Energy Security versus Environmental Stability (KCRW)
Can the U.S. have energy security at the same time it tries to cope with global warming? Warren Olney of KCRW's "To the Point" podcast looks at some of the contradictions we face as the U.S. searches for a coherent energy policy.
March 17, 2008
I've long said that we needed $4 gasoline to get Americans to change our energy consumption patterns. I acknowledged that there would be a temporary price to pay in the health of our economy.
Today gasoline is approaching the $4 mark, and the economy is showing signs of trouble. After years of rhetoric from the Bush administration about reducing our dependence on imported Arab oil, Vice President Cheney may ask Saudi Arabia to help push the price down by producing more.
Is it up to Saudi Arabia to prop up the U.S. economy in time for the 2008 presidential elections? Will they agree? What if they don't?
The U.S. is looking for alternatives -- including oil sands in Canada and coal to liquid fuel. Both alternatives are devastating to the environment. Can PHEVs, biofuels and other solutions be developed in time, or will there be a trade-off between economic growth and environmental destruction?
"Energy Security versus Environmental Stability" takes a broad view of transportation fuels, particularly their rising costs and environmental impacts, and brings in several guests to talk about the alternatives to fossil fuels.
Guests:
Steve Mufson: Energy Correspondent, Washington Post
Ben Geman: Senior Reporter, Greenwire News Service
Luke Popovich: Spokesman for the National Mining Association
Jim Presswood: Energy Advocate, National Resources Defense Council
Bill Reinert: National Manager, Toyota's Advanced Technology Group
The KCRW podcast page includes links to related articles, and to a Powerpoint presentation with aerial photos of the oil (tar) sands extraction region in central Canada.
Comments (Moderated)
Want to protect the earth and save energy? Then stop all wars, conflicts and terrorism. How do you do that? Make the United States free of foreign oil. When the US is energy independent there will be no more oil wars and the terrorists will no longer be able or interested in reaching us. This will save lives AND energy. Let's study what Denmark, France, Brazil, and Australia have done on diversifying their energy supplies and do likewise. Let's drill wherever we have oil and put a new nuclear power plant in every state. Let's use all our coal and natural gas. We don't need foreign energy. And we will be safer, greener, and richer with out it. All of the earth’s natural resources will be eventually used by someone at some time. Would your rather these resources be recovered in an ecological friendly and sustainable way by the US or that some dictator who could not care less about the environment exploit the earth. All alternative sources of energy will take decades to bring online because their conversion efficiencies are not yet high enough. Eventually, the US will lead the world into a sustainable green economy, but energy independence comes first. It is the low hanging fruit and gives immediate benefits now.
Posted by: poetryman69 | April 20, 2008 08:50 PM
If lawmakers are pro-nuclear energy, they should stand up in Congress and lobby for new waste storage facilities in their home states.
I've suggested this before, but no takers, so far.
If you believe nuclear is the answer, write your Senator. Tell them waste is the show-stopper for nuclear energy and you want a hundred tons or so stored near your town. Copy me, will you?
Posted by: DD | April 20, 2008 08:58 PM