As a nation we have not pursued the efforts necessary to establish a comprehensive national energy policy. This failure to not produce a national energy plan is caused by a multiplicity of factors such as our national interest groups pursuing their specific agendas, the inability of our political parities to work consistently in a bipartisan manner on major national issues, and we the people not holding our leaders accountable.
History casts a pessimistic outlook for the likelihood that our political leaders will establish a comprehensive energy plan with broad enough consensus to survive the test of time beyond one or two presidential terms.A conclusion by the Boston Pacific Company, Inc. in a 10/2008 report to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions stated, “And, finally, we note that complicating matters further is the fact that the Federal Government has been slow to enact a national energy policy…”
In reality, it is beyond slow…we are concerned the wait will be longer than long.
A rational, sustainable, and comprehensive national energy policy is hinged on whether we the people stand up to hold ourselves and our leaders accountable. A real plan will arise if we the people provide a path for our political leadership to free themselves from the many “strings” that are keeping them from moving forward.
Some of these obstacles, or “strings”, are as follows:
1. Institutional paralysis: The inability to move forward and/or change direction with a more common sense solution despite new factual information due to previously imposed biases and restrictions imposed by historical funding sources and special interest groups.
2. Free market economics versus role of Government: While the free market engine is the only efficient system capable of balancing demand and supply, the Federal Government is best equipped to carry the coordinating role on central programs such as national defense. Since energy uniquely sustains life through our productions systems coupled with the global demand for cleaner energy, perhaps we can all agree it is time for a more coordinated effort to steer the free market system to attain sufficient cost equilibrium needed between the traditional energies and the renewable energies. The reality that energy at the global level is prevented from functioning in a free market system due to the manipulations by the national energy companies (example OPEC) is further attestation that we must have a coordinated plan for our nation.
3. Political grid-lock: The power of any politician is based on her/his ability be elected or re-elected. What is popular to a constituency, special interests or a party’s platform will take precedence over any “greater good”. While the two may coincide, party loyalty and special interests are most likely to win out should they not coincide. We currently live in a polarized political climate. Bipartisanship is often espoused but rarely endorsed. Add to this a necessity to include local, state, and federal government bodies into a comprehensive policy, it is easy to understand why there has been no national energy policy developed to date.
4. Global warming grid-lock: Our political parties, academic institutions and media have not provided a meaningful process for insightful dialog on this critical issue. While much of the debate in the media and by institutions has focused on to which degree human activity is causing global warming, much time has gone by and goodwill lost between nations, political parties, and people.
It is true that many scientists currently believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Others point out that ridicule, threats of lost funding etc to those that disagree have been counterproductive and stifled meaningful dialog. Regrdless of who is right, it is nevertheless not too late to develop a comprehensive plan focused on reducing the twin global threats --- increasing global pollution and a looming energy shortage as two billion people are striving to reach the living standard of the industrialized world.
5. Failure to consider nuclear power: Other nations have surpassed or are in the process of surpassing the United States in the applications of nuclear energy. Co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore states: “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuel and satisfy global demand.” Source: JMS, p. 197. Although we have not developed industrial nuclear energy for 30 years due to fear and the influence from special interest groups, we are still the most experienced user globally through our U.S. Navy.
6. Geographic / State territorialism / biases: As stated above, political gridlock has kept meaningful discussion on a truly comprehensive national energy policy. In a similar vein, geographic and state differences have often road-blocked gains in expanded use of alternative fuel sources. “Big Oil” interests come from the south-central United Sates and Alaska. Emerging technologies in wind turbine, ethanol, and biodiesel are challenging these states throughout the Midwest and Plains States. State leaders, as stated above, will hold up the interests of their electorate over that of a national agenda. The political debate over the last decade on ethanol is but one example of the challenge that would be faced to develop national energy policy.
7. No motivation or resolve for advancing new technologies: During World War II synthetic rubber was created due to loss of supply from the far east. Neal Armstrong stepped onto the moon because of a nationwide resolve to win a battle in the Cold War. It is time to unite again as one nation to protect the Now (life as it has been and/or should be) and pursue a bright Future for coming generations. We can to this by creating a long term energy policy based on all energy sources.