Think tank to U.S.: Cut oil use by 30% within a decade for national security

Baraka_Guru · Nov 2, 2011

Military think tank urges US to cut oil use
Report from Military Advisory Board says US must reduce energy imports over the next decade as a national security imperative

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 02.00 GMT

An influential military thinktank is urging America to cut its oil use by 30% over the next decade, as a national security imperative.

In its report, the Military Advisory Board said the US should aim to drastically reduce its energy imports over the next decade – or else risk exposing the economy to devastating oil price shocks.

"This is a national security threat that grows ever year, and we as a nation need to recognise is at such," said vice admiral Dennis McGinn, a former deputy chief of naval operations, and one of the authors of the report.

"This isn't just about the volatility of gas prices at the pump. This isn't just about big oils vs the environment. This is a national security problem, manifesting itself economically, diplomatically and militarily, and it is not just going to go away."

The report, entitled Ensuring America's Freedom of Movement: a National Security Imperative to Reduce America's Oil Dependence, describes America's reliance on imported oil as the "Achilles heel of our national security".

It deploys strong language to describe the consequences of this dependence. "Our reliance on this single commodity makes us vulnerable … We are held hostage to price fixing by a cartel that includes actors who would do our nation harm, and we are too often called upon to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect fragile oil supplies form this very cartel," the report says.

It goes on to envisage a scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that is the entrance to the Persian Gulf, is subject to a shutdown for up to 60 days, detailing the impact on US prices and jobs.

"The thing that bothers us is that there are some circumstances in the world that could literally cause this cascading economic duress that would make the recession of 2008 and 2009 look like the good old days," McGinn said.

The report, which will be formally unveiled on Wednesday at two briefings for members of Congress, is the fourth from the Military Advisory Board.

The group of recently retired three and four-star generals was first convened in 2006 by the Institute for Public Research and the Centre for Naval Analyses to help guide the Pentagon's response to climate change.

Now, with all the branches of the military embarked on ambitious projects to reduce their own energy use, the thinktank is trying to exert some influence on civilian habits.

It puts forward nine different alternatives to conventional oil and gas – from algae-based biofuels to compressed natural gas, plug-in cars and propane. Most of those technologies are already available or will be within five years, the report says.

The most promising in the short-term are methanol, biofuel ethanol, electric vehicles and natural gas. But the report is cautious about the use of the most widely available biofuel in the US, corn ethanol, because of its effects on global food supply.

The report also offers policy guidelines for achieving the 30% reduction such as more rigorous fuel economy standards in passenger cars. Commercial trucking businesses could explore using compressed natural gas, it says. The government could expand the use of plug-in cars and biofuels on its fleets, it adds.

It dismisses the argument – put forward by Republicans and industry – that America can insulate itself by sourcing its oil from friendly sources such as Canada and Mexico or by increasing domestic drilling.

A disruption in oil supplies anywhere in the world will drive up the price of oil, it said. "We really can't differentiate in a realistic way between oil from Venezuela or Iran or Canada," said McGinn.

Since the board's first report, the Pentagon has embarked on an ambitious project to reduce its own use of energy. The US navy is working to get half of its energy from nuclear and renewable fuels by 2020. The army wants to get 25% of its energy from renewables by 2025. The air force has been conducting test flights of its aircraft on a mix of conventional and biofuels, and the marine corps has been testing small solar power facilities in the combat zones of Afghanistan.

"I don't really see myself as a treehugger in any way. I look at it as an issue of national security," Howard Snow, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy who was not involved in the report, told a recent seminar.

The federal government has also been working to increase its use of renewable fuels – although with much more modest targets – since George Bush was president.

But the move away from conventional fuels is a harder sell among civilians, particularly in the current political climate, McGinn acknowledged. Still, he said he was hopeful that the recommendations would gain some traction. "We are going to do something about this as a nation. There is no other way," he said. "It's just a question of whether we do it proactively or find ourselves somewhere down the road facing disruptions because of a closure of petroleum supplies. It's just a question of how much pain do we need to go through as nation before we really get it and fix this in a long-term way."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/02/military-thinktank-us-oil

So here it is. Another call to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

If you recall, before the shit hit the fan in 2008, oil prices were sky high. People were speculating prices as high as $150 to $250 per barrel. We got as high as $147.30 in July 2008 before the recession hit and sapped demand.

There is still a problem: peak oil. Some say that existing output will only decline over time. There is potential for new sources, but will it be able to keep up?

As we move out of this recession, oil demand will only rise, taking prices with it.

How difficult will it be for prices to climb over $150?
Will we find enough new oil to keep prices down?
Will renewable technology see a boom in light of the situation?
How high will oil get before causing economic distress?

