August 17 2003                                                                   THE 21^st CENTURY POPULIST

"An Agenda For Real National Security:

PRIORITY TWO"

by Don Schellhardt

In recent articles in this column, I have explored alternative approaches to the preservation and enhancement of national security.     

Under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the basic policy was to "punt":   deferring action on crises, where possible, until the next President came along.     Under President George W. Bush, the dominant approach has been pursuing national security through actual or attempted control, backed by the threat or reality of military action, over forces which might threaten the United States.   Targets of U.S. pressure have included unfriendly oil suppliers, like Iraq and Iran, and small nuclear powers, like North Korea, whose leaders don't have our President's Seal Of Approval    --    as opposed to unfriendly oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia, and small nuclear powers like Pakistan and Israel, whose leaders do seem to have our President's Seal Of Approval.  

Most recently, I have been discussing my own approach to national security:   that is, maintaining deterrence and taking peaceful actions, within our own borders, to overcome our nation's vulnerabilities, instead of attempting to control the internal politics of other nations as "our first resort".      To find the last American President who took my own approach, it is arguably necessary to go all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower (President from 1953-1961).      Perhaps his priorities were an echo of  "America First" isolationism from his Midwestern Republican background, or perhaps they sprang from his memories of war as a former World War II General, or perhaps both, or perhaps none of the above.     In any case, we haven't seen such restraint in a while.  

Of course, a general policy of prioritizing vulnerability reduction at home over military intervention abroad may be unpopular with more recent  Presidents because   --   among other things   --    it requires them to treat the American people like adults.      

For example,  as I have stated in earlier columns, I would rank as follows the policy changes which are needed the most:    First, shielding of vital civilian electronics equipment against an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack    ...    Second, reducing, drastically,  our nation's reliance on imported oil    ...    Third, re-orienting our military resources and deployments to address the reality that we face a greater military threat in Asia, from China and perhaps North Korea, than we have ever faced from Saddam Hussein.     

Politically, these policy changes require the courage to tell the American people, and the global corporate community, some unpleasant truths.      On EMP, it requires saying to them:   "It is better to raise the price of electronics equipment, by 5% or 10%, than to run the risk that someday it will all stop working at once."     On imported oil, it requires saying to them:   "It is better to shift to clean, domestic energy sources that are more expensive than oil in the short run   --   so that we may save money on energy, and not so coincidentally avoid some wars and pollution as well, over the long run."     On awakening to China as the primary strategic threat to the United States, it implies a need to re-think as well our country's current ambivalence about defending Taiwan and our nation's rampant indulgence of one-sided "free trade" with China.      That last truth might not trouble the American people, who half-suspect it anyway, but it would send shock waves through Fortune 500 boardrooms.    (The shocks, BTW, are overdue.)  

In any case, having discussed EMP shielding last month, this month's article concerns PRIORITY TWO:  KICKING OUR NATIONAL ADDICTION TO IMPORTED OIL.     Every President since Gerald Ford has promised to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.   However, with the exception of Jimmy Carter   --    who made some serious beginnings toward progress, which were promptly scuttled by his successor, Ronald Reagan   --    every President since Gerald Ford has watched our dependence on foreign oil increase.      When the Arab oil embargo traumatized America in 1973-74, breeding 3-hour lines at the gasoline pump in some locations, the United States imported 12% of its oil.     Today, we import 60%.      But, hey, we've got got brave men and women in the Persian Gulf to keep it flowing    ...      That's the George W. Bush approach versus the Don Schellhardt approach, quantified.    My goal is zero Middle Eastern oil imports, and zero troops in Middle Eastern countries that don't want them.  

I know about energy    --   and, especially, about oil and natural gas.     Personally.     Very personally.     I spent 20 years of my life dealing with energy and environmental issues:     First, as a Legislative Analyst for the House Republican Research Committee and, later, as Legislative Counsel to Representative Matthew J. Rinaldo, R-NJ (retired), a senior, moderate Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee    ...     Second, during 12 years as a Government Relations executive at  the American [Natural] Gas Association, with half of those years spent as Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs    ...      Third, as a GS-15 Policy Advisor on global warming and energy conservation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency    ...     Fourth, as a consultant to U.S. EPA, on natural gas policy, and to 3 State Public Utility Commissions on energy conservation programs run by regulated natural gas and electric utilities.  

From this perspective, I can say, without reservation, that it is technologically and economically feasible, over a period of 10 to 15 years, to reduce America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil to zero.  

Further, it is possible    --   and, indeed, necessary   --   to reach this goal without chewing up our public lands through massive new oil and gas drilling     ...     without increasing pollution of our natural environment    ...    and without importing vast new amounts of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), in part as a substitute for Middle Eastern oil.      The key is to make much greater use of new energy technologies:    First, for direct use of clean, domestic and renewable energy sources (primarily, solar power)    ...    Second, for cleaner use of domestic fossil fuels (primarily, natural gas and medium Btu gasified coal, especially in conjunction with fuel cells).  

