From Denial to Recovery

I am the first to admit, we really do take for granted the energy we consume in our everyday lives. Be it in our homes, at work, at play or in public areas such as the local mall or in our community churches, we use large amounts. And although we have a long way to go, the recent spikes in gas prices have caused many of us to no longer dismiss energy conservation as an activity left for our neighbors to practice. We all have a role to play. The average American consumer is starting to get past its conservation denial and move on to recovery.

Indeed, many of us now recycle, purchase artificial Christmas trees, stop littering the Nation's freeways and byways, carpool, use 40 watt light bulbs, and have cut back our water use. These same market forces that caused us to change our ways are even bringing about innovation and timely succor to the earth's ozone. It used to be a rare sight to see a hybrid car on the road, but since energy prices started their ascent, automakers are now offering attractive hybrids at affordable prices.

In spite of these positive lifestyle changes, my green friends, who seem to enjoy finger pointing at other, shall we say, "less conscientious" friends for not doing more to lessen their environmental footprint have become arrogantly adept at highlighting the problems, but sorely ineffectual in offering up viable solutions. The problem is, they are deliberately unreasonable when they blindly deny that we need traditional energy sources to sustain our way of life, heat our homes and to keep our economy strong. They spew out old and tired clichés about America's oil dependence with condescending and nauseatingly self-righteous lecturing.

Long unsatisfied with the protests and rallies of the past, these groups have been executing an intense campaign of frivolous lawsuits, political fundraising for sympathetic candidates and resorted to extreme publicity stunts (Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, etc.). Even when it comes to renewable energy, they are not completely honest. It seems that each time I agree with them and try to get specific about which alternative energy source we should collectively focus on embracing, I am curtly told there is a problem with this source or that one.

Indulge me for a bit as I list some of the most popular negatives as laid out by the green faction to some of these renewable sources.

Hydropower:
It's cheap, unlimited, and reliable right? Well, activists and environmentalists advocates have fought to keep new dams from being built because they argue the nature of hydroelectric systems will often cause the water to take on higher temperatures, lose oxygen content, experience siltation, and cause gains in phosphorus and nitrogen content. As a result, hydropower may have irreversible impacts to natural habitats and thereby reduce fish stock throughout watershed and rivers. And so, they conclude, those working to make hydropower our premiere renewable energy source are swimming upstream.

Bio Mass:
Biomass pollutes the air, causes nauseous smells, and many reject it as a viable option because burning biomass fuels release those nasty greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Plus, it's an expensive source, both in terms of producing the biomass and converting it to alcohols. As a result, they affirm, efforts to have biomass as the renewable energy option that will save our planet have gone up in smoke.

Wind Power:
Who could have a problem with harnessing the wind in order to supply our energy needs? Our green friends of course. Wind power you see, has been found to cause unacceptable rates of raptor mortality and their unsightly presence dotting our public lands have caused a growing number of advocates to join the fight to reduce new windmills from being built. But there's more; Wind power is also relatively expensive to maintain, and the very diffuse source means it requires large numbers of wind generators (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity. So according to them it turns out that those advocating for wind power to become an abundant renewable energy source are full of air.

Nuclear Energy:
Where do I even start with this one? When one begins to even mention nuclear energy as a possibility to fix our energy problems, the activists will invoke the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history; Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are two classic examples often mentioned as to why we should fight against new plants from being built. Admittedly, it is hard for one to hold up the benefits of nuclear power when the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle are thrown in your face with such compelling examples of tragedies and near-misses. There is also the very real problem associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste. They then will tell you that those who argue for nuclear energy as an option will only suffer a frustrating meltdown.

Solar Energy:
Admittedly, this is not a problem cited by our green faction. Here the issue is that only areas of the world with lots of sunlight are suitable for solar power generation, and the very diffuse source means low energy production - which means large numbers of solar panels (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of energy. Furthermore, the initial cost of a solar panel large enough to provide useful amounts of electricity is very expensive. As a result, very few homeowners or businesses can afford them. Unless solar panels can be made much cheaper, people won't buy them.
But currently, there is an issue regarding the polysilicon supply, the raw material used to produce photovoltaic cells. The shortage has caused prices for polysilicon to more than double over the last two years, which means plans to have the market deliver affordable solar technology anytime soon have fizzled out.

