I’m writing this from New Delhi, thousands of miles away from the tragically polluted Gulf Coast, and I’m crying. This crisis has felt so far away from me over the past few weeks, as I’m sure the droughts of Andhra Pradesh and the water crises in Karnataka have felt far from people in Washington D.C. for so many years. Last night, someone asked me why the United States was so slow to act when a global crisis was already affecting so many people here. That’s just it — it’s affecting people here. Climate change isn’t affecting Americans in the same way, yet.
But the Gulf Coast oil spill IS. So why don’t they get it? When Barack Obama sent Organizing for America an email this morning, why did he first make me cry with the sadness of the real impact of communities there – the destruction of ecosystems, of livelihoods, of entire communities – and then make me cry with the deep sadness of his misunderstanding of what the real crisis is. The email said, “That is why, from the beginning, we have worked to deploy every tool at our disposal to respond to this crisis.” He’s wrong:
I have not seen a real response. I have not seen ambitious energy policy that will remove America from fossil fuels. I have not seen a ban on offshore drilling (which cannot be done without risks, no matter what BP says). I have not seen fierce speed in responding to a leak, nor fire in response to a company which did not plan for a disaster. This same email said, “If laws are inadequate, they will be changed.” All laws are inadequate that do not get the United States towards an clean energy economy and off of our fossil fuel addiction.
However, last night, on World Environment Day, I heard Farooq Abdullah, India’s Minister of New and Renewable Energy, (remind me why the US doesn’t have one?) say very clearly: You’ve seen the crisis in the Gulf Coast, and while it is far away, the same crisis could happen close to us if we continue our dependence on oil. “The time has come that our dependence on fossil fuels must end.”
India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made a bold step, committing to 20,000 MW of solar in the next 10 years. Why can’t Obama? As Friedman said really nicely, “Mr. President, this is your time, this is your moment. Seize it. A disaster is an inexcusable thing to waste.” If Manmohan isn’t wasting the oil spill, why is Obama? If Farooq Abdullah gets it, why can’t America?
Thanks for the great post. I’ve been watching the oil disaster from Australia, and have equally frustrating experiences with the lack of ambition on renewables. Yeah, why doesn’t the US have a minister for renewable energy? Then maybe we could have someone talking about the possibilities of solar thermal for base-load power…
When the Oil Spill first became ‘newsworthy’, my immediate (and perhaps, self-absorbed) reaction was: “What if this happened off the coast of Mumbai/ Chennai?”.
Though I’m glad that Dr Farooq Abdullah has said so, my concern stems from the following three questions:
*Does India have adequate ‘Emergency Disaster Response’ teams? (Lessons from the 2004 Tsunami/ yearly Mumbai/ Bihar floods, etc.)
*Does the Indian judicial system have enough firepower and efficiency to provide justice? (Bhopal Gas Tragedy.)
*Is there enough poltical will and public resources in India to fight giant corporates?
Thanks Caroline, I’m going to share your post far and wide.
AnnaK has shared this post far and wide, I just read it thanks to her and thanks to you.
Caroline, this is a fantastic piece. I felt EXACTLY the same way when I got the OFA email this morning. Thank you for writing, Casper
Great job Caroline, I love the tone of this, informed and dismayed but resilient is one of the best ways to get the job done. You guys are in my links.
Just getting started but if you are interested check me out.
jasondylan
To answer your question: because the autosprawl system, heavily subsidized, has critical mass. A major integral system cannot be changed by tweaking the margins. We need a dramatic agenda: fare-free public transit. The federal government is under the control of fossil-fuel, auto, and sprawl industries. That leaves us to implement it town by town. It is happening right now, worldwide. Join us.
I do not want to sound too harsh, but it is not THAT easy to switch from fossil fuels. Their energy per unit mass are factors of ten greater than any battery in the lab (especially gasoline). There is not a cheap, off the shelf technology that can seemlessly replace fossil fuels. The transition will be difficult and expensive. It has so far been the expense of the alternatives that has been the major barrier. And those costs have directly arisen from their physical and chemical limitations.
I am petty sure when you factor in all the factors, including environmental impact, loss of quality of life, how do you put a price tag.
I don’t think you can seriously say that just because a non-fossil fuel energy source might be a little bit more expensive that investing in alternative energy. Oil and coal are subsidized of course and while short term retooling might not be reasonable, I think most people who really care and are invested in the future of our children and planet see the urgent need to focus our political and social priorities on alternative, non-nuclear energy.
jasondylan
Thank you, President Obama. Finally, this is a bit more what I was looking for. I’m inspired, engaged, and hope you’ll show your support for a clean energy future in America as well:
http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy
From Organizing for America email from Barack Obama, today, 11 June 2010:
The BP oil spill is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation’s history. My administration has deployed every tool at our disposal for the response efforts. Thousands are working around the clock, including some of the top scientists and engineers from around the world.
