Winning the oil endgame: Amory Lovins

In this energizing talk, Amory Lovins lays out his simple plan for weaning the US off oil and revitalizing the economy.

Of course, when you think about the fact that this talk was given in 2005 and that none of this information is exactly news to anybody who has been paying attention, you have to wonder who slipped the Ambien into the Detroit water supply.

I realize they need a ‘bailout’ since I don’t want to see tens of thousands of workers in the unemployment line either, but remember this - we’ve been there before with Chrysler. Did they change their ways? No.

Nobody in this country has had the courage to hold their feet to the fire and insist on change. Thus you see the results of lassez-faire capitalism on the front pages daily. If you don’t think that government can do this, you have no further to look than Japan - those people who whipped Detroit at their own game.

The Japanese government set price floors, below which the price of energy ( always limited and expensive in Japan ) would not go. Therefore industry had to become energy effecient to survive and thrive. This worked so darn well that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is selling their giant dynamos - which are far more energy effecient than ours - to us here in the U.S.

Industry in Japan - as in Europe - also knew that their substantial investment in innovation would not be wasted when, as will happen, wild fluctuations in the price of energy happen. For verification, look no further than current headlines here in the U.S. when the price of gasoline went below $3.00 a gallon. Happy days were certainly here again. Right?

Price floors/price signals prevent that type of amnesia.

There most certainly is a role for government policy making in directing the innovation that will - or will not - characterize our profitability through the rest of this century. But with Americans inherent distrust of all things attached to the word ‘government’, they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I contend that the automotive industry - left totheir own devices - has done an absolutely abysmal job at developing innovative solutions to a looming energy crisis, but did a great job at pandering to the limited sight lines of the woefully single minded American energy consumer/driver. If we left innovation to Detroits’ timetable cars would still have buggy springs, no seat belts, windshield wipersor airbags. In fact, they fought each one of those specific innovations.

Indeed, Detroit provides the best argument yet in favor of government intervention in an industry.

So the question remains: under what conditions do we - the taxpayers - bail them out?

In so far as Lovins’ assertions: I don’t believe biofuels are the end answer ( and he’s not talking about ethanol but rather switchgrass and others) rather plug-in hybrids if and when we ever get a smart energy grid instead of the archaic 19th century grid we have now - cobbled together across the country.

Please click on one of the gray bars above. These videos present a bit differently than those from Youtube.

I can just see the eyeballs beginning to roll when I mention price signals/floors on energy, imposed by goverment.

You should read the following position held by Duke Energy, then.

( from their website)

Duke Energy’s Position

Most scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are influencing the earth’s climate. Although there’s much to learn about the cause and effect of climate change, consensus is building that steps should be taken now to reduce these emissions. Duke Energy shares that view.

We have a responsibility to our customers, our investors and our communities to play a lead role in shaping a national policy that addresses this challenge responsibly and fairly. We must be good stewards of the environment. We must do our part to meet the nation’s growing energy needs and to keep our energy prices affordable. We need predictability to make sound plans for electric generation and natural gas infrastructure.

We are concerned about patchwork policies focused on a single industrial sector or particular region of the country. We are concerned about approaches that could have grave and unintended impacts on the U.S. economy or that could result in rapid or extreme rate increases for electricity and natural gas customers.

We favor a U.S. policy on climate change that:

• Is economy-wide in its reach, rather than targeting a single industry for emissions reductions
• Is national in scope, yet considers varying impacts across regions and economic sectors
• Is market-based, with price signals leading to technological innovation and investment, energy efficiency and conservation
• Begins to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, and does so gradually over time
• Is simple to administer and provides price certainty.

Such a policy could be achievedthrough a “cap and trade” approach. The important thing is that we get to work now. Duke Energy believes that voluntary programs are not enough. Congress needs to establish a national, economy-wide greenhouse gas mandatory program as soon as possible. A sustainable path to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions should become part of a worldwide response to this global issue.

Amory Lovins is cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute and the instigator of ingenious ideas to transform the energy and automobile industries.