ENVIRONMENTAL
DECEPTIONS:
THE TENSI0N BETWEEN LIBERALISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICYMAKING IN THE UNITED
STATES
Chapter 7: Energy and the Politics of Consumption
Matthew Cahn
The United States currently uses approximately one quarter of the world's energy -- 24 percent (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 1992). Yet, with that, the United States gets only half of the efficiency per unit of energy as western Europe or Japan (World Resources Institute 1993). The average American will use more energy this year than the average resident of Europe, South America, and Japan combined (World Resources Institute 1993; Corson 1990).
Energy use is directly tied to environmental quality. In the United States, energy combustion is responsible for 36 percent of particulate matter, 37 percent of hydrocarbons, 83 percent of carbon monoxide, 84 percent of sulfur oxides, and 95 percent of nitrogen oxides in air (Rosenbaum 1991). Additionally, more than 20 million gallons of oil and related chemicals are accidentally spilled in an average year -- around 10,000 spills annually in U.S. waters. And, almost six million acres have been destroyed by coal mining in the U.S.. (Rosenbaum 1991) Further, while it is apparent that there is only a generation left of fossil fuel reserves, the U.S. has no national energy policy with specific guidelines and long term goals spelled out.
Energy production and use has not formally been tied to the environmental bureaucracy. The Department of Energy (DOE) has consistently been thought of as a governmental assistant to power companies. It is common for DOE personnel to revolve between the private sector power companies and regulatory responsibility. Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's Secretary of Energy, illustrates the point. O'Leary was a senior DOE regulator during the Carter administration. Later, with her husband John O'Leary (who ran the Pennsylvania utility that owns the Three Mile Island Plant) she was an independent energy consultant in Washington DC. Most recently she was executive vice-president for corporate affairs at Northern States Power Company, one of the largest utilities in the nation. There O'Leary was responsible for lobbying government on behalf of Northern States' corporate interest. It was O'Leary's awkward responsibility to defend the company when it repeatedly came under fire from regulators over the disposal of its radioactive nuclear waste (Lippman 1993).
The Department of Energy, along with the Department of Defense, has long been one of the nation's worst environmental polluters. The need for an environmentally conscious secretary of energy was underscored in 1988 by the public discovery that the DOE had mismanaged military nuclear reactors and radioactive waste for at least three decades (Rosenbaum 1991:107). As a consequence of the separation between energy and environmental quality, environmental protection through energy conservation has not been a policy priority.
This chapter explores the relationship between energy production and use and environmental degradation. As well, the chapter examines the economic and political constraints to conservation. Ultimately, the chapter argues that the tension between liberalism and environmental policymaking is manifest in consumptive energy priorities.
ENERGY PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The major sources of energy in the United States are fossil fuels -- representing 89 percent of all energy consumed (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 1992). Hydroelectric and nuclear, and to a much smaller extent geothermal and biomass, account for the rest. Renewable energy sources such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar, while potentially major energy resources are currently without priority. In fact, the Department of Energy's International Energy Annual, the main summary of energy resources, does not even mention these sources (EIA 1992).
U.S. energy consumption has steadily increased, peaking in the mid-1980s, and declining slightly since. Between 1981 and 1990 U.S. oil, gas, and hydroelectric reliance has declined slightly, while nuclear reliance has more than doubled. Table 7.1 illustrates these trends. Worldwide, reliance on all energy sources has increased. The United States currently imports 17 percent of its energy resources. (EIA 1992) Table 7.2 shows the relative importance of each energy source: 41.3 percent of U.S. energy is provided by oil, 23.9 percent by natural gas, 23.5 percent by coal, 3.6 percent by hydroelectric plants, and 7.6 percent by nuclear plants. Worldwide, 39.2 percent of energy comes from oil, 21.4 percent from natural gas, 27.1 percent from coal, 6.4 percent from hydroelectric plants, and 5.9 percent from nuclear plants. (EIA 1992)
Oil
Petroleum is clearly the single most important energy resource, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, at the rate of current consumption, known world oil reserves will be depleted by 2032 (EIA 1992). While the United States currently uses almost 25 percent of the world's oil, the U.S. only holds three percent of known reserves. 62 percent of known petroleum reserves are located in the Middle East, with 22 percent in North America, Europe, and Asia combined. The United States currently imports 41 percent of its oil. (Oil and Gas Journal 1990)
Oil, like all fossil fuels, presents a particular danger to environmental quality.
The burning of petroleum products releases sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons), and ozone causing chemicals. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides are known to damage lungs and other mucous membranes, in addition to being the prime cause of acid precipitation. Carbon monoxide displaces oxygen in red blood cells, damaging the cardiovascular and nervous systems. Additionally, carbon monoxide is a prime contributor to the greenhouse effect. Hydrocarbons are thought to be carcinogenic, and VOCs contribute to ozone smog. Ozone, created by the atmospheric reaction between nitrogen oxides and VOCs in sunlight, causes eye and mucous membrane irritation, reduced lung capacity, and contributes to asthma and other respiratory problems. Ozone also injures trees, crops, and other plants, and contributes to global warming. (Corson 1990)
Natural Gas
Natural gas is the second major source of U.S. energy, accounting for 24 percent of energy used (EIA 1992). At the current rate of consumption, known world gas reserves will be depleted by 2048 (EIA 1992; World Oil 1991; Oil and Gas Journal 1990). And, as with petroleum, while the U.S. uses one quarter of the world's gas, only four percent of total known gas reserves are within the United States (World Oil 1991). Known natural gas reserves are concentrated in eastern Europe (37%) and the Middle East (31%). North America holds eight percent of the known reserves, western Europe holds five percent, and Asia holds eight percent. (Oil and Gas Journal 1990; World Oil 1991)
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, emitting 80 percent less carbon dioxide than coal (Corson 1990). Nonetheless, natural gas does release significant amounts of all fossil related emissions. While burning cleaner than either oil or coal, natural gas does contribute to air pollution and global warming.
