I never thought my first two entries into this blog would revolve around shout-outs to people of note who are much (MUCH!) more conservative than I am. Then again, it’s a very encouraging sign that a sustainable future is becoming more & more of a “purple” (i.e. as compared to “red” or “blue”) issue.
I’ll admit this item is a bit old, having slipped through the holiday cracks … but I’ve nonetheless found it worth repeating. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) responded to an article in The Economist with an excellent letter about the need to radically reduce our dependence on imported oil.
My only fault is that even Lugar fails to make the distinction between rising oil prices and the need for more renewable energy for electricity. Of course, that also still seems to be the only times the public, markets, et. al. pay more attention to solar, wind, and other renewable technologies.
Regardless: I applaud and thank Senator Lugar for his national-security focus on the need to become more energy independent. Environmentalists have known this all along, and Wall Street has finally realized this in the last year or so. Now we have another respected voice telling us about the geopolitical and even military advantages to embarking on this more sensible course for the future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
December 7, 2006
Dear Sir,
Your report on investing in clean energy highlights the fact that public and political support for renewable energy may wane when the cost is perceived to be too high (“Tilting at windmills”, November 18th). However, the case for government subsidies and mandates to compensate for failure in energy markets is strong. For instance, the price Americans pay for oil does not cover the risks to the economy from delivery disruptions, price spikes, the vast expenditures required to protect supply routes and infrastructure, or the risk premium for the social tumult that could result from climate change.
Likewise, the foreign-policy priorities of America and her allies are endangered by current global trends. Oil-rich authoritarian regimes use their revenues to stymie opposition and fund anti-Western appeals, energy-poor nations struggle to pay their rising oil and gas bills and terrorists have targeted energy infrastructure. Energy reserves are coming under the tighter control of governments, resulting in supply decisions that are based on politics, not market logic, and this changes geopolitics. Our relationship with Russia has already been redefined: Brazil, China, India and others will follow suit.
Breaking our dependence on oil through the use of renewable energy and efficiency is not something we should do because of “green idealism”. It is a necessity for our economic and social security. Whether the cost of subsidies is “too high” cannot be judged in a vacuum: it must be weighed against the calamitous consequences of doing nothing, and the enormous gains in security and economic and environmental well-being that will result from a sustained long-term effort that the market cannot currently provide. So although it is correct to say that the public will not support wasteful subsidies, it is up to politicians to convince the voters that these expenses are neither a waste nor a luxury, but are essential to avert political, economic and environmental disaster.
Richard Lugar
Chairman
Foreign Relations Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PvH
