The details are still under intense discussion in Democratic Party power centers like Chicago and New York. But there is good reason to expect that within the coming weeks and months the Obama administration will announce a broad set of policy initiatives, likely including a heavy dose of executive orders. These policies will be designed first and foremost to address the deepening economic collapse by reassuring bankers, autoworkers, and road crews across the United States that they will still have work-sites to go to. Many of the jobs the government will try to save will involve energy and transportation, such as the construction and maintenance of today’s low-mileage car models, and the repair of roads and bridges on which fleets of commercial trucks deliver consumer goods to retail shelves.
Efforts such as these can be seen as attempts to extend business as usual, or “Plan A.” Plan A, to which the Bush-Cheney administration closely hewed, consists of encouraging the fossil fuel industry to extend its traditional dominance of the nation’s energy supply operations. This includes mining and drilling, refining and transporting, and, more generally, defining and shaping public understanding of where electricity, transport and heating fuels, and fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides all come from. Plan A may have suffered a bit of a dirty face the last eight years at the hands of the Iraq War, expanded public concern over global warming, and spikes in prices at the pump and in utility bills. Nevertheless, it remains hugely profitable, deeply entrenched in the nation’s infrastructure, and responsible for supplying the lion’s share of the energy on which the consumer/commuter’s daily lifestyle utterly depends.
But the Obama administration’s policies on energy and the environment are also likely to include some key elements that differ significantly from those of the departing Bush administration. As such, they will deserve to be recognized as the opening stage of a distinct “Plan B.” Current indications are that we will see pages borrowed from Jimmy Carter’s conservation playbook – surely a good thing, and one to be welcomed by most in the peak oil and climate change community. Also likely to win general endorsement would be an effort to publicize and extend the “greener cities” approach spearheaded by Richard M. Daley in Chicago. And many among us will likewise be pleased to see a more prominent place at the table for the wind and solar industries.
Unlike Plan A, Plan B will emphasize waste reduction, the development of alternative energy sources (especially renewable ones), and investment in higher efficiency technological innovations. We should not underestimate the space still available for Plan B to be fully explored, and then deeply embraced, by American consumers. Acceptance of the hybrid car has been steady but also slow; nearly a decade passed before the first million vehicles were on the roads. By and large, Americans still “want” gas-guzzlers – even if many breadwinners can no longer find the credit to purchase them or always afford to fill their gas tanks. Our home insulation efforts lag behind our generally low awareness of their affordable benefits. Only a tiny fraction of Americans purchase carbon-offsets for their airplane trips or electricity consumption. The experience of long-distance travel by air or car, for business or for pleasure, remains a fixture of “the good life,” one to which many are eager to return just as soon as the government delivers its solutions to our current problems. For these reasons (and many more), a shift in our national discussion of energy issues in which Plan B finds its voice alongside Plan A should probably be acknowledged as a profound – even perhaps a revolutionary – change.
And there’s the rub.
For many in the Peak Oil community – and certainly for us at Community Solutions – the success of Plan B is a long shot. Any administration, however well-advised and civic-minded, that commits itself and our remaining resources to Plan B is gambling. The success of Plan B depends upon a series of technological breakthroughs which in turn will depend upon the availability of massive financial resources to sustain technological research over at least several decades; even more massive resources would then be required to implement the results. Committing so much to such an uncertain approach indicates to us a limited understanding of how dire our energy predicament has already become.
Those of us who see the brightest prospects for a secure and sustainable culture in widespread voluntary curtailment of energy consumption – what we call “Plan C” – therefore harbor a set of serious reservations about Plan B. We begin with mixed feelings at best about fresh infusions of research funds for carbon capture and sequestration, so-called “advanced” bio-fuels, and carbon nuclear fusion. We are concerned that political speeches and policy goals contain so few acknowledgements that these unproven technologies may in fact turn out to be unprovable. In addition, we will find it hard to swallow endorsements by the new Administration of such pale green approaches as LEED standard building construction, intensive new public subway or trolley developments, and “green” consumerism. (Our Executive Director Pat Murphy has also now developed a highly critical evaluation of the pluggable hybrid car – which, as he argues, should more credibly be called “the coal car” since its batteries would be recharged with electricity generated mostly by coal-burning power plants.)
At Community Solutions, we therefore advocate instead a set of much deeper green approaches. (We have discussed labeling them “red” to signal our sense of urgency.) We support Passive House building construction standards – particularly as they may be used to retrofit existing homes, a Smart Jitney approach to mass ride-sharing using the existing vehicle fleet, and a significant curtailment of the consumer economy in favor of a simpler, healthier, non-affluent style of life. What the elements of Plan C have in common – and so what distinguishes them from the bulk of Plan B approaches – is that they require no technological breakthroughs, can be implemented starting immediately, and would be far less time and resource-intensive to complete.
No doubt others involved in Peak Oil discussions would change a point here or there in their own assessment of Plan C’s advantages over Plan B. Strenuous disagreement over certain points would expected and respected as well. But my aim here is to draw attention to a larger dynamic – and the potential consequences of failing to understand that dynamic in advance.
The dynamic is this: An energy transition from Bush’s Plan A to Obama’s Plan B is likely to be felt as a major and decisive shift in U.S. national consciousness, as well as in policy detail. This shift of plans may be as wrenching and controversial a change in national character as has been achieved since the gradual awakenings of the civil rights era. It should be no surprise that a shift of this magnitude would contain some risk of failure, and the possibility that Plan B might fail therefore merits open and serious discussion. We should be talking about whether Plan B is really a risk worth taking – and even if so, whether some investment should simultaneously be made in the low-risk, high-reward Plan C.
As a contribution to this discussion, we suggest a challenge to policy planners in the new administration: Invite the public to articulate its greatest concerns about how and why Plan B might fail. We believe there will be many concerns along these lines. Our own top three are the following:
- The scale of financial investment in the electrical grid, as well as the power plant infrastructure, that would be required to meet national energy needs through wind and solar generation (and the fossil fuel supply required to back them up during periods of intermittency).
- The time-scale to replace 100%, or even 50%, of the electricity supplied by today’s conventional coal-burning plants with electricity generated from alternative energy sources, either nuclear or renewable.
- The additional demand on the national electricity supply if 20 million Americans, or even 10 million, purchase cars that are recharged by plugging in to the grid (and so at best achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions no better than those of today’s non-pluggable hybrids).
As the Inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, we find ourselves waiting, like many of our fellow citizens, to see what a charismatic, talented, and credentialed new generation of leaders will offer us. And we find ourselves concerned that they will come up short. Any version of Plan B based upon the core elements outlined above will be in our estimation too little, too late.
The new President’s program on energy and the environment will also be, on deeper analysis, his approach to the declining availability of fossil fuels and to global climate change. As such, it will represent our nation’s best chance to address these fundamental challenges at their roots. Should this opportunity be missed, we will all experience the consequences of further delay in making the deep changes that are required – the kind of realistic, practical changes that characterize Plan C.
Rob Content is program manager at Community Solutions
