Shell Withdrawal Not a Victory

After Shell recently announced that they were ceasing all exploratory work in the Arctic, I received a flood of emails declaring “victory” from the various organizations who had been trying to pressure the Obama administration to not let Shell drill.  This was as deceptive as Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” fiasco in the early days of the Iraq war.

While I am relieved that Shell has left the Arctic … for now … it is not a victory in any sense of the word because the efforts of those organizations to convince the government to not allow any drilling were unseccessful.  

Shell made its decision for two reasons.  First, after spending a reported $7 billion over several years trying to find oil in the Arctic, it had come up dry.  Second, given the current downturn in the oil market and the assessment by many that the market will not recover for some time, it was not economically prudent to continue drilling.

So this “victory” is a false one.  Shell just made a pragmatic economic decision.  It was not the result of a government resolve to not endorse further oil exploration, at least in environmentally sensitive areas, and certainly not a decision on the part of Shell that public opinion was so against the project that they best withdraw.

The power of big oil in governmental energy policy decision-making remains as before … great.  Nothing has changed other than the economics.  And one can be assured that within a few years the price of oil will be sky high again, leading the companies to dust off their plans for exploration of more expensive extraction locations.

So what to do now?  One thing is clear.  The American public will not support any effort to either cut production or decrease use of oil.  They are totally addicted to it.  They will not wean themselves from oil until they are forced to by ever-increasing prices caused by the diminished supply after peak oil.  

Although we were at or almost at that point, the fracking venture has turned the tables so that now there is a glut of oil and it will be some time till we are there again.  In the meantime, climate change will continue on its deadly path.

Obama has been able to move against coal through executive orders only because nobody really cares about coal anymore outside of those states that produce coal.  The power companies don’t need coal because they now have cheap natural gas thanks to fracking.  And the public will feel no pinch from the reduced use of coal.

One should not take heart from polls showing that more people now believe in climate change, even a majority of Republican voters.  It is one thing to believe in climate change, that what man is doing is causing this change.  It is another to believe that the possible future consequences are so dire that it warrants a major change in energy policy and in how we live.  It’s far more likely that these voters will support various efforts to adapt to future climate change, which efforts are already underway in many cities and countries.

So even assuming the public “revolution” that I have argued for in several recent posts occurred and the political power of major corporations and the wealthy was thus greatly reduced, on this  particular issue, where the public attitude and corporate interest are one, it is hard to see how any real progress would be made, absent a catastrophe of truly epic proportion.  And by then it would be too late.

I can see only one practical opportunity.  If fracking were banned, the oil glut would disappear and the price of oil would rise quickly and substantially, even with the global economy in its current state.  That sharp and quick increase in price, at least to the point where it was previously, would bring about renewed pressures both to develop alternative sources of energy and transport as well as to conserve.  Of course big oil would see it as an opportunity to explore more expensive extraction and return to the Arctic.

But how to achieve that aim?  For some reason, which I don’t understand, the evidence that fracking is an environmental disaster has not come together in a compelling way.  Some organization needs to gather all the facts about the actual environmental damage caused by fracking and put it together in a compelling way and convey that information to the public

Also, Congress must be pressured to reverse its position, pushed through by then Vice-President Cheney, that oil companies are exempt from the Clean Water Act requirement of disclosing what chemicals they are putting into the ground when they frack.  That that exemption still stands is a disgrace to our political system, and makes it harder to arouse the public.

With both those pieces of information in hand, the public would need to be mightily aroused and hopefully would then strongly support a ban on fracking.  That is the only hope of countering both the corporate and local business forces that gain from this dreadful practice.

This would not be an answer to the problem, but it would be a major step forward.

Our Archaic Transportation System

The United States prides itself in being a technologically advanced country, a leader in the technology revolution, and yet our transportation system is archaic.  It is based primarily on a mode of transportation … the car and truck … that was developed a century ago and that technologically has not progressed much in the intervening years.  And it is based on the use of a fuel which has been recognized as causing the coming disaster of climate change.  

It is inefficient and not user-friendly.  For example, despite the vastness of the NJ turnpike, during the extended rush “hour” it is a slog.  And on a recent trip back from the city to Philadelphia, the 17 mile trip from the Verrazano Narrows bridge to the Goethels Bridge took 2 hours!  A huge traffic backup caused by a lane closure.

To the extent that we have a passenger rail system, it too is outmoded and archaic, both as regards the equipment and the infrastructure.  The technological advances made and implemented in western Europe and other countries with advanced, efficient rail systems put us to shame.  (I can’t speak to the quality of the freight system.)

Our air travel system also is caught in this technologically archaic vise.  Air travel makes sense for long flights … say 800 miles or more.  But for shorter flights, it is both terribly inefficient and not user friendly.  By the time you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, be there the suggested amount of time prior to flight for security and other reasons, and then getting from the airport into the city you’re traveling to, the fact that the actual flying time may be short is irrelevant.  The total amount of time spent and the discomfort experienced is far greater than it would be using regional transportation on an up-to-date high speed rail system.  But that system doesn’t exist.

Why is our transportation system, a vital part of our future economic competitiveness and our national security, in this sad shape?  There are two reasons, one causing technological backwardness in this area.  The other results in the outdated infrastructure.

The reason why our transportation system is technologically archaic is that the powers/corporations behind the old technology are extremely powerful.  Basically, we’re talking about big oil.  Big oil has for decades not wanted electric cars to be developed (when technologically they easily could) and big oil has not wanted an efficient rail system that would compete with cars for carrying people.

But we need both electric cars and an efficient rail system.  Trains need to carry much more of the regional traffic and cars should be used primarily for local purposes and getting to transportation hubs.

It’s no secret that in our governmental system, power resides with the major corporations who lobby Congress and who contribute heavily to campaigns.  There simply exists no countervailing corporate force for changing our archaic transportation system.

The reason why our infrastructure is outdated is said to be that we just don’t have the money.  But that’s not true.  The problem is that the money is going for other things, primarily defense.  Now defense is important, but a large chunk of that huge budget does not advance our security; it only advances the corporate welfare, and yes, also jobs, in the defense industry, which is very powerful.

So again, it’s a question of the power lying with corporations who have a vested interest and there being no countervailing corporate force for changing the way the budget is allocated.

A reader might counter that to change our system would be hugely dislocating for everyone and would harm us.  While it would be somewhat dislocating, I don’t think it would be hugely so for the average person and more importantly it is necessary for our national survival and competitiveness in the future.

Another counter argument is that if we shift money from the defense industry it will cost lots of jobs and people will suffer.  While again there would be dislocation, the shift of funds into infrastructure projects will create a huge number of jobs which will provide ample employment for not only those who lose their jobs as a result of the cutback in defense spending but also for many who are currently un- or underemployed.

Interestingly, these same arguments were not successful when corporate power was on the side of technology or globalization rather than the ones who were being dislocated.  It all comes down to who has the ear of Congress.

Our future economic competitiveness and national security depend on all aspects of our infrastructure being technologically advanced and in top condition.  We have a long way to catch up on both fronts.  The patriotic and sensible thing to do would be to start on both these projects ASAP.