Actually, it is something of a misnomer to call these energy technologies "new".      The use of medium Btu coal gas to generate electric power from combined cycle turbines    --    with lower emissions of regulated air pollutants than natural gas, the cleanest "conventional" fossil fuel   --    was demonstrated in the 1980's, at the experimental Coolwater powerplant in Barstow, California.    Standing next to it, at the time, was Solar One, a costly but functional solar thermal powerplant, descended from solar photovoltaic powerplants developed in the 1970's.       Also during the 1980's, roughly 20 years ago, the first generation of fuel cells was already being marketed.     So were vehicles capable of running on natural gas, propane and/or electricity.  

Since the 1980's, 3 of these technologies   --    solar power, fuel cells and hybrid electric vehicles   --   have improved, markedly.    They now cost less and work more efficiently.    Indeed, the first 2 of them have begun to gain visible market shares abroad, especially in Asia.   Here in the land of their birth, however, all of these technologies still seem "new".    That's because here, in America, our political and business leaders are still painting an energy landscape in which time has stood still.       

Indeed, in some respects, time has flowed backwards in the minds of our national leaders.    Before President Reagan left office, he managed to "pull the plug" on Federal funding for the Coolwater powerplant, which still runs today but has shifted back to conventional natural gas.    President Reagan also managed to kill another coal gasification project, the Great Plains high Btu coal gasification project in North Dakota, which was later dismantled and sold for scrap.      As for Solar One, it survived President Reagan but was closed down by the first President Bush.  

Fortunately, as noted above, progress on solar power, fuel cells and hybrid electric vehicles, and to a lesser extent natural gas  vehicles, has managed to continue over the decades, even without much of the help that was once provided by the Federal Government.      The pace of commercialization, however, remains much slower than it would have been, or still could be, with the active support of Federal, State and/or local governments.        

Meanwhile, most of our current political and business leaders oppose, either openly or through inaction, initiating major mandates and/or subsidies for any of these "new" energy technologies:    gasified coal, solar power, fuel cells and alternative fuel vehicles.     

However, at the same time that major government support for new technologies is depicted as too costly to taxpayers, and/or as too much intervention in the marketplace, most of the same leaders have accepted or embraced 2 major, oil-driven wars in the Persian Gulf   --   not to mention the much higher medical bills and crop damage, and the much lower fishing and forestry yields, that constitute a huge hidden "price tag" for burning so much high-pollution oil and non-gasified coal.      Further, the fear of distorting marketplace decisions has not kept President George W. Bush from proposing    --    nor kept the United States Senate from approving, by a narrow margin    --    billions of taxpayers' dollars in insurance subsidies for 6 new nuclear powerplants.  

In addition, as impending natural gas shortages were predicted during June 2003 Hearings by the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee, the proposed solutions showed that Old World Thinking is still alive and well among our nation's leadership elites.    Both legislators and business leaders    --    including the new President of my old employer, the American Gas Association   --    spoke of 2 primary solutions:    First, importing more natural gas, primarily in the form of LNG from Latin America, just as we responded to earlier shortages of domestic oil by importing ever-increasing volumes of oil from the Middle East     ...     Second, expanding both the scope and speed of drilling for natural gas on public lands.       

Never considered during the Hearings were some alternative options for addressing the emerging natural gas shortage:     First, requiring more natural gas to be used in energy-efficient fuel cells    ...     Second, requiring that a progressively increasing share of newly built power generation capacity must utilize gasified coal, or solar power, or other clean, domestic and renewable sources, rather than natural gas or oil    ...    Third, requiring the immediate phaseout of excessive electric and natural gas utility reliance on short-term "spot market" energy supply contracts, with uncertain supply reliability and volatile prices, rather than long-term contracts with higher supply security and relatively stable prices    ...      Fourth, providing emergency government loans   --   loans, not tax credits or grants   --    for investments by residential, commercial and industrial energy consumers in energy conservation measures, including the installation of on-site fuel cells.  

Yes, these alternative approaches would cost more in the short term, but they would cost much less in the long term, both financially and environmentally.     And    ...   Yes, these alternative approaches would involve more government interference in the marketplace   --    but the marketplace has rarely demonstrated that it makes decisions with either the security of the United States or the viability of the natural environment foremost in its collective mind.    Further, as noted above, the Federal Government is already intervening in the marketplace   --   with major wars that attempt to secure the reliability of imported oil, and even subsidies for an ill-advised attempt to revive the nuclear power industry.      Why not accept that energy production and use are too important to leave to market forces alone, and aim our government intervention in directions that benefit the people, instead of a few dozen global megacorporations?  

Imagine your children, or even other people's children, looking back on you from 20 years into the future   --   just as I am looking back, now, on the failure of our government and corporations to develop the promise of energy technologies born in the 1980's.  

What kind of energy policies would your children, looking back on you from 2023, want you to be supporting now?   I'll bet you their answer wouldn't be:    more oil imports    ...    more natural gas imports    ...   more wars to defend imports    ...   and radically more oil and natural gas drilling on public lands.    Let alone more nuclear powerplants.

COPYRIGHT 2003 BY DON SCHELLHARDT

----------------------------------------------------