City of the Future

Chevron CEO: Affordable Energy Equals Oil, Gas and Coal -- Really?

The Wall Street Journal this weekend interviewed John Watson, Chevron's new CEO, who it described as a "rare breed these days: an unapologetic oil man." Watson predictably dismisses peak oil as irrelevant and hints that drilling restrictions will cause energy prices to go up. But the money quote, from the clearly unbiased interviewer was this:

"That pretty much sums up the broader choice America faces on energy policy. It can listen to the Washington siren song on alternative energy, pouring scarce dollars into green subsidies, driving up the cost of energy, and driving out U.S. manufacturing and jobs. Or it can embrace our own fossil fuel resources, which are cheap and plentiful. "'What I see are people who want affordable energy," says Mr. Watson. "They want strong environmental standards—they want a lot of things—but first and foremost they want affordable energy. And if you want affordable energy, you want oil, gas and coal.'"

Really? Maybe Watson and is interviewer missed this Bloomberg New Energy Finance study which reported that globally fossil fuel subsidies are twelve times those of renewable energy sources.

Congress should subpoena all of the oil and gas CEOs and ask them point blank, under threat of perjury just how much oil they think they could produce domestically per day (not "estimated reserves") if they had unfettered access to public lands and offshore sites, how that compares to current domestic and global production, what their timeframe is for bringing this oil on-line, and what is their evidence to this effect. In the meantime, we need a new political movement with one goal only: eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies. Maybe someone out there can think of a new catchphrase to this effect?

Obama

After 20 months of vicious drama and wild spectacle, Americans at long last entered the voting booth last Tuesday and, for one fateful moment,were given a tiny say in how their lives should be governed for the next four years.

In many ways presidential elections in the United States embody everything that's wrong not only with the modern political process, but in how citizens of liberal democracies have been taught to conceive of public life itself. Much is made of how important it is to vote, but I believe that for many the process feels profoundly disempowering--a reminder of just how little control each one of us has over his own destiny in a world where our cultural, economic and political environments are overwhelmingly shaped and directed by Madison Avenue, Wall Street and Washington D.C.

In such a system, the office of the presidency takes on a totemic significance which in turn diminishes (in both perception and reality) the importance of public life at all other levels. As someone who believes that the world faces challenges that will force it to re-engage with the regional, the local and the small-scale, I feel ambivalent at best about any process that encourages people to project all of their fears, hopes and aspirations onto a distant figurehead.

That said, it was impossible to not be moved by the stunning victory of Barack Obama on Tuesday night.For several weeks polls had suggested --the possibility of massive voter fraud aside--that he would win. But when the moment finally came, many Americans (along with observers around the world) could scarcely believe it. Could this be the same country that elected George W. Bush--twice? More importantly, could this be the same country that a mere half a century ago was shot through with institutionalized racism--a country that a century and a half ago was almost torn in half by over the issue of slavery?

But as moving as it was, Obama's victory had also a bittersweet flavor for anyone who has been paying attention to the long-building global crises that are only beginning to manifest themselves. It seems all but certain that in its first term the Obama administration will confront some of the greatest challenges our nation has ever faced--including, but not limited to, the continued unwinding of the biggest debt bubble in history, the decline (and possible sudden devaluation) of the U.S. dollar, and, most critically, the mother of all energy shocks. No President, no matter how intelligent or wise, will be able to magically make these problems go away.

Or as Matt Savinar of Life After the Oil Crash puts it (somewhat more harshly),

"Given the size and speed of the unraveling, Barack is unlikely to be able to do anything more than attempt to manage the dismantling of the country in an orderly fashion, assuming there is anything left to dismantle once the Bush Cabal is finished with their last frenzy of pillaging."

Perhaps the most important thing about Obama's victory is that it denies continued power to the neo-conservatives who have been running the country for the last eight years. The self-destructive temptation of those in power to seize resources through force only grows in times of scarcity; and nothing is more frightening in times of crisis than leaders with authoritarian impulses. Obama appears to possesses far more wisdom on both counts than either his predecessor or his former opponent.

But to me, Obama's achievement signifies something else as well--a repudiation of determinism. If, after all, someone from as humble a beginning as his can seize such an unexpected victory, maybe the fate of human beings overall is not as tightly sealed as some in the peak oil world would have us believe; maybe human beings, individually and collectively, do have the ability to transcend their personal limitations, to make choices, to become inspired to action, to sacrifice for a greater cause.

The fact that this victory was achieved (for the most part) not through traditional power-brokering but with direct appeals to scores of individuals--individuals of modest means who gave not only money but time and incredible enthusiasm--marks a political sea-change that is as significant as any particular proposal Obama may have articulated.

If, in the end, that means only that we will have a "more orderly dismantling," well, that's better than the alternative.