Coal
Coal accounts for 24 percent of U.S. energy needs (EIA 1992). Coal is the only fuel that the U.S. consumed at a rate lower than its production in 1990 (EIA 1992). The U.S. consumes 17 percent of the world's coal, while holding 23 percent of known recoverable world reserves. At current consumption rates, recoverable world coal reserves will last to 2336, the longest of the fossil fuels (World Energy Council 1989; British Petroleum 1991; EIA 1992). This, of course, does not account for a greater reliance on coal as other resources become depleted. Air pollution concerns aside, if coal use were to replace depleted oil and natural gas reserves, coal reserves would be depleted by 2100 (EIA 1992).
Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel. Even with improved "clean" technologies, coal emits 25 percent more carbon dioxide than oil, and 80 percent more CO2 than natural gas (Corson 1990). In Czechoslovakia, coal related air pollution is so severe respiratory infections are commonplace, and crop damage is extensive. Czech scientists estimate air pollution related crop damage at $192 million annually. (Corson 1990; Brown 1993) Coal emissions present a significant threat to public health, and are primary contributors to acid rain and global warming.
Hydroelectric Power
Water powered generators produce 3.6 percent of total U.S. energy (EIA 1992). Hydropower is considered renewable and clean in that water is a constant resource in many areas and hydroelectric plants produce no waste. However, hydroelectric plants have a significant impact of local ecosystems. Hydroelectric dams are responsible for flooding sensitive valleys, such as Yosemite's Hetch Hetchy valley. The Damming of rivers has permanently blocked freshwater fish, such as salmon, from access to spawning regions. Flooded spawning beds and warmer water temperatures caused by slowed water movement inhibits spawning even further. And, the diversion of water creates both flooded canyons in some areas, and low water levels in others.
The Nuclear Option
Nuclear power provides 7.5 percent of U.S. energy needs (EIA 1992). While production of all other energy sources has remained relatively stagnant in recent years, nuclear production has doubled since 1981 (see Table 7.1; EIA 1992). The United States, alone, produces and consumes thirty percent of the globe's nuclear energy (EIA 1992). In 1993, there were 109 licensed nuclear power plants in the United States, down from 112 in 1990 (NRC 1993; Rosenbaum 1991). Atomic power has sustained the dreams of energy security since its origins in the military in the 1930s. It is, therefore, appropriate to explore the nuclear option in greater detail.
Nuclear energy presents special problems for environmental quality. While proponents of nuclear power consistently remind the public that nuclear plants release no emissions, the energy used in the mining and preparation of uranium releases significant amounts of carbon dioxide (Corson 1990). And, perhaps more importantly, the production of nuclear power creates a vast amount of radioactive waste. Furthermore, nuclear reactors have a limited life, and then must be dismantled, a process that itself presents dilemmas. And, the history of accidents at nuclear plants, both within the U.S. and abroad, suggests that the nuclear option may, in the long run, be quite dangerous.
A typical commercial reactor produces about 30 metric tons of spent radioactive fuel every year. By 1990, the accumulation of irradiated fuel from commercial nuclear plants in the U.S. had reached 21,800 metric tons, and is expected to reach 40,400 metric tons by 2000. At discharge, each ton of nuclear waste emits 177,242,000 curies -- or about as much radiation as 177 Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs. This radioactivity takes several thousand generations to decay. Plutonium-239, for example, has a half-life (the time it takes for half of the original radioactivity to decay) of 24,400 years, posing serious dangers for about 250,000 years. (Brown 1992)
Safe storage of these radioactive wastes is the major issue. Currently, more than 100 million gallons of high level liquid waste is temporarily stored at facilities in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina, and New York. Another 6000 metric tons of spent fuel is stored in cooling ponds at nuclear plants. This is expected to reach 63,000 metric tons by 1995. (Rosenbaum 1991) Accidental spills and seepage into groundwater is not uncommon, particularly at nuclear weapons facilities. In the late 1980s the DOE revealed mismanagement and deliberate suppression of information about accidents at all of its nuclear facilities (Rosenbaum 1991). The New York Times revealed that the Atomic Energy Commission had suppressed major accidents at nuclear facilities during the 1950s and 1960s. (New York Times 1988c; New York Times 1989a; New York Times 1989b). Similarly, the DOE revealed that radioactive wastes had been leaking from temporary containment structures at nuclear facilities in Rocky Flats, Colorado and Fernald, Ohio (Rosenbaum 1991). Permanent storage continues to be a contentious issue in policy circles. In 1989 the DOE announced that the creation of a safe waste repository would be delayed until at least 2010 (Rosenbaum 1991). Yet, even this late date may be a pipe dream since there is currently no technology available for safe permanent disposal (Brown 1992).
Nuclear reactors have a limited life span, typically between thirty and forty years (Davis 1993). Of the 109 plants currently operating, half will be retired by 2015, with all current plants being retired by 2075 (NRC 1993; Rosenbaum 1991). Decommissioning nuclear reactors involves the removal and disposal of all radioactive materials -- spent fuel, soil, ground water, buildings, and equipment. No major commercial reactors have been decommissioned yet, but the costs of decommissioning a single reactor are expected to range from fifty million to over three billion dollars (Davis 1993; Rosenbaum 1991). Further, the decommissioning of reactors assumes there will be safe permanent disposal sites.
The safety of nuclear power is based on safe disposal and prevention of accidents. Safe disposal technologies do not yet exist. And, several serious accidents place doubt on the long term viability of safely operating nuclear plants. Several major accidents have occurred at nuclear facilities during the 1950s and 1960s (New York Times 1988c; New York Times 1989a; New York Times 1989b). Serious accidents have occurred throughout the world, most notably Kyshtym (1957), in the Soviet Union, Windscale (1957), England, Three Mile Island (1979), United States, and Chernobyl (1986), USSR.
