ENERGY: THE GRAND STRATEGIC JOINT OF THE 21ST CENTURY

nergy is the grand strategic joint of human civilization in the twenty-first century. What is a joint? According to the great British military theoretician Basil Liddel Hart, it is the point that, when attacked, will provide the greatest benefit for the least effort. It must be both vital and vulnerable. Reducing energy use provides the greatest benefit to humankind because it is multidimensional. It impacts on economic and environmental health, security (economic and military), and development policy (especially in the underdeveloped world). It also has moral implications. The moral robustness and moral self-confidence of the West is undermined when it compromises its values to guarantee energy supply from countries ruled by thugs.

Oil is the joint of energy. It is the joint of joints. It is both vital and vulnerable. It is vulnerable because we now have the means to reduce oil from being the most vital international commodity to being a very marginal international commodity (like salt). Some of these means will be discussed below.

The joint must not be confused with the weakest point. The weakest point is always vulnerable, but it is usually worthless (often why it is weakly defended). Identifying the joint enables you to apply integrative thinking and to come up with multidimensional/multipurpose policies. Liberation from the enslavement of oil is a policy aim that has multidimensional benefits: economic, environmental, security, social, moral, and political.

What do I mean by grand strategy? Coherent policy making has several components that are very often confused—to the detriment of the very policy aims desired. What are these components?

Ideological: our fundamental values. Democracy, constitutional protections, rule of law, sanctity of the individual human being, etc.

Policy: our true interests. Interests are economic, political, social, and moral (values). Policy is constrained by priorities, resources, and conditions. It must have a rational order. One cannot do everything at once. As the Talmud says: “He who tries to grab everything ends up with nothing.” Moreover, it is probably more prudent to lead with economic and political interests than with social and moral interests. People resent being preached at, and one can probably achieve more for one’s moral interests by wrapping them in economic policies than by a direct assault on the “immorality” of the other. Unless you yourself can walk on water, in all instances you will be accused of hypocrisy (see “Strategy of the Indirect Approach” below).

Grand strategy: This relates to the economic, political, military, social, and moral resources of a nation, country, or company, etc., and how best to optimally mobilize them in order to minimize weaknesses and achieve vital goals. “Grand strategy” defines the criteria and priorities by which we determine policy goals; it is the filter through which we pass policy goals to see if they are appropriate. In a sane and rational entity, grand strategy determines policy more than ideology. Ideology might strive for an ideal, but in real life we must construct policies based upon reality. Liberation from oil will strengthen our grand strategic position immensely: politically, economically, environmentally, morally, and socially.

Strategy: the plan formulated to implement a rational policy constrained by grand strategic resources. Strategy and strategic threats are not the same thing. A strategic threat (as opposed to a tactical threat) is one that endangers one’s very existence.

Operations: Operations has to do with the rational and most efficacious deployment of grand strategic assets in order to achieve a strategic aim.

Tactics: the actual maneuvering undertaken to achieve a strategic aim—military, political, social, or economic.

The strategy of the indirect approach: This is a theoretical keystone of Liddel Hart’s general approach. He called for armies to advance along the line of least expectation against the least resistance. I posit that what is good for armies is also good for politicians and policy makers. You can bang your head against a wall of resistance by “being right” (and morally indignant about being ineffective in your “just cause”), or you can slide past the resistance by resisting the temptation to demonstrate your own moral superiority and thereby become effective.

I want to be clear. In the battle between the “everything is gray” crowd and the “moral black and white” crowd, I take the middle position. Some things are various shades of gray and some things are black and white. But even when something is black and white (e.g., Saddam Hussein was a despicable tyrant), nuance and subtlety are one’s best allies when trying to be effective. One’s ideology might be that democracy is good for everyone; one’s policy might be to democratize the Middle East, but the strategy of putting a quarter of a million troops into Iraq to accomplish this aim might not have been the best way to go.

The indirect approach can be applied to every classification above. America cannot democratize the Middle East when the entire Arab and Muslim worlds are deeply resentful. Therefore, a general indirect approach to reduce resentment might be as follows:

 Policy: Work for peace between Israel and Palestinians so that America’s support for Israel would not be automatically seen as being anti-Muslim or anti-Arab.

Grand Strategy: Neutralize Iran’s nuclear program. This would be welcomed in the Gulf states, but in terms of the policy aim would alleviate Israeli fears, making it more amenable to a farreaching compromise with the Palestinians and realizing the policy aim.

