Return to Speeches Index

Energy the Key to Economy and Global Security

by REP Policy Director Jim DiPeso
speech to "It's Your America" Conference, Bellevue, Washington; March 2, 2004

Good evening, I am Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

If it seems strange to hear a Republican talk sense about environmental issues, I understand. Our goal is to bring forward the day when a Republican talking sense about environmental issues is not strange or even worth a second thought. These issues are so important that they must transcend partisanship.

We believe that conservation IS conservative. We believe that Republicans should be leading the search for the best environmental solutions.

That said, it's a pleasure to be here in Bellevue. Here we are, the second day of March. Winter is almost over. Crocuses are blooming. Tulips are on their way. The first day of spring is March 20 -- by our Western calendar, that is.

But for many wildlife species, spring is coming sooner. That's right. Many plants and animals take their seasonal cues from temperatures, not the Gregorian calendar. Scientists have done some number crunching and found that rising global temperatures are causing hundreds of species to do their "spring things" a little earlier. Frogs are mating a little earlier. Birds are building their nests a little earlier. Wildflowers are blooming sooner than normal.

This is not good. Plants and animals that rely on one another are having their timing thrown off. Nature is like a finely crafted theatrical production in which all the players know their parts, what lines to say and when to say them. They depend on getting the right cues at the right time. If the actors get the wrong cues at the wrong time, the whole production will be thrown off. The play will close down, the director will be fired, and no one will win a Tony award.

Here's an example of what could happen when wildlife get the wrong cues -- spruce budworms are insects that attack spruce trees. Under normal conditions, warblers help control the budworm population by eating up the caterpillars. But if rising temperatures push warblers to the north, there will be nothing to keep the caterpillars in check farther south.

Earlier onset of spring is one of several signs that global temperatures are rising and the climate is changing. Many uncertainties remain, because this is very complex science. But there is now an emerging scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are at least partly responsible for these changes.

Our nation, emits 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. About 80 percent of our emissions come from burning oil, coal, and natural gas for energy.

Last year was the second warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years on record all have occurred since 1990. Ice fields are melting around the world, including glaciers in the Cascades. Public health experts are worried about greater incidence of weird warm-weather diseases - such as dengue fever - at higher latitudes.

Weather-related economic damage has risen dramatically since the mid-1980s. International insurance companies have taken note and are very concerned.

You know who else is paying attention to global warming? The Defense Department. Pentagon analysts are thinking seriously about the potentially breathtaking security implications of abrupt climate change.

Now, what do we mean by "abrupt climate change?" Well, a common perception is that climate change will be gradual. Temperatures are rising and the world will gradually get warmer and warmer over time. If that means we can all sit around on our lawns in shorts in January, who could object to that?

However, scientists are finding that the climate seems to be a delicately balanced mechanism. A seemingly small change could push the climate past a tipping point, like flipping a switch. Based on their field research, scientists now know that dramatic climate shifts can happen in a very short period of time, within a human lifetime.

Let's see how this possibly could affect us. We all learned in high school geography that Europe is warmed by the northward-flowing Gulf Stream. Otherwise, London would have the climate of Labrador. The Gulf Stream is actually part of an oceanic conveyor belt. Deep below the Atlantic surface, a countercurrent runs southward.

So what makes the conveyor belt turn? Salt. When the Gulf Stream gives up its heat in the northern latitudes, it's a cold, salty mass that sinks, and then turns south below the surface.

Now, what could cause the conveyor belt to stop? Less salt. How would the North Atlantic become less salty? If melting ice sends a pulse of fresh water into the North Atlantic, that's how. And that's exactly what seems to be happening. As Arctic ice has dwindled, the North Atlantic's salinity has declined over the past 40 years.

If the North Atlantic waters continue to become less salty, scientists are concerned that the Gulf Stream could seize up, like an engine that has lost its lubricating oil. If that great Gulf Stream heat pump were turned off, Europe and eastern North America could turn very cold, and weather across the Northern Hemisphere would be
greatly affected.

