Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Paul Krugman’s Drilling, Disaster, Denial is both a great OPED piece to see in the traditional media and, well, a troubling read. Great because of its focus on how one of environmentalism greatest problems might, in fact, have been its successes which could have helped lead to complacency in the public, undermining efforts to build public momentum for action on climate change (among other issues). In this vein, he points to polling showing a lowering public understanding of the urgency and severity of the climate crisis.

On the other hand, this is a troubling read due to Krugman’s:

1. Missing the opportunity to plug the 5 percent solution to drill the bottomless well of energy efficiency.

2. Failure to even hint at a recognition that his own institution (both narrowly, The New York Times, and the traditional media, more broadly) is culpable for the shifting public opinion due to poor reporting and, all too frequently, giving soap boxes to those purposefully seeking to confuse the public about the state of the science.

Drill, Baby, Drill: Drill the bottomless well …

Krugman calls on President Obama to

take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain

With this comment, Krugman is right. Drilling extensively in the Outer Continental Shelf is, according to Energy Information Administration work during the Bush Administration (thus, far from oil-unfriendly), unlikely to add notable amounts of new oil to the US production until the 2020s and perhaps cover one percent of US demand in 2030, so little that it might, at the end, lower the price of gasoline at the pump by a few cents (e.g., less than one percent) in 2030 … e.g., 20 years from now. These stark facts call out the lie of those who promoted “Drill Now, Pay Less“. That 200,000 barrels per day increase in productivity by 2030 will, as Krugman notes, “will hardly affect our dependence on imports”.

We do, however, have a ready, rapid, low-risk, low-cost drilling path that would, on the other hand, massively “affect our dependence on imports”, to drill the bottomless well of energy efficiency. A simple target, an achievable target: the 5 Percent Solution. With a variety of tools, from inflating our tires properly to electrifying rail to aggressive energy efficiency programs in all places using oil burning heating to building codes fostering mixed-use communities, the United States could reduce its oil demand five percent per year, every year, indefinitely, while fostering a more robust, resilient, and prosperous society. Unlike drilling, the Five Percent Solution would have a significant impact on reducing our oil imports: eliminating them by 2030 (the time that additional offshore drilling would add just 200,000 barrels per day in additional production).

The message we should take from the searing images and reality of the devastation caused by this manmade volcano of oil should be: it is time to end our oil addiction. The Five Percent Solution offers us a path for doing so.

Failure to acknowledge culpability

The science is clear: humanity is driving climate change and, with almost the same degree of clarity, is driving us recklessly toward a quite dangerous condition of catastrophic climate chaos.  Americans understand this less than virtually any other public in the world.

Krugman comments

as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”

This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.

Krugman suggests two major factors for the lowering concern: successes in environmentalism reducing visible pollution and “conservative” anti-environmentalism. What Krugman fails to note, however, is the direct complicity of the traditional media in fostering confusion about environmental issues and, as a consequence, lowered concern.

As Ernest Canning put it at The Brad Blog,

While there is empirical data supporting Krugman’s suggestion of an adverse impact of anti-environmental propaganda, often funded by the likes of Exxon-Mobil and others in or connected to the fossil industry, Krugman’s analysis falls short because he fails to examine the role of the mainstream corporate media, especially television, in fostering the invisibility he decries…

While the scientific community is clear about climate change, the traditional media continues to portray a ‘he says, she says’ path of ‘faux and balanced’ reporting.  The fringe of the scientific community who are skeptical of humanity’s impact on the climate (and whose work has not stood up to review in terms of providing an alternative explanation to humanity and human activities being the principle driver to accelerating global warming) represents, at most, a few percent of the relevant specialists. That fringe (or non-scientist global warming denier hacks) end up being quoted in almost article related to climate change, with a couple mainstream scientists balanced by a denier or two, which creates an impression of uncertainty and debate about the science that misrepresents what is going on in the scientific community.  The editorial pages are filled with misrepresentations by the likes of George Will, Sarah Palin, and Bjorn Lomborg. To be clear, the ‘liberal bastion’ of The New York Times is far from an innocent in this regard, a prime example of culpability is the continued misrepresentations of, for example, the Times’ John Tierney.

An important point about political positioning …

Krugman commented the other day,

For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.

Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.

Leadership is key. Sadly, as Krugman noted, Obama is in a difficult position to seize the mantle as

It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.

Would President Obama (and the rest of the Administration and Democratic Party leaders) be in a better position to “claim the moral high ground now” and make the call for ending our oil addiction if there hadn’t been support for offshore drilling in the State of the Union address and, even more strongly, in the months that followed? The President was, simply put, wrong and this error makes it harder to be right now.

There are only so many words …
Krugman’s piece was just that: a piece. There is a limit to how much can make it into so few words.  And, it was a piece worth reading.  It was, however, a piece with significant gaps that merit filling:

1. Acknowledgment of culpability

2. Embracing The Five Percent Solution