At Three Mile Island, a faulty pump and operator error resulted in the draining of cooling water from the reactor core, allowing the temperature to rise above 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. The reactor's containment system came dangerously close to releasing an estimated 18 billion curies of radiation -- more than 100 times that released in Chernobyl (Corson 1990). As late as 1989, only 20 percent of nuclear utilities had completed safety changes instituted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following Three Mile Island in 1979 (Rosenbaum 1991). Accidents at nuclear power plants are more common than the public realizes. In 1987 alone, there were almost 3000 reported minor accidents, 430 emergency shutdowns, and nearly 104,000 incidents of accidental exposure to measurable doses of radiation (Corson 1990).
The combined costs of building facilities, disposing of radioactive wastes, decommissioning reactors, and cleaning up accidents, has made it increasingly clear that economically, nuclear power may be a poor option. The construction and startup costs of the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire exceeded $5.8 billion, more than six times the expected cost of $900 million (Rosenbaum 1991). Disposal costs are similarly astronomic. The cost of a 96,000 ton capacity burial site is expected to exceed $36 billion (Brown 1992). Reactor decommissioning is expected to cost several hundred million dollars for each facility (Rosenbaum 1991). And, finally, cleanup costs of actual and potential accidents will come to billions of dollars. The Three Mile Island cleanup has exceeded $1 billion, while the damage caused at Chernobyl has been estimated at $10 billion (Corson 1990).
The future of nuclear energy remains uncertain. The problems of high cost, waste disposal, perceived safety risks, and the growing public pressure against siting plants and waste facilities has made nuclear power increasingly problematic -- as the dropping number of operating plants and the cancellations of new projects suggests. Still, energy analysts argue that these problems can be resolved, and that nuclear power remains a viable alternative. (Davis 1993
The Energy Dilemma
Clearly, there is an energy dilemma in the United States. At current consumption rates the United States, like the rest of the world, will have depleted traditional energy resources within a generation. And, the production of nuclear power is not yet safe or affordable. Yet, there appears to be little concern expressed either by governments or citizens. There is an apparent assumption that as resources are depleted new energy resources will replace them, and new technologies will be developed that will enable different energy sources to be utilized. In the end, either of these may occur. But, a nagging question must be addressed: Why are we as a society moving toward the future as if we had unlimited supplies of safe energy resources? Conversely, if we as a society, by necessity, must eventually develop renewable, clean, and safe energy resources, why are we waiting until we deplete existing resources and degrade the environment even further? These are not easy questions to answer, but the legacy of liberalism may offer some insights. The following section explores these issues explicitly.
THE TENSION BETWEEN LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATION:
THE POLITICS OF CONSUMPTION
American society grew up with the security of abundant natural resources -- land, water, vast forests, oil, natural gas, and coal (Rosenbaum 1991). The vast American west, from Kentucky to California, was conquered and settled on the promise of unlimited land and materials. Therefore, forests could be cleared, water diverted and polluted, prairies overgrazed, and mountains strip mined with little concern. As resources were depleted the nation would simply look west for more. The liberal ethic of mixing labor with nature to create value flourished in the unequaled expanse of American wilderness. Throughout the 18th and 19th century these resources appeared to most as though they would last forever.
The adolescent American psyche -- itself a product of Lockean liberalism -- came of age during the expansionary 1800s. The character of the nation was deeply imprinted by the assumption of infinite resources. American resource and energy policy, as a consequence, has traditionally been based on expanding production ("growing the economy") to allow increased consumption. And that -- the American emphasis on consumption -- is the problem.
It has become increasingly clear since the beginning of this century, that resources are indeed limited. Nonetheless, conservation has been extraordinarily difficult for Americans. The material needs of the second world war imposed the necessity of rationing, equating conservation with patriotism and national service. But, failing that type of crisis, Americans have been virtually unwilling to reduce consumption. Per capita energy consumption has consistently been increasing, peaking in 1980, and dropping slightly since (see Table 7.3).
It wasn't until the 1973-1978 energy crisis that a conservational ethic appeared, albeit in embryonic form. The phrase "crisis" itself suggests a sudden and decisive event. In reality, the energy crisis of the 1970s was anything but sudden. In 1973 the United States imported 38.8 percent of its oil (Rosenbaum 1991). The vulnerability of the U.S. to energy exporting nations was clear long before the "crisis" hit. Nonetheless, when Arab nations briefly stopped shipping oil in response to U.S. support of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the U.S. went into an energy panic. The U.S. was forced to recognize its dependence on foreign oil, and the vulnerability that dependence engendered. But, by the early 1980s the concern dissipated. The lesson did not last long. By 1990 the U.S. consumed 55 percent more oil than it produced (EIA 1992).
The United States lags far behind most other industrial democracies in energy efficiency. As Table 7.4 illustrates, U.S. per capita energy consumption is greater than every nation except Canada and Norway. When efficiency is measured as the ratio of per capita GNP to per capita BTUs, the U.S. gets approximately one third the efficiency as Switzerland and Japan, and about one half the efficiency as western Europe (World Resources Institute 1993). Specifically, for every million BTU used in Switzerland or Japan, $181 of GNP is created; for every million BTU used in the United States, $68 of GNP is created (Table 7.4). This lack of efficiency is related both to the liberal ethic of consumption, and to the recognition that the U.S., unlike most nations, has the capacity and the will to use its military to ensure a cheap and abundant supply of energy fuels. The Persian Gulf war is only one recent example of U.S. resolve to ensure viable energy markets.
