuel efficiency considerations? Are there alternatives to driving, ranging from public transportation to carpooling? And, of course, the challenge goes beyond transportation to other uses of oil, including home heating.

For the past thirty-five years, officials in Washington have promised greater energy independence. No doubt, they were sincere in their desire for change. But for one reason or another, the situation got worse, not better.

Today, mindful of the threats to our national security, economy, and environment, we stand as one in pledging that this time around it will be different. No more delays, no more excuses, no more passing the buck.

The future of our nation - and our planet - depend on our getting this one right.

We can, and we will.

Download a copy of "The Missing Speech"

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |  Lars, Mad City USA, Tuesday Jul 22, 2008
May I point out one thing to this person with visions of the "Oval Office"? 1. "Brazil, a country nearly as large as our own, is energy independent...Fine and Brazil does NOT grow 65% of the world's food..the U.S. does. 2."Take train travel, for example. In many cases, cars and planes have been displaced by far more fuel-efficient trains...In europe, when is the LAST time you went by train? The European roads are narrow and the infrastructure has NEVER been able to support cars. Last, Mr. harris, don't worry about America, I suggest you worry about Hizbullah,
2  |  Neil, Florida, Wednesday Jul 23, 2008
I too was hoping to see some kind of policy change after 9/11. We Americans are totally addicted to oil. By sending buckets of money to countries like Said Arabia and Venezuela, we are undermining American security. I don't know abut Lars, but I take train travel every time I am in Europe. It is fast and relatively inexpensive and there is no reason America should not be able to follow suit. Thank you Mr. harris on your insightful piece calling attention to an issue which is often paid lip service, but not much more.
3  |  Zoe, New Rochelle, NY, Wednesday Jul 23, 2008
It appears entirely fitting that #1 comes from Mad City, as that's what his comments are. His facts are entirely wrong. The US doesn't grow 65% of the world's food supply, and anyone who has driven on the French or German road system knows their ability to "support cars" as well as any country in the world. More importantly, Brazil grows sugar cane, which yields a far greater energy efficiency than corn-based ethannol in the US. But Congressionally-imposed tariffs prevent us from importing sugar-based ethanol. That's shortsighted in the extreme. Lars, like America, needs to wake up--and fast.
4  |  George, Geneva, Wednesday Jul 23, 2008
To #1, I worry about Hizbullah. I also worry about Hamas. And I worry about Syria. And what do all three have in common? Support from Iran. Where does Iran get the wherewithal to provide that support? From oil and gas revenue, of course. Without energy sales, Iran would have nothing to export but pistachio nuts and rugs. In other words, solving the long-term energy crisis also means trying to deny countries like Iran the means to create major trouble in the Middle East and beyond. And America, as the world's largest energy consumer, MUST lead the way.
5  |  Rick, USA, Wednesday Jul 23, 2008
Good piece. Important message, which needs to be addressed. Our oil dependance is propping up our enemies and making us weaker. I suggest we send Harris's piece to our local representatives, I for one will. We need to be working day and night to developing alternative energy sources. Keep up the good work Dave.
6  |  Freddie, San Francisco, Wednesday Jul 23, 2008
Oil-producing countries have us over a barrel! It's long overdue that we do something about it. America is weakened by our dependence on foreign oil from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. It's so painfully obvious. Why can't our politicians from both parties finally put aside their petty differences and focus on the national interest? Instead, they're jeopardizing our security by paralyzing decision-making in Washington. Voters should take these issues into account on Election Day. Meawnhile, we should all boycott CITGO, a wholly-owned Venezuelan oil comapny.
7  |  Christopher, Brooklyn USA, Friday Jul 25, 2008
Zoe's post (No. 3) is exactly on target. Lars (No.1) sounds as if he last visited Europe in 1945 - Europe is filled with superhighways, but in Europe the highway lobby doesn't dictate transportation policy. Now that oil costs close to $130 per barrel, the principal US intercity carriers - the airlines - are raising fares, and will make massive service cuts in September 2008, due to fuel costs. In France and Germany, oil prices have ZERO EFFECT on the cost of intercity rail travel. French and German railways are 90 percent electrified, and no oil is used in France to generate electricity.
8  |  Alan Kohn, Palm City, Florida, Wednesday Jul 30, 2008
Greenhouse gas already present in our upper atmosphere cannot be reduced by any means for many hundreds or even thousands of years. Global warming/adverse climate change will continue to get worse unless we emply a new approach, geo-engineering solar-shield technology to stop less than two percent of the sun's light/heat energy before it penetrates our atmosphere. Some of these technologies might have adverse side effects, but none as bad as global warming. Solar-shield technology can stop and reverse global warming in approximately one year and we can go green gradually.
9  |  Opher, Los Angeles, CA, Wednesday Jul 30, 2008
As good as Mr. Harris's article is, it does not go far enough. There is more than can be done today: The "Open Fuel Standard Act of 2008" (S.3303) has been introduced in the Senate and in the House of Representatives a similar bill (HR.6559) has been introduced. These will require cars sold in the US to be FFV (able to use gasoline, ethanol or methanol) so that investors will help to build alternative fuel infrastructure. See www.energyvictory.net for a comprehensive plan for energy independence.
10  |  David Cooper AJC-Los Angeles, Thursday Jul 31, 2008
The US is planning and spending billions to place a man on Mars, using our best and brighest engineers. Why can't we redirect that effort to an alternative fuel automobile? Leadership must comefrom our political parties now.
11  |  Aaron, Paris, Tuesday Aug 05, 2008
Important message. I will share with my friends. Well said Mr. Harris
12  |  Linda B. Coleman, Monday Aug 18, 2008
David Harris, Your August 8th entry is unbelievably arrogant and self-serving. It is frightening, insensitive blather. I hope you read Steven C. Maslow's response.
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

In the Trenches American Jewish Committee (AJC) Executive Director David Harris assesses challenges to Jewish security worldwide.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Top Rated Posts

Most Commented Posts

  1. King David for the Occupation
    Posted in Building Bridges by Yariv Oppenheimer
    Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
  2. Sarah Palin deserves respect
    Posted in Koch's Comments by Ed Koch
    Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
  3. Israeli girls are prettier
    Posted in Tales from the Towers by Lucca
    Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
  4. Jobs for the boys
    Posted in Israel Stories by Jeremy Cardash
    Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
  5. No place for political objectors
    Posted in Point / Counterpoint by Edwin Bennatan
    Sunday Oct 12, 2008

Recent Comments

Benjamin Zagzag, Paris, France: Mr. Harris perfectly understood us at Summer U !
Jean Sherrell, Sebastopol, Califorrnia: Though Ariel Sharon is not with us, I nevertheless suggest that his presence, flexibility in pursuing security for Israel and shrewd vision qualify him as a leader of whom to be proud. (When my son-in-law went to Iraq, I sent him off with a Hamsa hand necklace and a copy of Sharon's autobiography "Warrior".) Another leader of Israel is Amos Oz, whose ability to love his people and his country yet seek some form of peace with the Palestinians is exemplary. Also heroic are the men who have led Mossad.
Vinegar Hill, Madrid, Spain.: Chaim you are using historical references out of context. The appeasement policy followed by Chamberlain was the only real alternative at that time. To then relate his policy to the present day distorts the existing situation which demands conciliation and a sympathetic ear to the plight of the Palestinians.