Strategy: Collapse the Iranian economy by a general boycott of its oil exports. This will deprive them of the means to continue their nuclear program.

Operations: Mobilize current allies to take the lead; enlist potential allies by compromising elsewhere. President Obama trying to get Russia on his side regarding Iran by forgoing the missile defense program in eastern Europe is an example of this principle. Since Iran imports 40% of its gasoline (60% from Holland and 40% from India), convincing Holland and/or India to stop exporting gas to Iran would be another operational indirect approach.

Tactics: Initiate the Iranian oil boycott covertly and not overtly. In other words, just do it and do not talk about it. Make it happen gradually over several months, making it seem like natural market forces rather than Western hostility. Use the present economic crisis as an excuse.

Is the above doable? The West has a medium-term grand strategic trump card: the strategic reserves of the International Energy Agency (IEA). It also has a short-term tactical advantage: redundant production capacity caused by the economic turndown.

The IEA and its constituent members have 4 billion barrels of oil in strategic reserves. This enables them to release 2.5 million barrels a day (Iran’s daily exports) onto the market for a period of more than four years. This enables the West, led by the United States, to boycott or disable (overtly or discretely) Iranian oil production.

Of course, the above is a bit of an oversimplification, but it serves to demonstrate the principle I am advocating. At every level, oil is the “grand strategic joint.” Destroying the power of petroleum and petrodollars will also advance the cause of democracy (our ideological value). The reason for this is that countries dependent on natural resources and commodities are poor, and countries that create knowledge-based added value are rich. Countries that have natural resources invest in developing the resources. Countries without natural resources invest in their citizens—mainly in education, entrepreneurship, and infrastructure. Countries dependent on natural resources are vulnerable to bullying, undemocratic regimes. Countries dependent on human resources have to be democratic in order to foster speed, flexibility, and quality—necessary characteristics for functioning in a globalized world. The excellent book As the Future Catches You by Juan Enriquez of the Harvard Business School contains many examples of this thesis.

Table 1 demonstrates his point.

Petrodollars are the grand strategic joint. They finance the nuclear programs of rogue states as well as terror organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. They finance anti-Western and anti-Semitic literature as well as Wahhabi madrassas that function as a cultural infrastructure undermining countries like Pakistan. They foster Western dependence on thugs and despots for energy (which

compromises moral values). Periodic oil-supply disruptions and price rises and threats cause economic instability. This hurts the developing world more than the developed world; indeed, the two boycotts of the 1970s and subsequent instability has been a major contributor to present African poverty.

Its impact on the American economy is tremendous. In 2006, import costs were $309 billion (about 40% of America’s total trade deficit), and oil-related defense costs were $137 billion (not including the Iraq war). Oil-related defense costs between the two wars were $500 billion. Tax losses were $43 billion a year. The great irony and shame of oil dependence is that imported oil is not taxed while all domestic energy production is taxed. If oil-related defense costs alone were invested in alternative energy, America would have already achieved energy independence. Hidden costs of oil for the rest of the developed world in aggregate probably equal that of the United States. All this is without internalizing direct and indirect environmental costs, or direct and indirect health costs.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

I believe the problem lies in our inability to differentiate between ideological and strategic thinking and to realize that oil has become a double-edged sword. It can now be wielded against the oil-producing states as much as it can be wielded by them. The following outlines an energy strategy that would enable the West (especially the United States) to sharpen this sword with a real-world energy policy.

Rational policy making requires that strategic possibility have the upper hand over ideological wishful thinking. What we can do and when we can do it must be our standards—not visions of a perfect world. Policy criteria are concerned with time (when something can be done) and doability (what can be done). Time refers to short term, intermediate term, long term, and deep long term. In other words, how we get from here to there, and what the intermediate (or bridging) steps would be. Doability relates to practicality—a policy that reflects how real people actually live. Anything else is irrational. Thus, a rational energy strategy must:

