Editorial Comment

	Vol. 226 No. 5
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

Political critical mass. I was thinking about the Odd Fellows Lodge in New Iberia, Louisiana, that I used to drive by back in my field days, on the way to a heliport. It’s a worldwide fraternal and philanthropic organization. It has nothing to do with this column, except the unusual name.

In this worldwide debate about which future energy paths, if any, should be actively pursued by government and business, there exist odd groups of fellows who find themselves in a tense sort of agreement, despite completely different ideologies. Some refuse to admit it, unable to stomach the idea of sleeping with the enemy.

Take, for example, President Bush’s energy policy. The Phar Left believes it’s a diabolical conservative plot, disingenuous at best, to divert attention and resources away from their holy grail: wind, solar, various ocean processes (thermal, tides, waves) and biomass – in short, renewables. The Phar Right basically agrees with them, but won’t admit it, taking a different slant, saying that it won’t hurt anything trying to achieve, say, a hydrogen-based transportation system, but success and meaningful impact are extremely unlikely; it’s just a bone that the President has to throw to the envirow-hackos for political reasons.

Now comes a different set of odd fellows, or at least odd bedfellows. They have joined forces in a common goal of much greater energy independence for the US and, at least by example, many importing nations. Several of these organizations have sprouted, such as Set America Free (www.setamericafree.org) and the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (www.iags.org). While some of these organizations lean a tad to the left or right in their aggregate membership, they all espouse bipartisanship and common goals. It’s almost a love fest.

Consider the following unlikely matchup. Frank Gaffney is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration, and is head of the conservative advocacy organization, the Center for Security Policy. Newspapers have quoted him as saying, “I don’t often find myself in agreement with those at the Natural Resources Defense Council, but I’m delighted to have them joining us in this initiative, because I do think there is common ground.”

What he is delighted about is a group calling itself, the Energy Future Coalition (www.energyfuturecoalition.org), and a letter that it sent to everyone that matters in the White House. It was signed by Gaffney and 25 others, comprising a most unlikely group of Republicans and Democrats, including: James Woolsey, former CIA director under President Clinton, a self-described foreign policy hawk and big supporter of the present Iraqi war; Robert McFarlane, former national security advisor to President Reagan; former Democrat Senator Gary Hart, and numerous admirals, generals and other folks from a broad spectrum of ideologies. Odd bedfellows indeed.

The letter simultaneously lauds, agrees with, and subtly criticizes Bush’s energy policy for not going far enough. It asked the President to “focus anew” on “growing dependence on foreign oil,” that increasing the production side is worthwhile but not sufficient, and that, “An equivalent emphasis on demand-side measures – development of clean, domestic petroleum substitutes and increased efficiency in our transportation system – is essential....We ask that you launch a major new initiative to curtail US consumption through improved efficiency and the rapid development and deployment of advanced biomass, alcohol, and other available petroleum fuel initiatives....Most importantly, we believe that, to demonstrate our seriousness and resolve, this effort must be funded at a level proportionate with other priorities for our nation’s defense. An investment of no more than $1 billion over the next five years, for example, would establish a domestic fuels industry that could significantly reduce our consumption of foreign oil.”

The implication of the letter is clear: Mr. President, please take the subject of energy supply and demand more seriously ($) and with greater urgency. As Gaffney put it, “It’s not inconsistent with (Bush’s) rhetoric, it’s just inconsistent with its programmatic direction.”

On a radio show called Living on Earth, Woolsey and McFarlane spoke at length about the need for hybrid vehicles and various other oil-saving technologies. They also went into some eerie detail about oil-transportation choke points, and how easily these might be exploited by terrorists.

Woolsey reminded the audience about the seriousness of a 1979 coup attempt in Saudi Arabia, where they took over the Great Mosque in Mecca for awhile. He then went on to describe how 5 – 6 million barrels a day could be cut off by terrorists taking out the sulfur cleaning towers near Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia, as in the book, Sleeping with the Devil, by crashing a 747 into them. McFarlane echoed and amplified the point by saying, “I was an artilleryman for 20 years, and I can tell you with high confidence that I would have no problem at all in shutting down Ras Tanura on any given afternoon. Four-point-two-inch mortar can go 4,000 yards very accurately, and the ability of a terrorist to come within that distance is easy.”

The letter ended on a quixotic note, with, “As Sun Tzu wrote, ‘The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him.’”

The letter belies a growing consensus which crosses all ideological lines, a sort of political critical mass that is forming, concerning the effects of a long-term oil supply shortfall. Coincidently, this month, an important article that addresses precisely this issue is presented on page 47.

I’m always amazed how life turns on a dime, how little has changed in the big picture: terrorism has been a fact of life for decades; China has been a predictable rising superpower for just as long; and global oil demand is only slightly above its predicted level. Countries like the US have always had the ability to drastically reduce imports, but they have never had the will. The immediacy of cheap oil would always undermine such efforts.

Our species seems to suffer from amnesia, reacting instead to current events; long-term planning is not our strong suit. Of course, there is one new reality: high oil prices (although they would still have to get to nearly $80 to equal 1981 prices.) If OPEC, et al., ever had an incentive to lower the price of oil, now would be the time (assuming that they could). It’s remarkably unremarkable, the effect that $50 oil has on an importing nation’s will.