When the question above -- why is the nation moving toward certain depletion of scarce energy resources with little apparent concern? -- is considered in the context of American liberalism, two issues become apparent. First, as a consequence of the American obsession with consumption, the United States has a long history of overusing resources before instituting conservational limits. The destruction of wetlands and wilderness areas, the continuing havoc wrought by strip mining, the degradation of surface waters and aquifers, the poisoning of coastal regions with oil drilling and sewage dumping, and the destruction of the few remaining old growth forest areas, all suggest that energy resources will be virtually used up -- the environmental impact notwithstanding -- before serious efforts at developing renewable, safe, and clean energy sources occurs. Second, traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear power are deeply entrenched in the current economy. The transition from traditional to renewable energy sources will be costly to certain industries. In particular, this transition threatens the economic hegemony of traditional utilities and oil companies. As chapter one discussed, economic success in the United States has historically been defined by economic growth. To maximize individual and corporate profit, and to minimize recessionary contractions, American capitalism has relied on continual economic expansion. While one would expect the GNP to grow consistently with the growth of population, the drive to maximize profits pushes greater efficiency from industrial processes and expansion of markets to maximize productivity. As a consequence, production has required ever greater amounts of energy. As Table 7.5 illustrates, while population in the U.S. grew by 39 percent between 1960 and 1990, GNP rose by 150 percent. This greater productivity came as a result of new technologies that made manufacturing more efficient, and production materials cheaper. But, this was not without a cost. During the same time energy consumption increased by 85 percent (Table 7.5).
Oil and natural gas continue to be the cheapest fuel, especially considering the subsidies provided by the U.S. Department of Energy and the armed forces. Federal funding of fossil fuel energy research in 1990 was five times greater than research for renewable energy sources, approximately $650 million to $132 million (Holdren 1991). Further, the Defense Department subsidizes the oil industry by ensuring access to overseas petroleum. The Gulf War was clearly fought to secure oil reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, at a cost of over $100 billion (Mandel 1991). In addition, the nuclear industry receives direct governmental subsidies totaling between $12 billion and $15 billion annually, and several indirect subsidies such as the Price-Anderson Act (1957) which limits a nuclear utility's liability to $540 million for any accident (Rosenbaum 1991). There is, consequently, little incentive for conservation or transition to renewable energy technologies.
While the DOE estimates that there are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide for 50 to 70 percent of current energy needs by 2030, U.S. funding of these technologies has been cut by 80 percent since 1980 (Brown, et al. 1991; Corson 1990). The traditional energy policies of subsidizing fossil fuel and nuclear power has not solved the problems of environmental degradation or energy dependency. It is clear that alternative energy resources will have to be developed within the next generation. There are already several viable technologies which may provide clean and renewable energy. These technologies are addressed later in the chapter.
ENERGY POLICY AND SYMBOLIC POLITICS:
THE GROWTH/ CONSERVATION DILEMMA
American energy policy has traditionally been market driven (Smith 1992). That is, profit maximization has typically driven energy exploration and development. As a consequence, increased consumption has been a fundamental aspect of U.S. energy policy. American political culture, reflecting its Lockean heritage, has consistently defined the main role of government in economic terms: protecting private property and maximizing economic growth. The consequence, as we have seen, is consumption driven energy policies with severe environmental degradation as a byproduct.
If energy policy is driven by market incentives, the need for solving immediate crises outweighs the need for long term planning (Smith 1992). As chapters one and two point out, policymakers are extraordinarily sensitive to maximizing economic growth. As a consequence, short term economic concerns often take precedence over long term resource management. This is the dilemma for policymakers. Prudent energy planning necessitates conserving energy resources (conservation); maximizing market expansion necessitates cheap and abundant fuels (consumption).
Evolving Energy Policy: Coal, Oil, and Gas
The vast American wilderness, was conquered and settled on the promise of unlimited land and materials. As resources were depleted the nation would simply look west for more. Throughout the 18th and 19th century these resources appeared to most as though they would last forever. As a result, American resource and energy policy has traditionally been based on expanding production to allow increased consumption.
Coal was the first energy source to fuel the industrial revolution. It burns far more efficiently than wood, requires no processing, and can be used as a mobile fuel source. By 1880 coal accounted for 90% of locomotive fuel, and was a significant source of fuel for steam operated machinery (Smith 1992). Coal use has largely remained unregulated, though there are a few significant policies affecting mining and burning.
The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments restricted some coal burning in an effort to reduce sulfur oxide emissions. Later, in the face of the "energy crisis" the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 provided waivers to certain Clean Air Act requirements in an effort to increase the use of coal. By 1977, in the face of new economic and energy concerns, Congress extended all emission deadlines for two more years, which were to be followed by tighter hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide standards (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977).
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA 1977) established limits on mining on farmlands, alluvial valleys, and slopes (Vig and Kraft 1990). Further, SMCRA requires that land mined be restored to its original contours. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments further restricted the use of coal. Other regulations on coal have typically focused on mining safety issues (Davis 1993).
Oil came to dominate energy politics during the 1920s. Oil was a critical fuel in both World Wars, powering the massive U.S. Navy, transporting ground troops, fueling armored divisions and air support. Oil made possible the country's vast domestic economic infrastructure. The industrial boom in the 1920s was a direct consequence of petroleum based fuels, including electricity. Transportation -- both of people and products -- came to rely on ship oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and later jet fuel. It is not surprising that national security, both military and economic, has come to rely on cheap and abundant oil.
Like coal, oil development and distribution originated in private corporations. The relatively large capital investment required to drill and process petroleum products resulted in a small number of corporations dominating the industry. Curiously, it was anti-trust laws that first came to regulate the oil industry. In 1911 the Supreme Court split Standard Oil Company into successor companies. Of the seven largest oil companies in operation today, five -- Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, and BP/Sohio -- are direct heirs of the original Standard Oil (Davis 1993).
By the 1970s, regulation affecting petroleum products became increasingly salient, both due to environmental issues (e.g., air pollution and oil spills) and to perceptions of inadequate energy supplies. The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments regulated emissions from internal combustion engines (both diesel and gasoline). A series of laws -- Nixon's wage-price freeze in 1977, The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (1973), and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (1975) -- established price ceilings on oil in an effort to stabilize petroleum prices.
