Blue Spot

Click on image to see the whole speech! (Must have Windows Media Player)

Excerpt from Harrison's Energy Policy Speech at the Staten Island Museum (9/19):

...Instead of seeing the war on terror as some cosmic struggle, we need to look to the concrete reasons why our fate has become tangled up in such a volatile part of the world. There are many reasons why the United States is involved in the Middle East, but there is no doubt that oil has dragged us into many conflicts that we otherwise would have had no part of.
As even our President has said, we are addicted to oil. In our foreign policy, we have let our hunger for oil compromise our ideals. Where the United States should be a beacon of democracy and freedom, we have supported dictatorship and corruption. Where we should bear the standard of everything that makes our civilization great, we have cynically manipulated nations. All this because of our dependence on oil. This must end.
Our relationship with our oil suppliers is unhealthy for both us and them. Nations that could have spent the last half-century growing robust economies instead live by selling off their dwindling oil reserves. Governments plagued by despotism and corruption feed their people anti-American hatred to distract them from their own countries' failings. I will not say that this must end, for the people of the Mid-east must make their own future...
All we have done since 9-11 has bought us time. Nothing more, but also nothing less, and we must be thankful for those who have paid the terrible price these last five years. Our troops, our firefighters, our police, their families, so many other Americans have suffered and sacrificed to give us those years. It is our obligation to honor their sacrifice by using the time they bought so dearly. We can not in good conscience ask another five years of sacrifice, and another five, and another five, without knowing when it will end, without committing to end our addiction from oil and truly ending the war on terror.
The environmental costs of energy are every bit as high as the national security costs, if perhaps somewhat less immediate. Climate change is real. There is no longer any serious scientific doubt. Our energy use is changing the planet in ways vast and frightening. Although there will always be debate about the details, that is the nature of science, the basic story of climate change is no longer in question. Some well-funded public relations campaigns still try to sow doubt and confusion, but that is little more than a desperate rear-guard action by those who lack the courage to face a difficult reality...Across all industries with a stake in energy, boards of directors have realized that protecting their shareholder's interest demands that they face the reality of climate change. Hard-nosed corporations, many of them hardly known for their warmth towards environmental causes, now factor climate change into their investment planning. Climate change is longer just a concern of scientists environmentalistsalist. It is a business reality...For those of us here in New York, rising sea levels are the most obvious and dramatic threat. We are a harbor city, and large tracts of New York, especially the southern parts of Staten Island, are only a few feet above sea level.
Indeed, there are already worrying signs of rising seas. When I was chair of Community Board 10, our top priority was repairing the collapsing seawall along Shore Parkway. After the engineers did their investigation, I was told that the reason the seawall was falling into the water was that spring tides were topping the wall, something that never happened when it was first built...If we accept the loss of our coasts and our neighbor's homes, we can not guarantee our safety. What happened in New Orleans one year ago is a harsh reminder that, even in our might, we are not immune to natural disaster.
Energy is, quite simply, the lifeblood of our economy. There's no other way of saying it. Virtually every profession, every industry, and every technological advance of the last 200 years relies in some way on our power to burn fossil fuels. For far too long, we've been stuck in a sterile debate between environmental protection and economic growth. Sometimes, at the local level, environment and economy do collide; there is a legitimate conflict between the logger supporting his family and the environmentalist seeking to preserve forests. But, at a national level, I reject this conflict. Time and time again, we have seen that environmental laws end up costing far less than naysayers predicted. Study after study shows that states and countries with strong environmental laws pay no economic penalty, and often even have advantages over those with weak protections.
As we leave the fossil fuel era, the advantages of energy leadership will multiply many times. The age of fossil fuels began in the 18th century; make no mistake, it will end in the 21st. In all likelihood, oil and natural gas production will peak during our lifetimes; even coal may peak during our children's. Demand for all forms of fossil fuel will inexorably rise as growing countries like China and India become wealthy enough to afford cars for their middle class. The question is not if we adapt to scarce fossil fuels, but how we adopt.
History has cautionary tales for those who refuse to face the future. Look back to the American auto industry in the 1970's. As the world changed around them, they refused to accept the new reality, and insisted on making the same styles of big, inefficient cars...
Today, we are at a similar crossroads, but with vastly higher stakes. Nations that master tomorrow's energy technology will prosper; those that fail to adapt risk becoming economically obsolete. Corporations and investors who embrace and navigate the change will be richly rewarded... Over the next decade, we must develop economically competitive alternatives to fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, industrial processes, and chemical production. This will be a great effort, but a richly rewarded one. We will be able to finally end the unhealthy relationship with the Middle East that ties us to a region in turmoil. We will keep our technological edge and once again produce advanced products for the entire world.