1. Not expect the middle class to change lifestyle. Policy proposals based on fundamental changes of lifestyle will fail and close minds to environmental arguments. People are willing to change on the margins—replace their present gas guzzler with a hybrid or electric, replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescent or LEDS, pay attention to the energy consumption of appliances, vacation closer to home, work closer to home (or from home), etc. They are not willing to give up hot water, air-conditioning, or the flexibility of private transportation.
2. Mobilize multipartisan political support. Policies that irritate large segments of public opinion are not politically doable in postmodern democracies—a fact annoying to “experts” but still a fact.
3. Conform to the laws of economics. Taxing big energy corporations might be emotionally satisfying but will solve nothing, and, as with Carter’s tax regime in the 1970s, probably exacerbate the problem. It is the equivalent of kicking your dog because you are angry it is raining outside.
4. Be equitable. It cannot depend on long-term direct or indirect subsidies, nor have privileged status before the law.
5. Include indirect costs and yields. Internalizing the $50 billion a year that the United States spent in policing the Persian Gulf between the two Iraqi wars, as well as other costs of oil dependence, the real price of imported oil to the American economy would be about $10 a gallon at the pump. Internalizing the economic benefits of domestic energy production (jobs created, business activity generated, and taxes derived from), tax breaks for alternative energy technologies become an investment that would produce a greater return for the economy and not only for the environment.
6. Be beneficial to the environment. More energy with less environmental damage is the only policy that can mobilize the broadbased support mentioned in criterion two.
7. Be a combination of increased production (primarily from nonconventional sources) and decreased consumption.

IMPRACTICAL SOLUTIONS

BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS

How this is supposed to solve the problem of high liquid fuel prices is beyond comprehension. It will also alienate the environmental minority and the “not in my backyard” majority. National polls showing 60% in favor of nuclear power are irrelevant—try building a plant in their area. Inevitable local opposition will turn any new nuclear plant into a 10–20 year project, even if approved by national authorities.

Nuclear is not equitable. In the United States, the nuclear industry has been so legally advantaged in terms of liability that one wonders how it has withstood a real constitutional challenge. France’s immunization of nuclear power is even more extreme. Nuclear waste is still a problem. Previously claimed economic advantages are now doubtful. Costs per kilowatt of nuclear power are twice to four times what estimates were only several years ago.

HYDROGEN, ETHANOL, AND PALM OIL

Hydrogen is essentially a carrier of energy. It takes almost as much direct and indirect energy to produce it as it carries. It is a “killer application” straw man. Its advocates are either ill-informed or determined to hinder implementation of more immediate, doable, and efficient energy alternatives. The documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? highlights this.

Corn ethanol is similar to hydrogen in that it takes almost as much energy to produce as it carries. Sugarcane ethanol, on the other hand, produces nine units of energy for every energy unit invested. But it has several problems. Brazil, the world’s largest producer, consumes all the ethanol it produces and will likely continue to do so as its economy expands. Other potential developing-world producers will be small and likely use any product they generate domestically. The expansion of sugarcane farming is beginning to impact on rain forests, so its environmental benefits are becoming ever more doubtful.

Palm oil is an environmental catastrophe—its growth is destroying wide swaths of rain forest. Sugarcane ethanol and palm oil might be redeemed by genetic engineering that enables their growth in desert areas with high-salinity water. This would be a worthwhile research initiative but not a doable solution in a reasonable amount of time.

DRILLING

Even Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens says drilling cannot solve the problem. The U.S. Department of Energy writes the following about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) “solution”:

If permission for drilling were given tomorrow the first barrel of oil would be produced by 2018.

Production would peak in 2028 at 800,000 barrels a day (mean estimate) and then decline.

According to the Energy Information Administration of the United States, in April 2008 the United States was consuming 19.8 million barrels of oil a day, down from the 20.6 million a day the previous April: a savings of 811,000 barrels a day. In other words, in one year, the United States had a net gain equal to the total projected production of the ANWR in 2028. Yet, the price of oil doubled during the same period.

PEAK OIL OR PEAK AVAILABILITY

The debate about “peak oil” is bogus unless one assumes “peak technology.” Given advancing technologies in deep-ocean drilling and extraction from oil sands and oil shale, known and recoverable oil reserves will probably sustain themselves in coming years. But developing these resources entails enormous capital outlays and long lead times. The recent deep-ocean discovery of Brazil (an estimated 9 billion barrels of reserves—similar to ANWR in size) is a case in point. It will cost about $150 billion to develop and, like ANWR, will take more than a decade before the first barrel of oil is extracted. Both the Brazilian field and ANWR will be worth this tremendous investment only if the price of oil remains at the present high level or goes even higher. In other words, drilling is not the solution to high fuel prices; it is contingent upon continued high prices.