As a result of the Arab Oil Embargo and the public concern that ensued every president since Nixon has called for a substantial increase in coal consumption to reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Further, Ford and Carter both sought conservation as a necessary component of energy independence, suggesting that the traditional liberal anti-conservation ethic was beginning to crack -- at least until 1980 and the election of Ronald Reagan.
In 1975 Congress established auto efficiency standards. The standards successfully raised auto efficiency from an average 14.2 mpg in 1974 to 28.5 in 1988. (Rosenbaum 1991) By 1975 Ford signed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) into law. The SPR set aside 500 million barrels of oil in underground storage in Louisiana and Texas (Davis 1993). The reserve was intended to offset shortages caused by national emergencies or boycotts.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments mandated a variety of pollution controls that affect oil. These include reformulating motor fuels in non-attainment areas, increased vehicle mileage standards, and the development of non-petroleum based and hybrid fuels to offset heavy petroleum consumption. Further, the amendments restate standards and deadlines for meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This will require regional action to minimize petroleum consumption.
Natural gas arrived on the energy scene in the 1920s as a byproduct of oil exploration. Unlike coal or oil, gas initially had few uses because of its difficult transportation and storage requirements, and was simply burned off at its source. Gas use required vast pipeline networks to distribute from its sources to its users. As advances in welding allowed improved pipeline construction in the 1930s gas became a common energy source.
The reliance on pipeline systems made gas companies natural monopolies -- consumers had to purchase gas from the company that delivered it to their door (Davis 1993). Thus, conventional anti-trust regulations could not apply to gas distributors. Vast holding companies emerged. In 1935 the Public Utility Holding Company Act placed regulatory control of these companies in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Through the Holding Company Act, the SEC created geographically defined regional utilities.
The Natural Gas Act (1938) placed regulation of interstate gas movement in the Federal Power Commission (later becoming the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), which had already been overseeing electrical utilities. The FPC was responsible for issuing permits for new pipeline construction and for expansion of gas facilities. By 1954, the Supreme Court gave the FPC the right to regulate gas prices through Phillips v. Wisconsin. This remained in effect until Reagan deregulated utilities in 1985. (Davis 1993)
The Clean Air Act Amendments between 1970 and 1990 all encouraged greater usage of natural gas because of its clean burning character. The 1990 amendments, in particular, requires the EPA to issue regulations requiring commercial fleets of ten or more (excluding emergency vehicles) capable of being centrally fueled to use "clean fuels" -- such as methanol, ethanol, propane, natural gas.
The evolving energy policy bureaucracy has focused, primarily, on regulating ownership, pricing, fuel distribution networks, worker health and safety, and indirectly, emissions. Yet, even with this network of energy policies, the U.S. still has no overall national energy policy with specific guidelines and long term goals spelled out.[1]
The section below explores the evolution of contemporary energy policies. In reviewing the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations it is possible to identify current energy trends. As the section suggests, the lack of a meaningful national energy policy maintains traditional tensions between liberalism and environmental quality.
The Carter Years
Carter's energy plan reflected traditional concerns. To maximize U.S. energy resources Carter ordered utilities to burn coal -- the dirtiest, albeit most plentiful fuel -- in place of oil or gas, and he sought a "streamlined" permit process for nuclear power plants (Rosenbaum 1991). Carter recognized that cheap and abundant energy resources are fundamental requirements for rapid economic expansion.
Carter's synthetic fuel program may best reflect the dilemma. In an effort to minimize dependence on foreign oil, and to develop renewable energy resources, Carter pushed for the development of a commercial synthetic fuel industry. The program, passed by Congress in 1980, failed to consider the environmental impact of the industry's highly toxic byproducts (Rosenbaum 1991).
Carter recognized the trade-off: the increased energy independence offered by a greater reliance on coal and synthetic fuels came at the cost of greater environmental degradation. Still, in contrast to previous administrations, conservation and increased energy efficiency were a major part of the Carter energy plan. Carter sought a gas tax as well as a tax on "gas-guzzling" cars. Further, he enforced a 55 mph speed limit, and efficiency standards on cars and appliances. (Davis 1993)
Reagan
Reagan's election brought U.S. energy policy back to the dark ages. Reagan's politics of nostalgia was based largely on the myth that everything in America was great. Conservation, consequently, was not only unnecessary, it was anti-growth, and thus to a symbolic extent anti-American. Reagan froze the mandatory fleet efficiency standards at the 1986 level. As a result, mileage efficiency in new cars actually declined by four percent between 1988 and 1990 (Rosenbaum 1991).
Additionally, the raising of national speed limits from 55 mph to 65 mph consumed an additional 500,000 barrels of oil daily (Rosenbaum 1991). Renewable energy research and development was cut by more than 80% from its 1980 level (Corson 1990; Rosenbaum 1991). And, federal tax energy credits for wind and solar energy use were abolished.
The Reagan administration deregulated oil and gas prices, and sought a massive increase in the leasing of public lands for energy exploration, including sensitive coastal areas and an attempt at national parklands. Further, the Reagan administration pushed hard for increased nuclear power development, doubling U.S. nuclear capacity from 1980 to 1988 (EIA 1992).
The Reagan energy policy was essentially, non-policy. The gains in renewable energy technologies and conservation made during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter years were lost. Instead, the Reagan years were characterized by a return to a traditional market based energy policy, and a reliance on fossil fuel exploration -- coal and oil in particular -- and nuclear power.
Bush
The Bush years were no different. It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 that Bush became concerned with a national energy policy. U.S. oil interests in the region culminated with an American lead invasion the following winter. After several months, the Bush administration presented its post-Gulf energy policy. Not surprisingly, it was based on increasing oil production by opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and Arctic Coastal Plain to energy exploration. Conservation was explicitly put aside.
