Reaching for Energy Independence – Linda McQuaig
After finishing It’s the Crude Dude by Linda McQuaig (which I don’t recommend – see review on the left) I started thinking again on the track of energy independence. Although there are many flaws in McQuaig’s logic, such as ignoring basic economic principles of supply and demand and glazing over historical events such as Saddam Hussein’s brutal treatment of his own people, she did have one shining good point… we have to find alternatives to oil to fuel our energy demand.
She states that the oil industry is actually subsidized in many ways, through:
- government subsidies to the energy sector
- car sector that encourages this mode of transportation over rail
- tax advantages promoting the use of the car
- billions of dollars on the construction and maintenance of roads (which outweighs the amount collected in gasoline taxes)
She also mentions the multi-billion-dollar invasion of Iraq as a hidden cost of oil. Whether you agree with McQuaig’s political views or not, at least one of the points above must resonate. Imagine if we leveraged even a fraction of those billions of dollars towards researching and distributing alternatives to oil such as hydrogen energy? We would certainly be ahead of the of where we are today.
With the Global Warming Effect now nearly certain according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported by the BBC:
In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface.
Why don’t we move our money and subsidies to non-polluting, renewable resources? I was happy to see at leat one US politician, Hillary Clinton, talking about the potential to move the US (who has 4% of the world population and produces 25% of the emissions according to McQuaig) in a direction of alternatives.
This is another topic which it is easy to get discouraged by, but the fact that there are alternatives if we reach for them offers at least some optimism for our future. It also allows us to move to a world where we are relying on science for our energy rather than on a non-renewable resource at the center of many of our world conflicts.
Let’s address the aviation community, something I know a little about. If you’ve ever actually fueled a plane, you know that the government slaps on excise taxes that make the price of aircraft fuel, at least for consumers, double the price of motor gas (mogas). Maybe the airlines get a much better deal, but if so, I’d like to see some documentation for the actual prices they pay.
And the charges only start with the price of fuel. Nav Canada charges an airliner thousands of dollars to fly over Canada, and more to land, plus the security fees other charges. When you consider that you can get a BA in Rennaisance Theatre in Canada, and the government will pay two thirds of the cost, but if you want to learn to fly, you’ll pay full freight plus GST, you can see that governments do aviation no favours.
I have read many newspaper and magazine articles that repeat the conventional wisdom that flying produces more carbon dioxide than driving. Having actually looked up aircraft range and fuel consumption specs, I can tell you that, as usual, the things “everybody knows” they really don’t know at all.
The actual carbon emissions of a trip by an ideally tuned car, driven at the speed limit, carrying an average number of passengers, puts about as much carbon into the atmosphere per passenger as a regional flight to the same destination. If you allow for the SUVs and mini-vans in Canada’s passenger fleet, and for the way most drivers routinely exceed the speed limit, it actually makes more sense, it terms of actual carbon emissions, to fly. Now, some estimates roll the “radative forcing” produced by aviation contrails into the warming effects of flying. However, this ignores both the reality that not all flights produce contrails, and it also ignores the warming effects (and other baneful environmental results) of road building.
Hi John, thanks for the feedback. I removed the point about aviation fuel. It looks like I should reduce my two-star rating of Linda’s book!
That’s great that you are keeping up with the current climate crisis. I recommend An Inconvenenient Truth for those who want the big picture. Yes, the US is a large contributor of global warming gases, and it’s sad that I still see so many new “Super SUVs” being produced. Super SUVs are able to pass the emissions standards because of a loop hole in Ethanol emissions credits (they basically make the car Ethanol compatible, in exchange for larger gas tanks).
However, California has made some great breakthroughs, namely the Global Warming Act , which will force CO2 emmitting industries to curb their emissions and enforce trade of CO2 credits on the free market. You can read more about it here if you’re interested: http://www.onlyblue.org/blog/?p=29 . Arnold has also recently signed a bill to implement solar powered houses as an experiemnt project.
Thanks Jennie – I have been following the situation in California closely. If such a large and powerful group can change the way that the automotive industry and others to think differently, I am hope other parts of the world (eg. Canada) can follow.