The Permanent Energy Crisis  

Michael Klare asks the question "Just how addicted to oil are we ?" and predicts we are about to enter a permanent energy crisis (via GristMill).

The Bush administration largely rejects the very idea of climate change -- only the Pentagon and NASA seem to take it seriously -- and the main form of alternative energy that really interests them right now, nuclear energy, is essentially another form of addiction. Elsewhere in the world, there are people putting some thought into the onrushing crisis we face, but not us. The Chinese, worried about their energy future, have not only been stomping the planet from Sudan and Iran to Venezuela looking to nail down their long-term fossil-fuel fixes, but have been putting some time, energy, and thought into renewables. Sweden has, remarkably enough, just launched a fifteen-year plan to make itself the first advanced industrial country to go permanently off oil. (Already, 26% of the energy consumed there comes from renewables.) But not us.

...

President Bush's State of the Union comment that the United States is "addicted to oil" can be read as pure political opportunism. With ever more Americans expressing anxiety about high oil prices, freakish weather patterns, and abiding American ties to unsavory foreign oil potentates, it is hardly surprising that Bush sought to portray himself as an advocate of the development of alternative energy systems. But there is another, more ominous way to read his comments: that top officials have come to realize that the United States and the rest of the world face a new and growing danger – a permanent energy crisis that imperils the health and well-being of every society on earth.

To be sure, the United States has experienced severe energy crises before: the 1973-74 "oil shock" with its mile-long gas lines; the 1979-80 crisis following the fall of the Shah of Iran; the 2000-01 electricity blackouts in California, among others. But the crisis taking shape in 2006 has a new look to it. First of all, it is likely to last for decades, not just months or a handful of years; second, it will engulf the entire planet, not just a few countries; and finally, it will do more than just cripple the global economy -- its political, military, and environmental effects will be equally severe.

...

Although we cannot hope to foresee all the ways such forces will affect the global human community, the primary vectors of the permanent energy crisis can be identified and charted. Three such vectors, in particular, demand attention: a slowing in the growth of energy supplies at a time of accelerating worldwide demand; rising political instability provoked by geopolitical competition for those supplies; and mounting environmental woes produced by our continuing addiction to oil, natural gas, and coal. Each of these would be cause enough for worry, but it is their intersection that we need to fear above all.

Sweden's plan to be free of oil dependency in 15 years has been reported widely - Grist has a good collection of links.

It's official: Sweden is the coolest ... country ... evar. Already widely admired for meatballs, Ikea, and, um, other Swedish stuff, the country has now announced its aim to have an oil-free economy by 2020. The Swedes cut the percentage of their energy coming from oil from 77 percent in 1970 to 32 percent in 2003, and they're favoring biofuels over nuclear power to get them down to zero. Only 8 percent of Swedish homes are heated by oil today, and thanks to tax breaks, Swedes can fill their Saabs with ethanol-based fuel for a third less than they'd spend on ordinary gasoline.

Upon hearing that President Bush had declared America addicted to oil, Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson expressed relief that "at last there's one more who understands the problem." Guess he didn't get Bush's "didn't mean it" follow-up memo. Awkward!

SBS's "Dateline" program on Wednesday takes a look at the movie Syriana and makers Participant Productions.

Grist has a review of the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car ?" which screened at the Sundance Film Festival.

The first film I saw, Who Killed the Electric Car?, tracks the demise of a short-lived, much-loved piece of advanced technology. Though writer-director Chris Paine structured his film like a whodunit, it comes across as more of a love story.

Throughout the first half of the film, a passionate band of devotees gushes about the cars. It's the kind of crew you'd expect in a movie like this -- environmental activists, progressive politicians, and "Americans Like You." But they're also joined by some unlikely allies, including engineers, GM salespeople, and Mel Gibson and Tom Hanks, recruited by the automakers to lend star power to their marketing.

Then the film shifts, becoming like a game of Clue. We witness the slow but inevitable death of the electric car, enabled by the rollback of the California mandate. Then we meet the lineup of suspects -- automakers, oil companies, the Air Resources Board, even the American consumer -- each of whom had their reasons for committing, or abetting, the murder. Although it's obvious from the outset where Paine's sympathies lie, he gives time to both sides, letting the evidence speak for itself. And it is damning: most of the suspects are guilty.

In the end, Electric Car seemed most successful at allowing viewers to fall in love with its cute, yet doomed, main character. By the time the last models were on their way to be demolished, some people around me were quietly wiping away tears. As the film ended, the audience responded with an emotional and enthusiastic standing ovation.

Also at Sundance was Al Gore's global warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

The day before I saw it, I overheard two facts about the film: 1) it was so good, all the screenings had sold out; 2) it featured Gore giving a lecture with PowerPoint slides and charts.

Incongruous, yes, but sure enough, there's more to this film than you might imagine. First of all, forget what you know about Gore. No longer the defeated candidate, he appears confident, witty, incisive, and fired up. Second, while the film makes no secret that it's about a lecture -- even showing Gore on stage in front of a massive screen -- the presentation is sophisticated, entertaining, and visually appealing.

The compelling central speech highlights facts, photos, and anecdotes about our rapidly shifting global climate. It all points to a powerful conclusion: namely, that we're almost out of time to address the problem. Within about 10 years, argues Gore, it will be too late to do anything about the most important challenge in human history.

When you see this film -- which Guggenheim and his producers hope to have in wide release by April -- you'll either be freaked out about the future or pissed off at how political and corporate leaders disregard evidence and silence their critics. Probably both.

The transcript (and full interview transcripts) for Four Corners' "Greenhouse Mafia" show are now online. The content wasn't surprising - industry representatives write government greenhouse policy and climate scientists are prevented from talking publically about the ramifications of global warming - sound like any other country you know ?

There are plenty of reports in the mainstream press today about Pentagon planning for an attack on Iran, which presumably is a signal to all concerned that action is being planned.

Pentagon strategists are drawing up plans for bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks on Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Tehran's suspected efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

US Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon loads and working on logistics for an operation.

They are reporting to the office of the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as the US updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Tehran says it is developing only a civilian energy program.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," a senior Pentagon adviser said. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain, which fears an attack would spark more violence in the Middle East and reprisals in the West and might not cripple Tehran's nuclear program.

There are also reports that Russia has sold Iran more missiles, though according to the Russians these are air defence missiles rather than ones with a more offensive nature.

Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said on Thursday that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks. "We concluded a contract for the supply of air-defence systems to Iran and there is no reason not to fulfil it," Mikhail Dmitriyev, the head of Russia's military-technical cooperation agency, said.

Worth an estimated $700 million, the deal for up to 30 Tor M-1 surface-to-air missiles is the largest since Russia in 2000 withdrew from an agreement with the US restricting the supply of military hardware to Iran.

Dmitriyev rejected media reports that talks were underway for the additional supply of heavier S-300 air-defence missiles. Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has stressed that the Tor is a defensive system and that the sale does not violate Russia's international obligations.