Clinton
The Clinton administration faces a difficult challenge. Clinton was elected in the midst of the worst recession since World War II. As a consequence economic expansion is his first priority. Yet, environmental quality remains a salient issue within the constituency that elected him. While Reagan, and later Bush, could marginalize environmental concerns without alienating their core supporters, Clinton has much less flexibility. During the 1992 campaign Clinton outlined a plan to increase energy efficiency and conservation. It calls for an increase in the corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE standards) from the current 27.5 mpg to 40 mpg, it encourages mass transit, and it encourages higher efficiency in building materials and appliances (Clinton & Gore 1992).
Since becoming president, Clinton has made little progress toward a unique energy policy. His most important contribution, the BTU tax (a tax on energy consumption as measured by each British Thermal Unit), was rejected by Congress. A tax on energy consumption would have encouraged energy conservation. Beyond the BTU tax, Clinton has offered little. Clinton was able to get a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax through Congress. But, such a marginal tax will not encourage conservation. Even Ronald Reagan signed a five cent per gallon gas tax increase. Clinton constantly refers to "growing the economy," with little explanation on the energy or environmental impact. Furthermore, while Clinton took pains to appoint environmentally friendly administrators to the EPA (Browner) and the department of Interior (Babbitt), the appointment of O'Leary to head the DOE shows less concern.
Clinton may mirror the Carter model. Even though he may be genuinely concerned about environmental quality, the short term constraints of economic expansion and assuring abundant cheap energy may result in an energy policy that is little different from its predecessors. This may explain why Clinton considers the DOE secretary a part of his economic team, rather than his environmental team (Lippman 1993).
Energy Policy and Symbolic Politics
Energy policy has traditionally been problematic in several ways. In placing consumption over conservation policymakers have encouraged the deeply rooted myth that energy resources are unlimited. Further, the environmental impact of energy production and use has consistently been ignored. When policymakers consciously ignore the larger implications of wasteful consumption and environmental degradation, they are making a symbolic accommodation to the tensions between liberalism and resource management. The lack of concern expressed by citizens is a result of the success of policymakers to divert attention away from long term problems. Further, the assumption that depleted resources will be replaced by new discoveries is based on our cultural mythology: specifically, that technology will rescue us.
The need for clean renewable energies is clear to those who study aggregate fuel reserves. Nonetheless, policy elites are slow to make the development of these technologies part of their agendas. In the end, traditional energy resources will be depleted, and alternatives will be developed. But, if this transition comes as a consequence of market incentive rather than rational long term planning, we are likely to further degrade the environment in significant ways, particularly in fragile coastal and wilderness areas.
Traditional energy companies, and the industries that rely upon them, will continue to seek the cheapest energy resources available. And, since profit maximization has no calculation for ecological damage, it is likely that energy exploration will inflict irreversible damage to the few pristine ecosystems left. And, perhaps most disturbing, since this discourse is complex, it holds little salience among the public. Policymakers are therefore free to market their energy policies without concern for improving, or even sustaining, environmental quality.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
Renewable energy technologies would provide an alternative to the petroleum based energy dilemma discussed above. Geothermal utilities, alcohol vehicle fuels, and waste to energy facilities are already operating on a limited scale throughout the world. Further developing these technologies will allow a shift away from fossil fuel and nuclear dependency, reducing U.S. reliance on foreign energy supplies and providing a cleaner environment. (WRI & IIED 1987, 1989)
Biomass
Biomass, fuels derived from animal and plant matter, is the oldest energy source. Fuelwood, plants, garbage, and animal waste continue to be major energy resources, providing up to 90 percent of energy in many nonindustrial nations (Corson 1990). Over the past twenty years new technologies have allowed the development of substantially cleaner burning biomass fuels. Alcohol based fuels, including ethanol (ethyl alcohol), methanol (ethanol and methane), and gasohol (gasoline and ethanol), offer renewable fuels that burn cleaner than conventional gasoline and diesel. Ethanol, produced from any number of crops including sugarcane, corn, wood, and organic solid waste, has a high oxygen content, allowing more efficient combustion. Alcohol burning vehicles emit little or no nitrogen oxides or hydrocarbons, reducing ozone smog.
Organic wastes, including biodegradable solid waste, animal waste, plants, and municipal solid wastes can be processed to produce methane, a renewable natural gas. Biomass fuels are particularly important because they can be used to replace traditional petroleum based mobile fuels, such as gasoline. In Brazil, one-half of automotive fuel is derived from sugarcane (Corson 1990). Still, biomass fuels are no panacea. Low-tech fuels -- such as simply burning wood -- are much dirtier than existing fuels. Additionally, even distilled biomass fuels release carbon dioxide, albeit at lower levels than traditional fossil fuels. Further, diversion of crop residues from fertilization to fuel can reduce soil fertility.
Wind
Wind is one of the oldest energy resources, directly fueling world trade until as late as the first world war. The harnessing of wind power has propelled ships and pumped water for thousands of years. The contemporary use of wind utilizes similar technologies. By 1991, wind turbines worldwide produced 2,215 megawatts of power, an output equal to two large nuclear power plants (Brown, Flavin, Kane 1992).
Wind farms have appeared in several states around the U.S., including California, Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Montana (Smith 1992). California leads the nation in wind power, producing 1,600 megawatts with 15,000 turbines located in three farms -- the Altamont Pass east of San Francisco, the San Gorgonio Pass east of Los Angeles, and the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles (Brown, Flavin, Kane 1992). Wind farms would provide an even greater share of U.S. energy needs if the tax credit for wind energy was not eliminated in 1985. It is estimated that 25 percent of the nation's electrical needs can be met by installing wind turbines on the windiest 1.5 percent of land (Brown, Flavin, Kane 1992).
Although the cost of harnessing wind power is comparable to traditional sources (Smith 1992), there are problems. Wind is not constant, and consequently, wind power must be supplemented with other sources. Additionally, many of the best locations are already occupied, and turbines may interfere with electronic media transmissions and migratory birds (Smith 1992). Further, large wind farms can ruin the aesthetic value of pristine open space areas.