Really, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. No energy source meets their absurdly unrealistic standards of acceptability.

Energy That Falls out of the Sky:
Fortunately for us all, energy, the kind with zero impact to the environment, will soon be falling from the sky to power our washing machines, factories, automobiles, Nintendo video game consoles and our suburban shopping malls. Santo remedio!

Pipe dream you say? You are absolutely right. So if our friends are against nuclear energy, wind power, bio-mass energy, hydropower and solar energy continues to be sold at caviar prices, how then do we meet demand, continue the historic GDP growth, and sustain our way of life?

While we wait for innovation and technology to catch up and meet our energy demand, and while we wait on our green friends to get over their energy denial, the rest of us have been brought to our knees with no relief of energy prices in sight.

There is a better way. We can make smart use of traditional natural resources. To be clear, I am referring to oil and natural gas.

But even here we have self-inflicted wounds. Numerous Federal government restrictions continue to stifle exploration for natural gas in the Rocky Mountain region, and on public lands across Alaska. Oil and gas leases on federal lands are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act to name a few.

Our zeal to protect and preserve our planet have caused us to approve policies that have created damaging restrictions to access, crippled our delivery infrastructure, and stifled exploration of oil and natural gas reserves. Copious and often unreasonable lawsuits by environmental groups have thwarted even the most cursory explorations of oil and gas reserves.

Natural Gas:
The country produces 84% of its natural gas domestically, but while 95% of the new power plants will be fueled by clean-burning natural gas, mature basins are declining, and the available supply of natural gas is not meeting the growing demand. To make matters worse, natural gas producers say they have to run their wells harder to stay even--which means digging more but less productive wells.

Then there is the problem of delivery. One thing is to extract the oil, another is to deliver it for processing. State and local governments have made it almost impossible to build new pipeline systems and ships that transport vast amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the oceans are finding it a challenge to increase the amount of cargo given the limited infrastructure and the number of processing plants (only five in the U.S.).

Compounding the natural gas problem is that almost two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves can be found in five countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, Russia and Iran have almost half the world's natural gas reserves. The other major sources of reserves are found in West Africa and Latin America. Unquestionably, these are all very difficult regions to deal with.

Restrictions on public lands are no small thing mind you. Consider that the Interior Department alone manages more than 500 million acres of public land, or one out of every five acres of U.S. land. These lands account for 30 percent of America's domestic energy production, including 48 percent of geothermal production, 35 percent of natural gas production (25 percent offshore and 10 percent onshore), 35 percent of coal production, 35 percent of oil production (30 percent offshore and 5 percent onshore), 20 percent of wind power, and 17 percent of hydropower.

o In Nevada alone, the Federal Government owns and administers 87% of the state's land.
o The federal government owns and administers 67 percent of Alaska's total acreage.
o The federal government owns and administers about 37 percent of the land in Montana as well.

To be sure, the United States has plenty of natural gas reserves. The government's Energy Information Agency (EIA) believes (conservatively) that there are 1,279.5 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources in the United States alone. That is sufficient to take care of America's natural gas demand for fifty to seventy-five years, depending on the growth in demand.

By severely restricting or simply banning drilling access to gas fields in the Rockies, the Arctic, the eastern Gulf, and the Outer Continental Shelf in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, we have artificially created a supply shortage for the country.

A Department of Energy report indicates that over the next 20 years, consumption of natural gas in the United States is projected to grow by more than 50%; while production, if it grows at the rate of the last 10 years, will grow by only 14% (as per the Energy Information Administration). Needless to say, we are headed for a natural gas crisis if we do not take steps to revert the trend.

Oil:
Energy denial is most acute whenever people start talking about the need to increase domestic production of oil. They claim the amount that can be produced will not be enough to make the United States energy independent. I agree. But that shouldn't stop us from lessening our dependence. Our denial has created a disastrous and bleak energy future.