As energy maven Chris Nelder points out in an outstanding article in the March-April 2009 issue of The Futurist, the real systemic problem is “peak exports” or “peak availability” of oil. By the time ANWR and new offshore resources in the United States, Brazil, and elsewhere get fully online, their combined production will not equal the ongoing decline in exports from oil-producing countries due to increased domestic consumption.

All 14 major oil exporters are moving up the value chain by developing petrochemical industries that use a growing percentage of their domestic oil production. Their citizens are also buying automobiles at a dizzying rate. All, except Norway, have had double-digit yearly increases in domestic oil consumption since 2005.

In 2020, Russia will probably still be pumping 10 million barrels a day, but most likely will be consuming 5 million barrels rather than the 3 million they are today; in 2028, it will still be pumping 10 million barrels a day but consuming 7 million barrels. We must remember that the United States was the world’s largest oil exporter in the 1930s but became a net importer soon after World War II.

Exports from Africa will remain static as Nigeria’s exports decline. Booming Brazil will consume all the energy it produces. The domestic energy consumption of the rest of Latin America will burgeon. Venezuela’s production has declined significantly under Chavez; more-competent governance will likely lead to increased production but also increased domestic consumption. The same is true of Iran. If the Islamic regime stays in power, production will continue to stagnate. A progressive regime change will likely lead to increased production, but also to improved development and increased domestic consumption.

Mexico’s constitution forbids foreign investments in the oil sector. Its major fields are rapidly declining. Domestic consumption is increasing. By 2020, Mexico’s exports to the United States could decline to a trickle. Mexico might even be on the verge of becoming a net oil importer, like Indonesia this past year. It is already down to a little more than a million barrels a day, as production from its biggest field has dropped 34% in 2008 alone. Projections for Canadian oil sands cannot make up this difference.

Persian Gulf countries are now investing huge sums in economic diversification, which, along with population growth and increased standard of living, are pressuring exports downward.

What Can Be Done?

CONSERVATION AND ACCUMULATION OF GREENHOUSE EMISSION CREDITS

Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars should be advantaged for licensing and other taxes. All nonemergency vehicles purchased by governments (federal, state, and local in the United States) should be hybrids, plug-in-hybrids, or electric by 2010. Purchasers, whether private or governmental, would earn greenhouse emission credits that they could sell to the coal liquefaction program (see below), thus providing an additional economic incentive advantaging these technologies. It is reasonable to assume that this policy would result in a decline in the consumption of liquid fuels for transportation of 150,000–200,000  barrels a day every year from inception. By 2020, the United States could be consuming less than 18 million barrels of liquid fuel daily.

Incandescent bulbs should be banned by 2010. Replacing a single incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent light (CFL) will keep half a ton of CO₂ out of the atmosphere over the life of the bulb. It is estimated that, if everyone in the United States used energy-efficient lighting, 50 average-sized coal-powered plants could close. Similar savings could be achieved in the EU, Japan, and South Korea.

Alternative energy companies could sell their products/services to homes and businesses as “loss leaders” or “at cost” in order to accumulate greenhouse emission credits, which they could also sell, making the price of alternative energy technologies more attractive. Consequent increased volume of sales would generate economies of scale and further lower the cost of dispersed solar and wind power.

LIQUEFACTION OF COAL

The technologies for coal liquefaction have been available since before World War II and can produce a barrel of oil for about $30. Opposition derives from the fact that they release more CO₂ in the conversion process than the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel from petroleum.

To assuage environmentalist opposition, liquefaction installations would be permitted to become operational on the condition that they produce a half a ton of CO₂ for every ton of greenhouse gases eliminated by other methods of producing energy. By trading a half a ton of CO₂ for a ton of CO_2, the environment would get a 2×1 benefit. Trading a half a ton of CO₂ for a ton of methane, and the environment would get a 20×1 benefit. This would give the coal industry an economic incentive to get behind some of the green alternatives described below.

The United States has the largest recoverable reserves of coal in the world—equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves. An energy/ environment program that includes coal would generate local jobs and augment local tax bases, garnering support among the working and middle class. If we do not help coal become a friend of the environment, we are in trouble. It is the fastest-growing fuel source in the world and the most democratic—found on every continent and in almost every country. Millions of people depend on it for their livings. Glib declamations about banning coal are not doable and are dysfunctional to a rational energy and environmental strategy.

