Hello, ecologgers,
I recently had an idea which is surely not new, but which I have not
heard in the national discussion of US energy policy. Most of us would
agree that it is important to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, which
means that we must develop alternative, preferably renewable, energy
sources and reduce energy consumption. Here is my suggestion for achieving
this:
Insofar as the federal and state governments control gas and oil drilling
and coal mining activities (by granting of licenses, etc.) they should
require the operator to simultaneously develop an equivalent amount of
renewable energy or demonstrate programs to reduce consumption by an
equivalent amount. Thus, if a company wanted to drill on
government-controlled land (or offshore) and the well was projected to
deliver X amount of energy over its lifetime, the company must also develop
X units of energy from renewable sources (wind, solar, tidal, ocean waves,
etc.). If the well turns out to yield more energy than projected, its
production would be shut down until the company increased the amount of
alternative production or conservation.
If strict one-for-one matching of renewable energy is not practical
(as the gas and oil companies would certainly claim), then some acceptable
ratio could be negotiated.
I realize that there are some problems with this approach, but I think
they have solutions. For instance, most fossil energy companies probably
lack expertise in alternative energy production. They could address this
by partnering with companies that do have the expertise, or in the early
stages of the program, companies could meet their requirement to produce
renewable energy by investment in research on conservation or how to
develop renewable energy sources.
I also realize renewable energy sources also have negative
environmental impact (e.g., windmills kill birds, damns mess up rivers).
This is why there should also be emphasis on conservation. This could be
implemented by giving companies more credit energy conservation then for
renewable production. The ratio of value of conservation vs. the value of
renewable production could also be negotiated, and could vary in different
areas of the country where different conditions prevail.
Such a policy would have a great advantage: while it would be
government mandated, it would not put the government in the position of
picking "winning" technologies. Rather companies would have wide
flexibility in how to invest, thus harnessing the creative power of the
free enterprise system.
I would like two things from ECOLOG subscribers:
1. Critique of this idea, pointing out problems, proposing solutions,
and suggesting improvements.
2. If people think the improved idea is worthwhile, suggestions for
how to bring it to the attention of economists and policy experts for
further development, and how to inject it into the public debate.
Thank you very much for your interest and contributions.
Martin M. Meiss