Solar: Thermal
The sun is the source of all energy on earth. Photosynthesis allows plant and animal life to exist. Wind is caused by thermal differences throughout the planet. The sun illuminates the earth, and provides the necessary warmth. But, in addition to the passive thermal energy that has allowed for life on the planet, solar energy may provide an answer to our current energy needs.
Solar energy can be used to heat water and buildings, or to generate electricity. In Israel, 65 percent of houses have solar water heaters. In Cypress, 90 percent have solar water heating. In the United States solar water systems were becoming increasingly popular, but the elimination of energy tax credits in the mid-1980s, combined with lower oil and gas prices, decimated the industry. (Corson 1990)
Complex refractive solar energy systems, which focus the sun's rays like a giant magnifying glass, have been able to heat oil to 3000 degrees Celsius, which in turn can fuel steam turbines. More commonly, trough collectors have been used to heat oil to 400 degrees Celsius, generating steam turbines. California's Mojave desert currently produces 200 megawatts of electricity using a series of 30 megawatt collectors (Mathews 1989: Corson 1990; Weinberg & Williams 1991). The Luz Corporation is currently expanding its Mojave facility, bringing its planned output to 600 megawatts (Corson 1990).
The limitations of solar thermal energy are that it requires a generally sunny climate, and trough systems require a substantial amount of space. Thus, solar thermal energy is not suitable everywhere. Still, in conjunction with other renewable energy technologies, solar thermal energy may make an effective contribution toward energy for the future.
Solar: Photovoltaic Cells
Photovoltaic (PV) cells directly convert sunlight into electricity, and their potential is almost unlimited. Worldwide, over 15,000 homes are supplied with PV generated electricity (Corson 1990). A 40 square meter network of 12 percent efficient PV cells will produce enough electricity for a single household (Weinberg & Williams 1991). And, the necessary network size will become smaller as PV cell efficiency increases. Current PV technologies allow for the manufacture of a 28.5 percent efficient point-contact crystalline silicon cell and a 35 percent efficient gallium arsenide-gallium antimonide stacked junction cell -- a double layered cell that absorbs different aspects of the solar spectrum (Weinberg & Williams 1991). The largest single Photovoltaic facility is a 6.5 megawatt plant in California's Carissa Plains, run by ARCO solar (Corson 1990).
Photovoltaic cells produce electricity with
zero emissions, are noise free, and require minimal maintenance. But, they have two constraints. The present cost of PV generated electricity
-- resulting from the manufacture of PV cells -- is still about five times that
of traditional sources, though costs have been dropping consistently since the
1970s (Weinberg & Williams 1991).
And, the manufacture of PV cells produces hazardous wastes that must be
managed (Smith 1992).
Geothermal
Geothermal energy is created from the heat contained within the earth's interior. Geologic blowholes and volcanic activity illustrate the potential energy that can be harnessed. The electricity generated by geothermal sources worldwide was estimated to reach 6,400 megawatts in 1990, equaling the output of six large nuclear power plants (WRI & IIED 1989; National Research Council 1987). The U.S. is currently generating about 2,500 megawatts (Smith 1992).
There are currently around 20 nations exploring the geothermal option. Geologists estimate that geothermal power can be harnessed on approximately 10 percent of the earth's land (Smith 1992). Geothermal facilities may contribute a significant amount of renewable energy in the future. While highly sulfurous waste water and odors can result as a byproduct of the geothermal process, proper management of geothermal sources can minimize these problems.
Ocean Energy
The harnessing of ocean energy is based on relatively new processes. The most promising technology is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). OTEC exploits the temperature difference between warmer surface water and colder deep water to generate electricity. OTEC is still in its preliminary stages, but prototypes suggest that 100 megawatt plants will be feasible within several years (Corson 1990). Other ocean energy systems include the harnessing of wave and tidal power. Norway has made progress on prototype wave power plants, and France has a prototype tidal energy plant capable of producing 240 megawatts (Corson 1990).
Conservation
Though not a fuel as such, energy conservation will provide a net contribution to power needs, and will improve environmental quality. Reducing energy consumption will result in reducing the number of plants needed, thereby decreasing emissions and reducing hazardous byproducts. Many communities do encourage various forms of conservation, however, much more can be done. Increasing insulation standards in all new commercial and residential building will result in a significant decrease in heating and cooling needs.
Similarly, mandating efficiency standards for energy consuming products (from light bulbs to air conditioners) will both reduce energy needs and lengthen the usable life of products. In addition, cogeneration systems will allow steam produced for industry to heat surrounding areas and provide local electrical generation. The deficit in U.S. efficiency standards, compared to Japan and western Europe, suggests that much more can be accomplished. (Scientific American 1991; Corson 1990; Smith 1992)
Integrated Energy Management
Few of the above options are problem free. However, with proper management, these renewable energy sources can replace the need for traditional fossil or nuclear fuel. No single energy source will solve our energy problems. But, by integrating the most efficient of these sources into a single energy network, while conserving to the maximum extent possible, these technologies will represent a significant improvement in environmental quality and in energy independence.
CONCLUSION
The failure to embrace clean, safe, and renewable energy sources in a substantive way can be tied directly to the liberal tradition in the United States. The emphasis on individual self-interest over community interest makes the evolution of a comprehensive energy policy difficult. The constant drive for continual economic expansion that characterizes American liberalism places short term economic gain above long term environmental quality and the development of safe and renewable energy resources.
This chapter illustrated the tensions between liberalism and renewable clean energy. Traditional energy policies have been symbolic in two ways. First, in placing consumption over conservation policymakers have encouraged the deeply rooted myth that energy resources are unlimited. Second, the environmental impact of energy production and use has consistently been ignored. These mechanisms accommodate the tension between liberalism and energy conservation. Table 7.3 illustrates a positive trend toward reducing per capita energy consumption since the mid-1980s, although overall energy consumption (table 7.1) continues to grow. Future energy policies may further reduce per capita consumption, providing a foundation for energy and environmental security.