As domestic oil production has continued its decline, the U.S. had to import 58% of its petroleum needs in 2004 to keep its economy roaring at historical growth levels. These oil imports cost more than $150 billion and it is estimated that Americans lost thousands of high-paying jobs. The price of gasoline has nearly doubled over the last three years because of the escalating price of oil. The cost of turning oil into gasoline has also risen because of costly federal regulations on refinery operations and expansions. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.
And even though the clamoring for gasoline has been inadequately met thus far by expansions of existing refineries, it has come with considerable difficulty.

As is the case with natural gas, there currently exist strict prohibitions to explore and develop oil reserves on the east and west outer continental shelves of the United States - mainly off the Gulf Coast of Florida and the coast of California.

Today's younger generation wouldn't know it, but back in the late 70's, many experts declared with smug assuredness that 30 billion barrels of oil was all that was left in the ground. My guess is that given the rate of production at the time it probably meant we would be back to burning small logs of wood to heat our homes by the 1990s. Since then, we have pumped out an additional 67 billion barrels of oil. Today, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 10 billion barrels are recoverable from one small area alone, enough to increase known domestic reserves by 50 percent. I am of course referring to Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The House and Senate have actually voted to open ANWR in the past, but they have regrettably failed to come to an agreement on one acceptable bill. The Administration came within three votes of opening ANWR for development. But today ANWR remains off-limits to exploration while we take on more imports, oil prices continue spiking to absurd levels as demand continues to grow faster than existing domestic production.

The restricted patch of vast and mostly desolate land is considered by many to be America's single largest untapped source of oil. A new bill, the American-Made Energy Freedom Act (H.R. 5890), would open it to energy development and use the billions in ANWR leasing and royalty revenues to fund alternative energy projects. Moreover, the Act limits production to the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, leaving 17.5 million of ANWR's 19 million acres untouched. Most importantly, the surface disturbance on the coastal plain is further limited to no more than 2,000 acres.

Below is a listing of by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that details how oil from ANWR would power each state based on oil potential (10.4 billion barrels*) and petroleum consumption by state using statistics provided by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), the U.S. Dept of the Interior calculated the number of years that ANWR oil would power each state.

State & Number of Years ANWR Oil Would Supply State:
Alabama	103	Montana	342
Alaska	203	Nebraska	255
Arizona	108	Nevada	226
Arkansas	146	New Hampshire	315
California	16	New Jersey	46
Colorado	120	New Mexico	222
Connecticut	132	New York	34
Delaware	399	North Carolina	58
DC	1,710	North Dakota	399
Florida	29	Ohio	43
Georgia	54	Oklahoma	97
Hawaii	249	Oregon	155
Idaho	363	Pennsylvania	39
Illinois	43	Rhode Island	570
Indiana	68	South Carolina	120
Iowa	132	South Dakota	499
Kansas	141	Tennessee	80
Kentucky	79	Texas	9
Louisiana	36	Utah	218
Maine	249	Vermont	598
Maryland	100	Virginia	62
Massachusetts	75	Washington	68
Michigan	52	West Virginia	266
Minnesota	84	Wisconsin	83
Mississippi	116	Wyoming	374
Missouri	77

10.4 Billion Barrels of Oil is the mean volume USGS estimates for technically recoverable conventional oil in the entire assessment area of ANWR; including federal lands, native-owned private lands and state-regulated waters.

Bottom line is, the opportunities offered by opening exploration and drilling in ANWR cannot be ignored, we do so at our peril.

Conclusion:
Transforming personal commitment and public policy into a healthy, just, and competitive society is essential to sustaining robust economic development in a world of increasing growth and vast opportunities. To that end, Congress should require strict energy conservation, demand investments in technology, promote building nuclear power plants and oil refineries, make hydrogen and fuel cell technology a high priority, and yes, authorize ANWR exploration and drilling. Americans should also drop our energy denial and pass sensible policy that ensures we will have vast and varied sources of energy to heat our homes, sustain our way of life, and keeps our Nation strong.

Daniel Garza is President of Hispanic and PODER Group