It sounds paradoxical and counter-intuitive, but global warming could lead to dangerous cooling - at least in the North Atlantic region.

So, where is the tipping point at which the Gulf Stream would close down? No one knows for sure. But the Defense Department was concerned enough that it recently produced what it calls a "credible scenario" of what could happen, perhaps sooner, perhaps later.

Here is a brief summary of the scenario. It does not make for cheery reading.

Violent storms become commonplace as the Atlantic conveyor shudders and grinds to a halt. Windier, drier conditions cause widespread soil loss in the U.S. Europe struggles to cope with climate refugees pouring in from the north and the south. China, India, and Pakistan -- all nuclear-armed -- skirmish over refugees, dwindling water
supplies, and arable farmland.

As oil supplies are stretched thin to cope with the weird weather, more countries turn to nuclear fission energy, which leads to accelerated proliferation. As the resources, social networks, and economic systems of the world come under unprecedented stress, there is greater danger of war.

It's all there in the Feb. 16 edition of Fortune magazine.

Could that really happen? Again, no one can say for sure. But the risk is there. As rational people, we take prudent measures all the time to reduce our exposure to risks. How many of you here are homeowners? How many of you homeowners purchase fire insurance? How many of you who have purchased fire insurance definitely expect your house to catch on fire? If not, would you be willing to do without fire insurance?

So, what is the federal government doing to reduce the risks of climate change? Not enough of the right things and too many of the wrong things. Take the Senate energy bill -- please, take it.

The energy bill is an example of the unwillingness to face up to serious issues that often grips the other Washington.

Congress and the administration, for example, are steering well clear of an important step that could be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and provide other important benefits - that step would be tightening fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles.

Fuel efficiency works. Thanks to existing standards, we're saving nearly 3 million barrels of oil per day - about 14 percent of total national consumption.

Even if you completely dismiss the science of climate change, there are other good reasons for using energy more efficiently and for finding new sources for the fuel and electricity that we need.

Nearly 60 percent of the oil used in this country comes from somewhere else. If demand for oil continues rising without check, we will become more dependent on foreign oil. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge wouldn't help much, and there are other good reasons not to drill there, which I'll be happy to address during the Q&A.

Why is dependence on foreign oil a problem? Oil is sold into a global market. That market is subject to influences and pressures outside our control.

For example, Saudi Arabia alone sits on top of 25 percent of the world's proven oil reserves.

For now, Saudi oil is dirt-cheap to produce, far cheaper to haul up than oil in the distant Arctic. The Saudis have a lot of idle production capacity, which makes them the ultimate price-setter in the global oil market.

As long as we continue to guzzle gasoline, we are subject to the global oil market's whims. That puts our economy and security at risk.

The one thing the Saudi regime fears most is the U.S. getting serious again about energy efficiency. The last time we did so, a quarter century ago, oil prices collapsed and OPEC lost its market power.

Then we got complacent and wasteful, and today we're even further over a barrel --continuing to send our hard-earned money directly to the Middle East and indirectly to violent gangs that are supported by oil revenues and bent on our destruction.

Now, things could get even more interesting 10 to 20 years from now. In the New York Times a few weeks ago, there was an interesting article in the business section. The article quoted an energy investment banker in Houston who rang an alarm bell. He said, quote, "the easy oil era in Saudi Arabia is either nearly over or over."

Well, what does that mean? It means that Saudi Arabia may not be in a position much longer to serve as the low-cost oil supplier of last resort - assuming that a dictatorial theocratic regime ruled by a family drenched in corruption can last to begin with.

Saudi Arabia is not running out of oil. But it may be running out of dirt-cheap oil. There are signs that the Saudis have pushed some of their fields too hard, which can cause production to fall. If that's the case, as oil demand rises worldwide, supplies may tighten and prices rise, putting a crimp in the global economy.