As in the other environmental policy areas, when policymakers consciously ignore the larger implications of wasteful consumption and environmental degradation, they are seeking to reinforce cultural myths at the expense of long term environmental health. The following chapter brings together the questions that the entire study has raised, discussing the difficult choices liberal society must address as it comes to terms with the environmental crisis.
Table 7.1 U.S. and World Energy Consumption, by source, 1981-1990
U.S.: 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987
1988 1989 1990
Oil1 16,058 15,296 15,231
15,726 15,726 16,281
16,665 17,283 17,325
16,988
Gas2 19,404 18,001 16,835
17,951 17,281 16,221
17,211 18,030 18,799
18,815
Coal3 732.63
706.91 736.67 791.29
818.05 804.31 836.94
883.66 890.56 894.56
Hydro4 297.0
341.7 370.6 363.9
325.3 329.9 299.2
257.8 279.2 285.0
Nuclear4 272.7
282.8 293.7 327.6
383.7 414.0 455.3
527.0 529.4 576.9
World
Total: 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987
1988 1989 1990
Oil1 60,866 59,465 58,691
59,784 59,863 61,509
62,773 64,497 65,709
65,901
Gas2 53,610 53,069 54,420
59,105 61,999 62,790
65,910 69,366 72,270
74,423
Coal3 4,219.2
4,324.3 4,358.3 4,492.2
4,783.0 4,893.1 4,994.8
5,117.1 5,272.3 5,171.2
Hydro4 1,766.2
1,812.1 1,903.9 1,960.7
1,979.2 2,018.9 2,028.4
2,076.6 2,056.3 2,112.9
Nuclear4 778.7
866.5 981.8 1,197.0
1,425.7 1,517.7 1,654.0
1,794.8 1,843.3 1,898.3
1Thousand Barrels per Day
2Billion Cubic Feet
3Million Short Tons
4Billion Kilowatthours
Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy
Annual, 1990 (Washington, DC: Department of Energy, 1992).
Table 7.2 Total U.S. and World Energy Production and
Consumption, 1990 (in Quadrillion [1015] Btu)
Oil Gas1 Gas2 Coal Hydro Nuclear Total
U.S.
Production 15.27 2.17
18.15 22.46 2.92
6.19 67.47
U.S.
Consumption 33.55 19.40 19.09 2.94 6.19 81.17
%
of Total 1990
Energy Consumption 41.3%
23.9% 23.5% 3.6%
7.6%
Oil Gas1 Gas2 Coal Hydro Nuclear Total
World
Production 129.06 7.19
73.50 93.00 21.95
20.35 345.06
World
Consumption 135.01 73.70 93.20 21.96 20.35 344.21
%
of Total 1990
Energy Consumption 39.2%
21.4% 27.1% 6.4% 5.9%
1Natural Gas Plant Liquids
2Dry Natural Gas
Source: Energy Information Administration, International Energy
Annual, 1990 (Washington, DC: Department of Energy, 1992).
Table 7.3 U.S. Energy Consumption, 1950-1990
Per Capita Energy Consumption
Year: (million btu):
1950: 219
1955: 235
1960: 244
1965: 272
1970: 327
1975: 327
1980: 335
1985: 310
1990: 309
Sources: Energy Information Administration, International Energy
Annual, 1990 (Washington, DC: Department of Energy, 1991).
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality
Twenty-Second Annual Report (Washington, DC: GPO, 1992)
World Resources Institute, The 1993 Information Please
Environmental Almanac (NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1993)
Table 7.4 Energy Efficiency of Selected Countries, 1992
(in descending order)
Efficiency1
Per Capita as Measured
Energy Consumption Per Capita by 1992 $ per
Country: (million btu): GNP (1992 $): million btu:
Switzerland 177 28,019 180.77
Japan 128 23,072 180.25
Denmark 138 19,535 141.56
Italy 115 15,033 130.72
Israel 84 9,922 118.12
Spain 82 9,626 117.39
France 149 17,052 114.44
Germany (united) 179 19,633 109.68
Finland 222 22,770 102.57
United Kingdom 150 14,669 97.70
Sweden 266 21,958 82.55
Netherlands 189 14,878 78.72
United States 309 21,039 68.08
Iceland 282 18,710 66.35
Brazil 47 2,952 62.81
Norway 370 22,005 59.47
Canada 400 20,224 50.56
Mexico 52 2,332 44.85
Saudi Arabia 177 6,319 35.70
India 12 314 26.17
Venezuela 92 2,156 23.43
China 24 374 15.58
1This index is based on the ratio between per capita GNP and per
capita energy consumption. Efficiency is calculated by dividing
the per capita GNP dollars (1992) by the per capita energy
consumption (1992).
Source: Calculated from data provided by World Resources Institute, The 1993 Information Please Environmental Almanac (NY:
Houghton Mifflin, 1993)
Table 7.5 U.S. Population Growth, GNP Growth,
and Energy Consumption, 1960-1990
GNP Total U.S. Energy
Population billions of Consumption
Year: (millions): (1982 dollars): (quadrillion btu):
1960 180.7 1,665.3 43.8
1965 194.3 2,087.6 52.7
1970 205.1 2,416.2 66.4
1975 216.0 2,695.0 70.6
1980 227.7 3,187.1 76.0
1985 238.5 3,618.7 73.9
1990 250.0 4,155.8 81.2
Percent Increase:
Year: Population: GNP: Energy:
1960-70 13.5% 45% 52%
1970-80 11.0% 32% 15%
1980-90 10.0% 30% 7%
1960-90 39.0% 150% 85%
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1991. Current Population Reports. (Washington, D.C.: GPO).
Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisors.
1991. 1991 Economic Report. Washington, D.C.: GPO).
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1990. Annual Energy Outlook 1990 with Projections to 2010. (Washington, D.C.: GPO).
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1992. International Energy Annual 1990. (Washington, D.C.: GPO).