Coal liquefaction installations could be manufactured serially, much as Liberty ships were manufactured in World War II or F16 fighter planes are manufactured today, using the underutilized manufacturing and human resources of America’s industrial heartland in the upper Midwest. Operating licenses would be contingent on the coal companies purchasing greenhouse emission credits to offset liquefaction emissions.

Within five years, the United States could be producing 1 to 2 million barrels of liquefied coal daily; within 10 years, this could increase to 4 million barrels a day. The upper amount would be limited only by the availability of greenhouse emission credits and new (cleaner) liquefaction technologies.

CAPPED WELLS

There are approximately 200,000 capped wells in the United States. With current technology, each well could produce 5–10 barrels of oil a day. Within one or two years, these wells could produce more oil per day than ANWR would after 20 years. What is needed are sufficient government guarantees in the form of long-term contracts and low-interest loans as an incentive for small oil producers to bring these wells back into production. Given historical precedent, we can reasonably expect that new technologies that increase production rates and well life span would quickly follow.

This policy would be environmentally beneficial in several ways. It would avert the use of bunker fuel for the tankers transporting imported oil. Bunker is the most-polluting transportation fuel in use today. The combined world merchant fleet spews as much noxious gas into the atmosphere as does the entire United States. Reduced tanker traffic also lessens the risk of tanker accidents and oil spills and eliminates the ballast detritus that oil tankers flush into the oceans before entering port. Capped wells are also poorly supervised and often leak into ground water, so bringing them back into production would minimize these problems.

Lastly, reactivating capped wells would generate local jobs and augment the local tax base. Tens of thousands of them are owned by thousands of small oilmen, who have been begging the government to look at this option for a short-term bridging solution to the energy crises.

T. BOONE PICKENS PLAN

This oilman turned wind-power guru has an interesting concept. Replace the 22% of domestically produced natural gas used for electrical generation with wind power. Turn the natural gas into liquid (LNG) to be used for transportation. The amount of natural gas obtained would be the equivalent of 38% of America’s current oil imports—more than 4 million barrels. Pickens claims that this could be achieved within 10 years and would cut hundreds of millions of dollars off of America’s trade deficit.

The obvious caveat to his proposal is that gas-fired plants less than 30–40 years old will not be decommissioned even if wind power is available. If he modified his plan to decommission gas- and coalfired plants over the next 10 years, with the coal thus saved becoming available for liquefaction, this concept could probably realize a replacement of several million barrels of oil a day also. Another modification might be to convert the gas into methanol rather than LNG. This would advantage the concept of flex-fuel engines and freedom of choice in transportation fuels.

Wind replacing natural gas and LNG or methanol replacing gasoline are both environmental pluses. Again, the sale of greenhouse emission credits to the coal industry would be an additional incentive. If hybrids and plug-in hybrids were modified to use LNG or methanol in their flex-fuel internal combustion component, there would be a tremendous multiplier effect in terms of oil consumption and environmental benefit.

The above three steps could add between 5 and 10 million barrels of domestic liquid fuel production by 2020. The conservative estimate of 5 million barrels would be a combination of 1.5 to 2 million barrels for each of the above solutions. But let’s say that enough greenhouse emission credits were accumulated to enable coal liquefaction to the tune of 4 million barrels, and T. Boone Pickens’s optimal vision of 4 million barrels is also realized.

Let us further imagine that a new technology for extracting oil from capped wells comes online, greatly increasing productivity. Global Resources Corp. of New Jersey claims that its microwave technology can extract 100 barrels a day from abandoned wells. If this is so, then the optimistic prediction of 10 million barrels a day in aggregate becomes not so farfetched. But even if the Global Resources claim turns out to be unrealistic, can anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge of economic history doubt that a national policy dedicated to bringing capped wells back to life will attract a load of R&D and encourage much technological innovation in this area? Indeed, a prize of $1 billion (offered by the government or a private factor) for the first company that can strip 90% of the remaining oil in capped wells at a rate of 50 barrels a day for a cost of $30 or less would almost guarantee that such a technology would be developed forthwith. Such a development would guarantee 10 million barrels a day for the next 100 years from rejuvenated capped wells alone.

But assuming the minimum, and further assuming conventional domestic oil production declining to 5 million barrels a day while consumption has declined to 18 million barrels a day, the United States would be importing 8 million barrels a day, compared with 12 million today. If the optimal 10 million barrels is achieved, the United States would be importing only 3 million barrels a day, mostly from Canada.

