Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Neocons Driving Priuses

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted November 9, 2005.


The prospect of peak oil has shaken some of the mainstays of the conservative establishment into doing something about America's energy crises.
110905_story3
Neocons Driving Priuses

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jan Frel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The United States holds 2 percent of world oil reserves, contributes 8 percent of world oil production, and consumes 25 percent of the world's oil production -- more than 60 percent of which is imported. Such facts appear with increasing frequency in mainstream newspapers and on television talk shows, often accompanied by handwringing about lack of sustainability and allegations that the chase after foreign oil is the primary cause of our military misadventures in the Middle East.

Of course, this is not terribly new ground for progressives and liberals. The Apollo Alliance, a coalition of mostly labor and environmental groups, along with some human rights organizations and alternative energy firms has been discussing it for years. The group has successfully pushed its agenda into the talking points of Democrats like Senator Barack Obama, and the Apollo plan was a pillar of Sen. John F. Kerry's failed presidential bid.

But what is new is the emergence of political currents on the right and the Republican Party related to America's energy crises and the policies that uphold them: a fascinating coalition of neoconservatives and the Christian right that sees the multiple dangers of America's reliance on foreign oil, and another that is pressing hard to foster political discussion about the prospect that global oil production is about to peak. If pessimistic estimates on global oil reserves start playing out in the world markets, we can expect a fusion of these two groups.

Setting America free

Leading the energy security front is a coalition called Set America Free. Led by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, Set America Free's members include former Republican presidential candidate and "family values" activist Gary Bauer; powerful neoconservative security hawks Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes and former CIA director Jim Woolsey; and National Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Deron Lovaas along with the Apollo Alliance's Bracken Hendricks.

In an open letter signed by its members, Set America Free calls for an end to oil dependency for security purposes and makes the centerpiece of its blueprint a call to improve fuel economy rates for automobiles, diversify auto fuels and increase the number of hybrid electric vehicles sold in America.

It's a fairly stunning reversal to see an Iraq war cheerleader like Frank Gaffney driving a Toyota Prius around Washington and signing on to an energy coalition that boasts membership with progressive groups and broadcasts sentiments like, "We are fighting a war against terror and paying for both sides of the war."

But then, it's proof positive that something pretty serious has shaken the conservative establishment.

NRDC's Deron Lovaas said of the motives that brought conservative coalition together, "The hawks are doing this because they want to forestall a conflict with China, and they see competition for petroleum resources as a likely instigator. Gary Bauer's interest is religious freedom for repressed Christian and Jewish minorities in the Middle East. I care about fuel emissions, our massively wasteful transport system, and our security, of course."

Asked whether he hesitated to sign on with Set America free because of the longstanding reputations of its members (Gaffney's complicity in Bush's missile defense, Iraq, and Israeli policies, or Gary Bauer's strident anti-homosexuality and abortion views), Lovaas said, "Politics is about addition. There are tremendous differences between many of the members in this but we all agree about energy security. The kitchen is still way too hot for other environmental groups to sign on, but these supporters [of energy security] shouldn't be ignored."

Lovaas pointed out that the reach of its membership cast a net that progressive energy independence efforts can't reach, and also touches into media that progressives don't have access to. Frank Gaffney for example, has a regular column in the Washington Times. Lovaas also said that because of Set America Free, hawkish and conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman has started pushing hard for policies that produce energy independence, drawing interest from the even more conservative Republican senators Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions. "This thing is moving really fast; the rate of progress some weeks is quite dizzying," Lovaas said.

Bartlett at the peak

The peak oil discussion has been led by ol' fashioned Maryland Republican Representative Roscoe Bartlett, whose eloquent speeches on dwindling petroleum reserves channel Ben Franklin in calling for each American to invent and innovate in their spare time.

The presentation Bartlett gave on peak oil on the floor of the House of Congress last April is one of the most lucid demonstrations on global energy supply and America's dependence on foreign oil around. In it he explains why Saudi Arabia's energy grid is one any industrialized country should be jealous of:


Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
roscoe bartlett
Posted by: werely on Nov 9, 2005 1:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never heard about this guy before. yet, he's way ahead of everyone on peak oil. good for alternet for running an interview with matt simmons

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: roscoe bartlett Posted by: keffiya
Set America Free
Posted by: adp3d on Nov 9, 2005 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hah, this site is a joke. There is an article with a line about how "...we will soon be paying $2.00 a gallon for gas...", and then you click the link on how to get involved...and all they want is a donation. As for this "coalition", I'd have to say watch for flying pigs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

700% more to heat your home?
Posted by: crusty on Nov 9, 2005 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since 2002? Really? Maybe I live under a rock, but.....I am pretty sure a fill up for propane does not cost $1400.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» everything will cost more Posted by: Coleman
Well, Clinton borrowed some...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Nov 9, 2005 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
conservative themes and did okay with them.

Maybe they're pulling a page from his playbook. We just need to keep playing the Cheney clip dissing conservation over and over and...

They're desperate, I tell ya.

What's next, Rick Santorum getting engaged to George Allen?