The Federal government must take the lead in this, but ultimately, the private sector will do the heavy lifting. The era of command-and-control regulation is over. Regulations and fines may have been appropriate for dealing with the last generation's environmental issues but only flexible, market-driven policies that encourage innovation and investment can meet the next generation's. The federal government's appropriate role is to set long-term energy goals, fund research into basic technologies, and create conditions that encourage and focus private research and investment. The federal government should not engage in picking technologies--we have a very poor track record at that. Instead, we need to create policies that reward investors who help us move towards our energy goals...
For transportation, these goals are to dramatically improve the way we power our automobiles, heavy vehicles, and aircraft. I am not talking about the marginal improvements that current CAFE legislation requires, but order of magnitude improvements made possible by dramatic new technologies. Whatever the right solution is, we must develop new types of cars without sacrificing safety in any way... We should support research into urban planning to see if we can help municipalities design more livable communities that are pedestrian friendly--who knows, as a side benefit, we may even find ways to replace strip malls with the senior and child friendly main streets of years gone by.
In the power generation sector, we will set aggressive goals for renewable or carbon free generation. In this area, states have pulled far ahead of the federal government, and have very successfully used renewable portfolio standards--rules that require utilities to source a percentage of their electricity from clean sources, and allow complete flexibility in how they do that, so long as the statewide targets are met. From Massachusetts to Texas, these RPS policies have been wildly successful, time and time again delivering clean electricity at prices far lower than the doubters ever said. Expanding these standards nationwide should lower prices even further, by encouraging regions ripe for renewables to fully develop their resources and giving utilities that can't economically develop them other options. I believe that with the right goals and research, in 10 years we will see carbon-free electricity that is economically competitive with coal and natural gas.
There are many exciting technologies on the horizon that will let us do this. Wind power is already the fastest growing source of electricity in the world, and I believe that both on-shore and over-the-horizon offshore wind turbines will be a major source of power in the future. Hydrogen has great promise as a transportation fuel. Solar, geothermal, and biomass have all proven themselves in niche markets, and with further development, may well take a much larger role in the future...Clean, quiet fuel cells may let us place generators where the power is needed, saving transmission costs. Breakthroughs in more exotic technologies could transform the entire energy and environmental landscape...
We also need to look critically at how we manage our national power grid. Experts agree that our electrical system is dangerously underfunded. Sometimes, like during the Blackout of 2003, this has disastrous results. But everyday, our grid wastes substantial amounts of energy, and its outdated equipment complicates bringing new energy sources online. The federal government should work with state regulators to solve the difficult problem of encouraging private investment to modernize our transmission and distribution systems. Modernizing the grid will not only reduce waste, it will help us develop industrial products that will be in demand around the world. As we do this, we need to be sure that we make any mprovements necessary to support new generation technologies, and give entrepreneurial independent power producers a level playing field to compete with established utilities...
It might seem strange, but what really hurts isn't high oil prices. It's unpredictable oil prices. We know how to adjust to high prices--we've done it in the past. It's the surprises, the suddenly expensive oil that nobody planned for, that really hurts our wallets and our economy...
This all leads me to my strategy for helping all of us deal with the inevitable. The government can not make prices lower. Except for short-term, unwise measures, that is beyond our power. What the government can do is stabilize prices. I believe that we should look into setting up a system, modeled after the Federal Reserve, to smooth out short-term fluctuations in oil prices.
Let me be very clear. I am proposing neither a tax nor a subsidy. What I am proposing is that we look into ways to set aside money when energy is relatively cheap to use in the times when it is overpriced. Doing this will require finesse and skill, and it may turn out that, after study, the experts find it beyond us. Still, this policy, or one like it, could have powerful benefits for individuals and investors. Individuals will know what they can expect to spend on gas for their cars or heating for their homes, and will be better able to make smart decisions that save them money. Producers will know the markets their customers face, and will have strong incentives to introduce appropriate new products. In many cases, uncertainty about energy prices blocks industry from improving efficiency and deploying new technologies. Reducing this uncertainty will go a long way to stimulate the investments we'll need to prosper in the post fossil-fuel era.
One danger looms larger than all I have mentioned so far today: denial and compliancy. There are those who pretend that there is no problem, who would rather spend effort on public relations than science, who are afraid of change. There are those who believe that sticking our heads in the sand is better than bravely facing the future. I submit to you that that is the real danger. We are the most scientifically advanced, economically powerful nation in all of history. We can lead the world into the next century. All we need is the will and the courage to do so.