LIKELY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE NEXT DECADE

Ethanol and Other Biofuels from Algae, Sewage, Manure,

TRASH, AND GARBAGE

There are dozens of companies around the world, funded by tens of millions of dollars of venture capital, working intensively on this. The biomass is enormous, and breakthroughs could generate millions of barrels of additional liquid fuel by 2020. Algae alone could generate 2.5 million barrels on a surface area the size of Connecticut (equal to several corn-growing counties in Iowa). Algae are the ultimate sequester of CO₂—their primary feedstock for growth.

Algae-growing installations could be constructed vertically (to gain maximum surface area while optimizing land use) adjacent to fossil fuel power plants and other CO_2-emitting installations. One must wonder why the coal industry hasn’t become a champion of this energy strategy.

Landfills around the world create as much greenhouse gas in the form of methane as all the vehicles in the world. They leak toxic poisons into groundwater and pollute the soil as well as coastal areas. Economically, they are a stupid example of land use. Very few if any sewage-processing installations are hermetic and 100% efficient; they also pollute groundwater and commercial fisheries. In essence, wasteto-fuel would be a recycling of hydrocarbons—of civilization eating its own waste (the ultimate renewable) in order to endure.

Ethanol from algae could become commercially viable within the next several years and provide us with another powerful weapon in the energy war. E10 (gas with a 10% ethanol additive) can be used without retrofitting infrastructure or automobiles. The equivalent of 9.1 million barrels of oil is consumed every day in the United States as gasoline. If it were possible to mandate the universal use of E10 today, it would replace the equivalent of 911,000 barrels of oil a day (more than the projected ANWR output in 2028).

An “Energy Peace Corps” of engineering and science students could help lower-income groups to convert cars past warranty to flex-fuel engines capable of burning gasoline with 85% ethanol. If a conversion kit costs $400 retail, you could convert 10 million cars for

$4 billion. Buying in bulk at $200 a kit, you could convert 20 million cars for $4 billion. For $10 billion (the monthly cost of the Iraq war), you could convert 50 million cars, which is approximately one-fifth of the American fleet, saving at a minimum an additional 1.5 million barrels a day. Plug-in hybrids with flex-fuel engines using E85 could be getting 500 miles to the gallon of gasoline. The sale of greenhouse emission credits to the coal industry would enhance the economic benefits of these fuels also. The creation of such a huge market would further drive investment and innovation, increasing production and lowering costs.

ELECTRIC CARS

Various technological and conceptual developments are beginning to interact with increasing consumer receptiveness to the electric car. Greatly improved batteries, quicker recharging mechanisms, and innovative infrastructure concepts are converging.

One intriguing model is Project Better Place, the brainchild of Israeli high-tech innovator Shai Agassi, who has formed a threepronged alliance with the State of Israel, Nissan-Renault, and international venture capital around an idea based on the mobile-phone model—you pay a monthly service fee for the battery and the electrical charge. They envision 150 battery-changing stations around Israel, where drivers can exchange a drained battery for a fully charged one in less time than it takes to fill up a tank of gas. The battery-changing stations will be supplemented with tens of thousands of plug-in points in parking areas around the country.

The beauty of this concept is that it makes intermittent renewables such as solar and wind competitive without subsidies. In Israel, the battery stations will be recharged by solar, and in Denmark (the second country to sign on) by wind. The idea is particularly attractive to geographic or geopolitical islands. Japan, South Korea, and Hawaii have all expressed interest in the project.

Of course, Agassi’s model might be trumped by other developments, such as batteries with a 200-mile range that are capable of being fully charged in less than an hour. This in effect would give an electric car infinite range when taking into consideration how real human beings actually drive. Who does not have two to four rest and refreshment stops over a 200-mile trip? During these 10- to 15-minute pit stops, or 30- to 40-minute food stops, drivers could top off their batteries at convenient recharging parking areas. Interstate highway and state turnpike rest stops could be required to set up recharging installations. Municipalities could require shopping malls to do the same. Fast-food chains would compete for customers by dedicating parts of their parking lots to recharging installations. In short, both by mandate and by competition, such installations would quickly become ubiquitous.

The environmental benefits of electric cars are self-evident. Various studies show that driving on electricity, even from coal-fired grids, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Using renewables, the environmental benefits would be multiplied.