We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.
But our work will not end with this crisis. That’s one of the reasons why I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.
Today, we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than two percent of the world’s oil reserves. Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month — including many in dangerous and unstable regions.
In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.
Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.
The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a new future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything — from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks — more energy-efficient. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.
But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future — if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And we can do that by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.
Many businesses have already embraced this idea because it provides a level of certainty about the future. And by pouring resources into research and development, by building new markets, we will reinvent our economy — creating opportunities for entrepreneurship, for new companies and new jobs all across the country.
There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment. But if we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction — and if we refuse to heed the warnings from the disaster in the Gulf — we will have missed our best chance to seize the clean-energy future we know America needs to thrive in the years and decades to come.
The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate — a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans — that would achieve the same goal. This week, I met with congressional leaders to determine a path forward. But this is an issue that Washington has long ignored in favor of protecting the status quo.
So I’m asking for your help today to show that the American people are ready for a clean-energy future.
Please add your name to mine:
http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
To respond to the cost issue, it is not just the added cost of the renewable systems themselves, but the energy storage systems required. I used the comparison between batteries and gasoline as it shows we would need to find an electrochemical reaction strong enough to close much of that gap. Renewables are getting subsidized now (e.g., 1.8 cents per kwH for wind). You would need a larger subsidy to pay for the energy storage. If nothing else, perhaps the Gulf Spill will get everyone thinking about energy again and what options we have.
rmarg,
Let me know if I am mistaken as you might know more than I but I thought that solar and wind were ‘shovel ready’ and that if people invested in these it would pay off down the road in energy savings.
For example, I remember seeing videos way back that showed people living off the grid with fairly high tech but seemingly affordable solar/generator/energy storage cells to run a fairly large house with a Plasma TV and the whole shebang. I remember him saying that he could even sell the energy back.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but if we were to subsidize solar and wind, electric and ‘vegetable oil’ cars, invest in public transit and build up local economies and self-sustaining environments then, then we might not need to invest in war.
Sorry if you already agree but I guess maybe you are making a more technical point, but I thought things would go local with larger infrastructures maybe still utilizing the bulk of the ‘old utility system.
I guess I am thinking in general and maybe farther off but if you are just wanting to make the point that alternatives would need to be subsidized then fine but I have yet to see where this would be less cost effective than subsidizing fossils and bearing the environmental harm.
The point I was trying to make is that such a transition will not be cheap or easy. I have visited off the grid homes and they have special appliances (e.g., Sunfrost refrigerators) to save enough energy. If you watch the TV, you could not wash clothes in the homes I visited. Off or on the grid, you need energy storage as wind and sun are intermittent.
Our society is built on energy systems with much higher power densities per unit mass and volume that have relatively higher availability and capacity factors. It will not be an invisible change to most in the US when fossil fuels are swapped for alternatives. Forgetting to consider this point can get a backlash later when the general public sees the magnitude of the transition. I have not seen much discussion of this from the climate movement in their public awareness activities.
rmarg,
While I see your point, I believe my post addressed much of this.
Of course there will not be an invisible change, you might have to wash clothes at special times, or even god forbid, put them out on a clothes line.
I really don’t agree with you and your logic seems a little stealthy to me, while missing my salient points.
I think you underestimate the American people because I see people all around me, in big cities and in small towns ready to cut back and get back to basics.
I believe many people will be willing to ‘sacrifice’ their big screen TVs for a drastic cut back on fossil fuel consumption.
I think part of the problem is that the waters of information are muddied vis a vis the media machine and I that makes consensus building hard to do.
It is a sad thing but the fact but this tactic, of making things too complicated for much of the general public, of bringing in just enough doubt to sink people’s will to get it done is used all the time.
But as I said, if your point that alternative energy is in the beginning stage and much retooling needs to be done, even 2-3 generations to get up to a technological capacity to handle the levels of energy we use now, sure.
But from a climate view this makes no sense to consider it as a deterrent of some kind with backlash from spoiled hipsters who cant run their HDTV’s and WII at the same time.
Besides, you can always put a luxury tax on energy over a certain amount so rich people could still run their hot tubs and steam rooms at the same time.
I must respectfully disagree.
Americans will embrace the higher energy density, lower carbon fuels before they cut energy drastically to decarbonize the energy system. As for solar and wind, if you look at most energy transitions, they are always proposed, but the higher energy density fuel wins out (e.g., John Ericsson who designed the Monitor tried worked on solar engines in the late 19th century during the transition from coal to oil). There may be a few electrochemical reactions left to find, but they will likely not be strong enough to make energy storage cheap enough for an all renewables economy.
If history is any guide (i.e., switched majority energy source from sun/wind to wood, switched from wood to coal, switched from coal to oil, etc.), we will have increased renewables, but the majority of the switch will be to natural gas followed by uranium.