Fun with Republicans: .
"Environmental Disaster: Republicans get Protection in Endangered Species Act."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Relativity
Posted by: chinasdad on Nov 9, 2005 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is not just true that the US uses 25% of the world's oil (the US has almost 25% of the world's economic output after all) but of the OECD (industrialized economies) the US uses significantly more energy per economic output (according to this week's Economist). It's the gross inefficiency that is harmful and appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how much oil does the us use
Posted by: werely on Nov 9, 2005 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that numbwr 25% is everywhere. how much does it use then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how much oil does the us use Posted by: mikewarren
Peak Oil Will Change the World
Posted by: cherenkov on Nov 9, 2005 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see by the comments on this site that most people here are not well informed on the subject of peak oil. Here are a number of websites which have peak oil primers.

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

I also recommend that you read the "Long Emergency," by James Howard Kunstler, "The Party's Over," by Richard Heinberg, and "Twilight in the Desert," by Matthew Simmons.

The video "The End of Suburbia" is a must view and is available from the Internet. It is very well done and is currently being shown at small gatherings across the country.

As far as the statement made in the article that "the industry consensus [is] that the world's oil supplies are nowhere near depletion," this is not true. Chevron has publicly stated that peak oil is near and has set up a web site asking the public to join in a discussion of this almost certainly traumatic transition period.

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/

Their is a significant danger that political games players will make this physics issue into a just another part of their hobby, preventing real discussion and thwarting needed swift change.

One final report is advisable -- the Hirsch Report. This report was sponsored by the Department of Energy. Its findings were so alarming that the government buried the report. But, luckily for us, an insider felt it too important to consign to the White House basement and he, or she, posted it on the Hilltop High School's web site in Chula Vista, California. It has since escaped into the public domain, and it then susequently appeared on the DOE's web site.

www.netl.doe.gov/otiic/World_Oil_Issues/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Read, think, act.

Cherenkov

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

changes already taken place...
Posted by: Farmertim on Nov 9, 2005 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shell Energy Company(formerly Shell Oil) is currently the largest land holder in Argentina...not for oil exploration, but agricultural land in order to grow Hi fiber crop test plots for energy production through bio-mass.
You can't tell me they don't know whats up as well as our Bushites..
Demark has 65% of there electric needs met by renewables 40% of that from methane(natural gas) from manure.
D.C. alone with all the crap going on should be adiquite to power the whole eastern sea board.......couldn't resist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sure, hybrids will solve all our problems....
Posted by: dankorn on Nov 9, 2005 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would be more encouraged by this if there was even a whisper about reducing demand for energy by decreasing our reliance on cars instead of just building slightly more efficient shiny metal boxes to full up our roads. Trying to to solve our dependence on oil by asking the automobile companies to build more efficient cars is like trying to cure cancer by asking tobacco companies to make better cigarettes. If you think you're part of the solution because you're driving around in a hybrid car, you're fooling yourself.

While these "genuises" are driving their hybrids, I'll be walking, riding my bicycle, or taking public transit to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another viewpoint
Posted by: nickptar on Nov 9, 2005 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/Peak-Oil-Debunked

Despite the name, these are people who think peak oil is real, and serious, but can be managed through conservation and technology. To me at least, they seem very convincing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No substitute for oil
Posted by: brisa on Nov 9, 2005 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American lifestyle as it exists today is going to dissappear. Additionally, capitalism which requires ever increasing growth is guaranteed to fail. The fractional reserve banking system likewise will collapse. Without ever increasing amounts of cheap energy, we're all screwed. Call me a pessimist, but the time for successful evolution away from fossil fuels has long since past us by.

There is no substitute for oil.....none.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is wrong with biodiesel??
Posted by: Lizka on Nov 10, 2005 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is wrong with biodiesel?? I've heard you can make it from hemp.

What is wrong with ethanol for cars?? (apart from the fact that the practice of growing the corn for it currently gives some rather undeserving people subsidies.)

As for electricity: there is: coal, wind power....

Hopefully some of these "Tesla cranks" with their zero-point ideas are going to get funded too!!


And in the meantime - shale oil??


Yes, it should all have been thought of before and development started. Under a modern form of socialism, it would have been!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no substitute
Posted by: Newt on Nov 10, 2005 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before we ask questions like, "What's wrong with shale oil, or biodiesel, et. all..." check out the resources mentioned above or read Kunstler's "The Long Emergency."

Nothing can be used as oil and gas are, at least, not without drastic changes to the society we've grown accustomed to. Disneyland will not run on solar and biodiesel. More energy is used to extract and refine shale oil than we'll even get from it, and at a huge cost in pollution and enviromental damage.

Before we trumpet solutions like this, remember: the fertilizer and diesel, as well as irrigation, that runs conventional agriculture is all dependent on CHEAP oil, as is the transport system that brings you kiwis and grapes in January.

Would you let acres of farmland be used to grow crops for biodiesel while people go hungry? What sort of machinery is used to construct, maintain and repair solar cells and massive wind turbines, and what fuels such machinery? Could our fragile economy absorb the shock of escalating prices and still fund such huge infrastructure projects?

Google 'Peak oil' or read the Hirsch report, and take action on this issue as many others are. Citizen's groups in response to PO are popping up all over. Check out Kunster's blog, http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/ and energybulletin.net.

Sliding down the slope of oil depletion will require more inventive adaption than just buying a hybrid. The next phase of our history will be defined by post-industrial reform and a return to localized economies and food production. Keep in mind our population has entered overshoot, and a lot of people may not be so fortunate as to survive times of hardship and scarcity. The earth can only support about 2 billion people sustainably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]