CONCLUSION

The focus of this article has been on the United States, but energy, especially oil, is fungible. The EU, Japan, and the rest of the OECD could do much to relieve the global pressure on energy supplies. Mandating and advantaging hybrids and electric cars as well as compact fluorescent and LED bulbs would be a first obvious step.

Countries could focus their foreign-aid efforts on making the developing world energy self-sufficient. On the principle of a half a ton of greenhouse emissions for every ton saved, they could build coal liquefaction plants in many developing countries. When waste-tofuel technologies become commercialized, they could be put into operation in every developing country. Not only would this have economic benefits, since developing countries suffer the most from energy volatility, it would also create jobs and promote public health. Smoldering landfills and running sewage are among the greatest threats to public health in these countries.

In short, if the free world resolves that by 2020 humankind be liberated from its addiction to oil, and by doing so greatly lessen greenhouse emissions, it will be done.

EPILOGUE: THE DEEP FUTURE

The above is essentially a bridging strategy, designed to get human civilization to 2050 safely. The LNG/methanol, coal, and cappedwell gambits, being finite, will also run out of steam within 30 to 100 years from inception.

The deep future will depend on continued progress in algae growth and waste-to-fuel technologies. Human civilization must start planning to become a closed system by 2100 —i.e., 100% recycling of all human waste and zero externalization into the commons. Sewage and waste-disposal systems would become the major source of fuel, and the environment would gradually cleanse itself back into a relatively pristine state. Algae growth would top off any fuel shortfalls.

But energy productivity must become the dominant theme in policy strategies. New lighting technologies, smart materials, and super-light composites (along with 100% recycling) will enable humanity to maintain a rich consumerist civilization at declining cost to both the economy and the environment. The theoretical underpinnings for such a vision already exist in the “cradle-to-cradle” philosophy of Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart. This is not “pie in the sky”; their “theory” is already being commercialized by a forprofit business: McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry LLC.

By the end of the century, lighting technologies will have transcended CFLs and even LEDs. Buildings will be built from smart materials that heat when it is cold and cool when it is hot, as well as turn sunlight into electricity. They will also have mini-depolymerization units that turn domestic sewage and garbage into fuel. Buildings will have become completely independent, self-sustaining energy units.

Airplanes, vehicles, and trains will be built from super-light composites (the proper use of hydrocarbons) that at present are prohibitively expensive but that industrial engineers will eventually learn how to produce cheaply. Imagine the savings in fuel if a jumbo jet weighed only 50 tons rather than 400 tons. The same principle applies to cars, trucks, trains, elevators, ships, construction machinery, port installations—in short, anything that consumes energy in order to move. And if the fuel is an algae or waste derivative (infinitely renewable), you will, in effect, have solved the problem.

The possibilities of space might also have become a reality by 2100. All mineral extraction could come from the asteroid belt or the Moon, and we would enable our precious planet to heal its scars. Space elevators would lift up toxic waste to be disposed of in that great incinerator in the sky called the Sun, and bring down raw materials and finished products. Energy for the solar economy would be provided by space-solar energy generators capable of operating 24/7.

Our home, this Earth, will have become a bedroom community instead of the gigantic waste dump we have made it.

FINAL NOTE: THE OPTICAL ILLUSION OF PLUMMETING OIL PRICES

With the price of a barrel of oil dropping more than $100 within a six-month span, the shortsighted temptation will be to dismiss the above. But since futurists think about the future, consider the following.

The International Energy Agency has just published a report that the world’s 450 biggest oil fields are depleting at a rate of 9.1% a year. This means that, barring major new oil discoveries, world production could fall 38% to 52 million barrels a day by 2013.

Even if oil consumption held at the present 85 million barrels a day, there is no way new oil discoveries could make up for a 38% drop in production from existing fields. All the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would supply the world for only six months (using the most optimistic estimate of reserves). The world would need four to five new Saudi Arabias by 2030 just to stay at 85 million barrels a day. Alaska, deep-ocean drilling, new offshore drilling, drilling in national parks—raping the land for every last drop of oil—could not even begin to offset these declines. Add in the fact that, with our present energy paradigm, consumption is predicted to grow to 130 million barrels a day over the next 30 years or so, and we must conclude that this energy paradigm is unsustainable.

Enjoy present oil prices while you can. As the world’s economy recovers, we will be approaching $150 a barrel oil in the next four to five years.