How vulnerable is the US?
What should be done?

loquitur · Nov 2, 2011

Good thinking. I have maintained for a very long time that our reliance on imported petrochemicals is bad for our national security. It certainly has distorted our foreign policy in very undesirable ways. What I have advocated for a long time was a user tax on petroleum, offset by reductions in taxes elsewhere. That way we don't feed the government beast more, but we do get the benefits of the disincentive to petroleum consumption (shifts to smaller cars, tighter land use, better conservation, cleaner air).

Baraka_Guru · Nov 2, 2011

Yes, loquitur, but I think it's time to get particularly aggressive with some of the strategies. You could offset a user tax on petroleum with tax credits on natural gas and electricity use (related to natural gas, electric, and hybrid autos). You could also offer attractive cash-back options for natural gas, electric, and hybrid autos, making them equal to or cheaper upfront than regular autos. Currently, they're more expensive and only reach a break-even point in a reasonable amount of time when gasoline prices are high; otherwise, it can take quite a while.

Charlatan · Nov 2, 2011

America doesn't have the leadership to make something like this happen and they don't have the people willing to make the sacrifices that would be necessary.

RogueGypsy · Nov 6, 2011

I agree with Charlatan, in that our leadership is sorely lacking. They all seem to be too busy fucking interns, snorting coke and fighting amongst themselves to actually do their jobs.

I however, disagree, with the idea people are not willing to make sacrifices. I think we are willing, to do what is necessary, to develop and use renewable resources. But I also think most people don't believe it's necessary and therefore can't justify a reason to sacrifice.
Just after Katrina, when gas prices began to rise, we heard a lot of excuses about why the prices went up, most of them about supply issues. At the same time the internet is flooded with 'secret government geological reports' showing larger fine crude reserves under the Rockys than in all of the middle east, reserves in the Dakotas, Alaska and the Gulf that could supply us for many, many years to come. Then Oil companies post record Billion dollar profits in the next quarter, Senators and Congressman are driving around in Humvees and flying around on private jets to get their $1000 haircuts, all while telling us we need to tighten our belts and reduce our consumption..?? I think I heard a collective FUCK YOU! ring out across the nation that day. Personally I'm just tired of all the "Do as I say, not what I do" bullshit.
Confidence and trust in the government is very low right now and no one trusts big oil either. I think the people are just tired of being lied too and as a result, we're just trying to stick with what we know. Their only solution to date has been Ethanol, which is a total debacle. Food prices shot up, fuel prices remained the same and I get 5 miles to the gallon less than with petroleum fuel. Not to mention the impact on Tequila, with all the Agave farmers converting their crops to corn, my beloved nectar of the Gods has doubled in price. Cunts.

I see two potential solutions:

-The first would create incentives for the oil companies to develop renewable energy sources, while reducing oil profits with price caps.
I'm not a fan of this solution, because I don't agree with rewarding children for bad behavior or government regulation of business.

-The second would require a complete separation of business and government, term limits on all elected officials and a civilian body of energy regulators to control costs and direct research.
The last part pisses off some people, but hey, the Federal Reserve has been doing it (with money) since the 1800's and until recently, when the corruption became obvious, worked fairly well.

But alas, I have little hope for any of this. As long as it's profitable for government to align with big business, profit will drive political decisions. I see this more of a 'crisis of conscience' than an energy crisis. If we can do what's right, the solutions are at hand. As long as unchecked profit is the motive, the solutions will be a long time coming. A 30% cut is just a Band-Aid, that will not stop the hemorrhage.

..
..

ASU2003 · Nov 6, 2011

After living through the oil shortage in Phoenix in 2003 (1/3 of the supply was cut off), and seeing the oil tankers drive back and forth from Tucson to Phoenix to try and take the place of the pipeline...I still feel Americans are way to addicted and reliant on gasoline.

The thing is that there are people way ahead of me in line to get gasoline in a crisis/shortage scenario. Military, police, fire, EMT, trucks, city services, post office, etc... then you have people who would be willing to pay $20/gallon if demand outstripped supply and the speculators knew that people would pay that.

I have cut my usage way back. I don't use any to commute to work, and even going to the store I frequently ride my bike.

However, the only true way to fix it is to make oil and gasoline meaningless. Solid state batteries could do that in a few years.

Log in or Sign up

Think tank to U.S.: Cut oil use by 30% within a decade for national security

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

loquitur Getting Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

RogueGypsy Vertical

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Log in or Sign up

Think tank to U.S.: Cut oil use by 30% within a decade for national security

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

loquitur Getting Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

RogueGypsy Vertical

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Useful Searches