Yes, I also respectfully agree to disagree.
I find your analogy of fossil fuel interesting but I believe you minimize the technological aspect of today’s situation.
I see it as an issue with building mass consensus.
I believe if you peruse this
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/costofiraqwarandwind.html
and then combine this with getting off of an oil based transportation system
and the pretty realistic view that the level of today’s technology would allow us the ability, if honestly pursued to take some next generation leaps forward in the cost/benefit ratio,
And again with your example of the John Ericsson, I am not really aware but my guess is that with more support maybe people would have went forward.
Why these double standards in dealing with environmental disters on American soil and the rest of the world? Billions of dollars have been sought to clean up the oil spill and save the eco system from the spill. But not the same urgency or sense of justice for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy. $ 470 million for 26,000 dead and still counting! $ 500 for the survivors who were either blinded or deformed for life! they probably wished they had died. Are Indian lives less valuable than American sea otters and pelicans?? It is a classic case of American imperialism where they manufactured these deadly gases in a third world country to escape the more stringent laws back home. The American government instead of bringing the culprits to justice have shielded them and allowed them to come back wearing a different suit( carbide as dow). They now seek a cap on liabilities from possible nuclear disasters in India when there is no such cap on American soil!! This is done to protect the business interests of american companies who are going to sell us these reactors! The Americans are only interested in selling us nuclear reactors and arms and have the audacity to talk about peace and environment protection. What about the environment in Iraq where the yanks have used spent uranuim bombs in civilians areas and the fallout is there for all to see. All i can say is that what goes around always comes around!!
I feel your anger.
Yes, the people of the world will rise up eventually against the greedy and corrupt and hold those accountable.
The majority of Americans are like the ‘Good Germans’ in WWII, and will be remembered as such if they don’t stand up, along with Canadians and other Western Citizens. We have the power to throw them out.
It would not be easy, but from the halls of Academia to the mansions of Hollywood, the liberal establishment is waist deep in their own foodie daydream that the real work will fall on the shoulders of the poor and working class.
The US Imperial machine is just the newest version of what the Nazi’s couldn’t finish. It is worldwide with an economic arm that wrestles all challengers to the ground.
To the people in India or elsewhere getting pelted by American democracy.
namaste
jasondylan
Keep the faith, there are many in the states, Europe and elsewhere you are trying very hard to wake the American people up and to organize. It is unglamorous and dirty work, I want a life, I want to spend all my time pursuing my art or love but I can’t take the level of chaos the US and it’s satellites do around the globe and they need to be stopped.
How do we reconcile our inability to petition our government for change when we face no physical harm with the fact that people in other countries are putting their bodies on the line to face down the decisions that these same politicians have implemented that are destroying their communities
wishfull thinking. while you are busy finding non fossil fuels there will be nothing left to save. The cartel of greedy corporates who actually call the shots are only to happy with ‘environmentalists’ like you agitating ang blogging away. they know it wont change anything. i think all this activisim and conferences on the environment is a total waste of time! history has always shown us that the sword is always mightier than the pen. it’s time to either swallow the bitter pill and live with it or do something it. and the gun is the only answer….
The greedy companies would supply solar power in a heartbeat if large numbers of people would pay extra for it. Renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels (remember we abandoned them as our energy needs grew). You need a lot of land, a lot of material (e.g., windmills require more steel per kw than nuclear units), and you need electrical storage. The issue is whether the public is willing to pay more and take the reliability hit for an all renewable grid. These companies are not ideological, if people want it they will supply.
It may not make anyone feel better, but the sister plant for Bhopal is still running in the US. And we have liability limits as well (not just for energy and chemicals, but also airlines, vaccines, and a host of other activities).
Sameer,
Many activists face violence, arrest, deportation, torture. The US has a long history of abuse and assassination of it’s left leaders.
A gun? Are you serious? Not only would it not work, if the police, national guard wont do it, Blackwater will. It would only lead to more repression and draconian laws.
The only reason for a gun is defense, if the gov’t declares marshall law and citizens need to organize an army.
The only thing that works is to have overwhelming numbers, overwhelming public opinion, and a public ready to strike to defend their stance.
No matter how much anger we have, or how right we are, it is the only way.
who said renewables are more expensive? what about the cost of the environmental damage caused by the use and extraction of these fossil fuels. at the moment renewables may be more expensive per unit but it is a one time investment which over a period of time will bring the costs down. it also offers individuals and communities a chance to be self sufficient and not have to rely on these corporates for their energy needs. Why does it take a disaster for everyone to wake up!! Americans were not complaining all these years when they were enjoying cheap foreign oil which was tainted with the blood of innocent Iraqis or bought from dictator regime’s like Saudi Arabia. What is needed is more R&D on non fossil fuels and that will needs to be done at differnt level all togethter.