South Carolina needs onshore innovation, not offshore drilling, for strong future
By Bill Settlemyer
President and CEO, Setcom Media Inc.
Let’s start with the basics: The big oil companies are trying to rush new offshore drilling legislation through Congress before the November elections, fearing than a sullen and unhappy electorate will replace at least one of the industry-friendly majorities in Congress.
The pending legislation includes all the goodies an oil company lobbyist could want or buy with political contributions. It’s got juicy carrots for the states such as the opportunity to share in royalties from offshore drilling. And it’s got a clever “divide and conquer” provision allowing individual states to decide whether they want drilling off their shores, though it’s not entirely clear which offshore areas will count as “their shores.”
The “divide and conquer” provision provides the energy companies with insurance against the risk of losing friendly majorities in Congress, since the decision making on offshore drilling will move from Washington to the statehouses once the legislation becomes law.
This legislation is not about moving the country toward “energy independence.” It is about keeping the cash flowing into the coffers of companies like Exxon Mobil, just as in the case of long-standing efforts to get access to the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska. The reality is that the total impact of all the oil and gas we might recover offshore will amount to “spitting in the wind” compared to our gluttonous and rising consumption of fossil fuels.
Declining oil production, the ‘easy’ problem
In a recent column, I wrote about predictions that the entire world is on the threshold of “peak oil production,” meaning that oil production worldwide will soon begin an inexorable decline until the world literally runs out of oil. This will occur as global demand continues to rise due to industrialization and growing affluence in countries like China and India.
Upon further investigation, I’ve concluded that the world needs to run out of oil, and sooner rather than later. Why? The impact of global warming promises to be far more catastrophic than running out of oil.
Major corporations (even some of the energy companies) are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall: Within the decade, the international community and individual countries will be actively moving toward a “carbon-constrained world” in an effort to slow global warming down to a pace that won’t totally disrupt our lives and our economies around the world.
It may already be too late to avoid really bad consequences, but if we don’t radically and quickly reduce the production of greenhouse gasses, the consequences may be much worse than “really bad.”
Scientists have identified global warming scenarios that could lead to the mass extinction of most life on the planet within a century or two. Those scenarios are “theoretical,” just like global warming was 30 or 40 years ago. But theoretical or not, how much should we gamble with the lives of future generations by failing to act now?
Even the shorter term impacts of global warming present us with a host of potential consequences that could disrupt our lives and devastate economies around world. Those impacts could well be felt by your children and grandchildren, so the risk is not just to unknown “future generations.”
Onshore innovation trumps offshore drilling
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently wrote about the great opportunities for innovation and investment presented by the daunting challenge of global warming. While allies of energy companies warn that fighting global warming could “cost jobs,” Friedman correctly sees that “going green” is the next big thing in investing and economic development.
Here in South Carolina, we’re already chasing a piece of that “next big thing” with the hydrogen fuel cell initiative. But we could be doing much more. There are so many ways to conserve energy and work toward alternative energy sources, and there’s no reason our state’s political, civic and business leaders couldn’t make this a key priority that would favorably impact almost every facet of life in our state.
Brazil, for example, has moved aggressively along the path of replacing oil with ethanol brewed from sugar cane, all but eliminating their dependence on foreign oil. Research suggests that ethanol derived from cellusoic plant material rather than corn could produce an effective substitute for oil-based fuel that would be largely free of greenhouse emissions and dramatically reduce our dependence on oil.
Ironically, American car manufacturers are the primary suppliers of the “flex fuel” vehicles used in Brazil to take advantage of ethanol, yet such vehicles are uncommon here in the U.S., even though the costs of adding this feature to automobiles is small.
Let’s go green
South Carolina needs a “green” policy that aggressively supports the dual objectives of reducing our state’s dependence on oil (foreign or domestic) and building an infrastructure that can prosper in a world where carbon emissions are constrained as a matter of national policy and international agreements.
Energy conservation can be achieved through a blend of government policy and private market-driven efforts, and the states that get on this train earlier than others will have a dramatic competitive advantage in the future. Let’s make that our future.
View as PDF
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version