I realize that the meandering post below is not as cohesive as was desired when I first began the ramble, but, perhaps there are a few things within that make sense.
Somewhere between "Drill Baby, Drill" and "The TreeHuggers Lament" is a balance that should define our approach to energy. We are responsible for being good stewards of the resources of this planet. That includes our environment and all of the things encompassed by that word -- plants, animals, water, soil, air, etc.
Stewardship implies use. It does not mean that we "preserve" something at the cost of humanity.
The basic issue upon which the dichotomous views toward energy development turn is that of a human-centric view of the world versus one in which humanity has no value greater than any other thing -- at least on the surface. In reality, it is a much more elitist view. Those who would have you think that humanity has no greater value than anything else hold themselves at a much higher value than others. In other words, it is a purely self-centric view. It is a view that one group, those who worship the earth, are of greater value than those who do not.
Among those who value humanity above other things, there is also a division in views. There is a split between those whose view is very near-term (usually no greater than a few days at the least or their own lifetime at the most) and those who take a generational view -- one that includes a responsible attitude that extends beyond their own lifetime. Again, it is a difference between those who are self-centered and those who look beyond personal self-interests.
Ultimately, the division is between those who are purely self-seeking and those who feel a responsibility beyond self.
In the end, an attitude that is purely centered on self will result in destruction because there is no building for the future. The extension of this philosophy of life would logically indicate that self-serving attitudes result in the destruction of the family, the country and ultimately, humanity.
The instinct for self-preservation, should at some point, trigger a cooperative effort. For the individual whose view is of long periods of time, this point is reached quickly. For those whose focus is in the immediate, this view is not reached until faced with chaotic, destructive forces beyond their control.
Applying this train of thought to our national situation we should become aware of a couple of things. First, the focus on immediate gratification in our society would imply that, as a nation, we have a very short-term view. Second, the acquisitive nature of our society would imply a highly self-centered attitude is the norm. When taken together, these two factors alone indicate the source of our headlong rush to destruction.
So, how does this apply to energy policy?
At both ends of the spectrum we see self-interest as the driving force, although among the "treehuggers" it is disguised in the rhetoric of something else. Each of these interests are pulling in opposite directions. Normally, when you have forces pulling in opposite direction it is accompanied by a ripping sound.
On the one hand is the drive to "preserve" and on the other the desire to develop. In the end, the balance would be responsible development with an extended view that looks to future generations.
I am a firm believer in the free market. I think that if allowed to work without interference, the market will ultimately achieve balance. We do not have a free market. We have energy subsidies on the one hand and we have burdensome "environmental" regulations on the other.
Subsidies can be a useful policy tool. When used properly with a view to national security interests, they can drive behavior in a manner that protects the interests of the nation. When used improperly, they can lead to corruption.
"Environmental" regulations also can be a useful tool. They should protect the interests of the whole so that "bad" individual behavior is corrected. Clean air, clean water and safe products are in the best interests of the nation. There is a tremendous "health cost" burden when such are not available. This "health cost" is both direct (medical bills) and indirect (lost productivity or individual impairment).
Nation-states were formed when individuals of common interest banded together for protection. Always, there was a cost to personal freedom and a gain to personal preservation. It was a balance between individuals of competing interests. The same balance applied between different nation-states.
Energy production must achieve a balance between competing interests (the present versus the future) that maximizes the benefit for all -- both today and in future generations. The answer is not wind or solar. The answer is not in fossil fuels alone. The answer is probably not nuclear. The answer will be in new technologies. In the interim however, we will cross the bridge that is composed of all of the available technologies into a future that we would not recognize if we were suddenly transported in time to that far off day -- given of course that there are still humans left alive to experience it.
Meanwhile, the "Blob of Contention" between current and future needs drifts aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico.
No comments:
Post a Comment