There are other risks to keep in mind. China is growing like mad, so much so that they consume half the world's steel production. What if China commits full-bore to an oil-fueled economy and competes aggressively for global oil supplies? Would this sow the seeds of a 21st century superpower collision between the U.S. and China?

Wouldn't we be less vulnerable to this sort of unpleasantness if we used oil more efficiently?

The same goes for other energy sources. By using electricity more efficiently, our electric power delivery system would be more resilient and less susceptible to blackouts.

For most parts of the country, including the Northwest, more electric power efficiency would lessen demand for coal. Coal is the most carbon-rich of the fossil fuels. Burning coal also emits mercury and dangerous particles that burrow into human lungs and carry toxins along for the ride.

Efficiency would reduce our vulnerability to unpredictable natural gas price spikes. Efficiency would reduce the demand for gas to fuel electric power plants, and reduce pressure to drill for oil and gas in the West's unspoiled wild lands, such as the Rocky Mountain Front, where you can still see grizzly bears roaming their ancestral home on the Great Plains.

Greater efficiency would buy us time to bring in more energy from non-fossil sources - from the wind, the sun, underground heat, biomass, the oceans. With more time, we could resolve technical issues with producing and transporting hydrogen, a clean fuel for vehicles and power plants.

So, for many good reasons, we need to go on a national energy Atkins diet - low hydrocarbs.

Let me wrap this up by suggesting some steps our leaders in the other Washington should take.

Vice President Cheney says efficiency cannot be the basis of our national energy policy. He's mistaken. Efficiency is where our energy policy must begin.

We need to chart a course that will improve energy efficiency and diversify the types of energy resources we use in this country.

Doing so would be good for the economy - lower costs, new industries, new opportunities for rural America. Worldwide, clean energy will be a $180 billion-per-year business over the next 20 years. We should get some of that business, not watch the Europeans and Asians leave us in the dust. We would take care of energy-related security problems, and do our part to cut greenhouse gas emissions - and maybe avoid a tipping point that would cause that Pentagon climate scenario to come true.

First, Congress needs to pass the McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship bill, which will lay the groundwork for manufacturers and utilities to make money by reducing carbon emissions and selling emissions reduction credits.

As a companion, Congress should pass legislation that will provide incentives and regulatory certainty for utilities to clean up power plants and cut carbon emissions. If coal is to have a future as a power plant fuel and/or hydrogen source, we have to figure out ways of cleaning it up, capturing carbon and sequestering it reliably.

We need tighter fuel economy standards for motor vehicles and aggressive incentives to buy hybrid-electric vehicles. The Chinese government has passed auto fuel economy standards that will be 5 miles per gallon better than U.S. standards by 2008. Why are we standing by watching Chinese communists beat American capitalists at the efficiency game? How embarrassing.

The government and automakers need to work together to get hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road in big numbers as soon as practicable, by solving technical issues and getting the fueling infrastructure in place.

The federal government needs to prime the market for efficient vehicles by buying them. I want to see every federal bureaucrat behind the wheel of a hybrid-electric vehicle.

We need to crack the biochemical nut that would enable mass production of ethanol from low-value materials such as crop residues and wood waste that can be used as motor fuel directly today and as a source of hydrogen in the future.

On the electricity side, the feds must continue tightening efficiency standards for lighting, appliances, and other equipment as the technology warrants.

We support a federal energy portfolio standard that will encourage investment in renewable energy. Also, Congress should fully fund incentives that can help farmers make money selling electricity and fuel from wind, crop residues, and animal waste.

What can you do? Tell Congress and the President that energy is the economic, environmental, and security issue of the 21st century. They need to tear up that awful energy bill and start fresh. The problems are big, but they are solvable.

Our America needs and deserves a real energy plan that will build real economic opportunities, protect our environmental heritage, and make our country safer. Thank you.