Robert Pryce Interviews By The Fort Worth Press
Lone Star Library: Author says America under delusion of 'energy independence'
BY ROBERT FRANCIS
October 02, 2008
Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence”by Robert Bryce (PublicAffairs, $26.95)
The words "energy independence" will no doubt be uttered 100s of times during the coming political season. Few question whether it is really achievable or even desirable. Texas-based journalist and writer Robert Bryce decided to take a look at the issue and was appalled by what he learned in his research.
“I wrote this book because I was tired of hearing politicians and political operatives spout nonsense about energy,” said Bryce. “Further, and this is the other real problem with the rhetoric of energy independence: It is being used to support boondoggles that do nothing to reduce our oil dependency. And here I’m referring to the ethanol scam, the longest-running robbery of American taxpayers in modern history.”
Obviously, Bryce doesn’t keep his opinions to himself. Bryce, the author of two other energy-related books, Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron and Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate,and the managing editor of Energy Tribune and a contributing writer for the Texas Observer, spoke with the Business Press’ Robert Francis about his book.
What did you find that really surprised you during your research?
A couple of things. First, I was surprised by just how long this phrase ”energy independence” has been bandied about in U.S. politics and just how much traction it has gained in the modern era.
Second, I was surprised by the numbers that show just how integrated the global energy market is. For instance (and these numbers aren’t in my book) in 2007, when you count crude oil and all other oil products, the US imported oil from 90 different countries. Just as remarkableis this: in 2007, we exported, yes, exported, an average of 1.4 MMbbl/d of oil and oil products to customers in 73 countries.
Did you find any politicians that have tried to bring at least a fraction of reality to energy policy?
When it comes to energy, I’m a liberal who got mugged by the laws of thermodynamics. And those laws have forced me to become far more of a realist when it comes to energy. I mention that because my history as a journalist has largely been with the liberal/Left. But today, it’s obvious that the Republicans are far more realistic than the Democrats on energy policy, particularly when it comes to the need for more domestic drilling. The other example is that the Republicans have come out against the ethanol mandates. In May, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and 10 other Senate Republicans introduced a bill to freeze the ethanol mandates by limiting the volume of corn ethanol to be blended into gasoline to no more than 9 billion gallons. But the Democrats won’t let them even get their bill out of committee.
Obviously, you take politicians to task, but what about the industry? Have they communicated the reality of the situation effectively?
No. The energy industry is trying. And they are spending a lot of money. But voters have been conditioned over the years to hate Big Oil and not believe anything that the industry says.
What about the issue of terrorism?
The advocates for energy independence say that we are supporting petrostates who support terrorism.
There’s no denying that some of the petrostates, Iran and Saudi Arabia, in particular, have ties to terrorism. But here’s the problem: we can’t isolate those countries from the global energy market. The U.S. could quit buying oil tomorrow. It won’t stop terrorism.
The argument that oil equals terrorism rests on a simple thesis: that a collapse in the price of oil will mean the petrostates won’t be able to afford terrorism and that they will reform their economies. This thesis has already been tested. And it’s been proven false. Between about 1986 and 2000, oil prices generally stayed below $20 per barrel. By the end of 1998, prices had fallen as low as $11 per barrel. On September 11, 2001, the day of the al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., the price of oil was $27.65.[i]
Where is the link between high oil prices and terrorism?
We had terrorism when oil was selling for less than $30. And we’ll have it if (when) oil hits $300.
Even if we quit importing oil – all oil – it won’t stop terrorism.
Why?
Because terrorism is a cheap endeavor. The 9-11 attacks cost about $500,000. Further, even if the US quits buying oil, it won’t mean an end to the flow of money to the petrostates. According to the Energy Information Administration, out of the 204 countries and territories that they track, 173 are net oil importers.[ii] If the U.S. quits buying oil, there are 172 other countries on the planet who will enjoy cheaper oil. And they will buy it from the lowest cost oil producer.
We have to face facts: the global oil market is just that, global. We have to deal with terrorism through better policing, and yes, by working more closely with some of the petrostates to weed out terror groups.
We have seen some interesting movements recently in the energy debate, such as T. Boone Pickens and his Pickens Plan.
Has this changed the debate at all?
Pickens used to be an oil man. Now he’s a rock star. He’s on the cover of the new Texas Monthly, kitted out like James Dean in the movie Giant. Last night, he was on the Tonight Show and Jay Leno treated him like, well, a rock star. Pickens has changed the debate and he’s raised the issue of increased use of natural gas for terrestrial transportation. That’s good. I’m in favor of more natural gas vehicles. But Pickens has completely oversold the potential benefits of NGVs. I’ve done the math. Even if the U.S. achieved a 100-fold increase in the size of its NGV fleet, it will only cut America’s need for foreign oil by about 11 percent and its overall oil consumption by about 7 percent.
As for wind energy, don’t get me started. Pickens thinks wind is a key part of the solution. To me, wind power is the electricity sector’s equivalent of ethanol. And Pickens, who claims to be the ultimate free market advocate, is spending lots of time in Washington doing his best to get big subsidies so that his $10 billion wind plan will work.
Speaking of the Pickens Plan, we've also seen the "Paris Hilton Plan."
Does that indicate just how far from reality most politicians' energy plans are?
The good thing about Paris Hilton is that she made the marketing decision to announce her energy plan while wearing a skimpy bathing suit. So at least her plan for “energy independence” had some entertainment value. It beats hearing the neoconservatives talk about how much they hate the Saudis or listening to John McCain and Barack Obama talk about the scourge of foreign oil.
You've seen the energy policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. Is anything changing?
Unfortunately for the Democrats, their energy plan is still being held hostage by, it appears, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Thus, their position is: no drilling, no nuclear power, only solar and wind. The Republicans are finally starting to see the political advantage to be had by fighting the ethanol scam. So maybe that will yield some fruit. But remember, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are headed by Democrats. In the House, it’s (Rep.) Collin C. Peterson, from Minnesota, which is the fourth-largest ethanol producer in the U.S. In the Senate, it’s (Sen.) Tom Harkin of Iowa, the country’s biggest corn and corn ethanol producer. So I’m not overly hopeful that the GOP will have much luck in slowing the ethanol madness.
What do you think citizens should do to force their leaders to deal with this issue?
Gee, if I knew the answer to that one, I’d be richer and more famous than Karl Rove. (And I have more hair.) The demagoguery that politicians use whenever the issue of energy comes up is just overwhelming. The best advice I can give to consumers is: get educated. Don’t buy the hype. And if you want to get mad about an issue, get mad about the corn ethanol scam. The ethanol mandates are not just fiscal insanity, they are immoral. We are burning food to make motor fuel at a time when there is a growing global shortage of food and no shortage of motor fuel.
For more information: www.robertbryce.com
