The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
Winning the Oil Endgame, by Lovins, Datta, et al.
By Michael Stillman
You must read this book. It may well be the most important one you will ever read. The authors think it is so important that while they will sell it you for $40, they will also let you download it for free. Do it now. Here is the link for a free download or a purchase: www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html.
The title of the book is The Oil Endgame, written by Amory Lovins, E. Kyle Datta, and others from the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute. Oil, which once fueled the enormous growth and prosperity of America, now threatens to be our downfall. Our economy, our security, our very way of life is dependent on oil. Unfortunately, we can no longer begin to supply our own needs. We are hostage to various foreign powers that control the oil we now need to survive. Few of these countries are truly our friends, and most are situated in volatile parts of the world where even a handful of fanatics have the potential to totally disrupt the supply of what has become our lifeblood.
Most of us have tossed our hands in the air and effectively given up. The problem seems so large as to be insoluble. Our demands for energy go up every year, and now new demand from huge developing countries like China and India compete for a dwindling worldwide supply. Meanwhile, terrorists prowl the supply lanes of the largest producers and unfriendly leaders have appeared in places such as Venezuela. What can we counter with? Tiny, cramped, uncomfortable and unsafe cars and windmills? Anything we try to do seems to amount to tilting at the latter. We do nothing because there seems nothing we can do.
Wrong! Here come Lovins and his friends to totally disrupt our comfortable hopelessness. This is a problem that not only must but can be solved. The solution is within reach, it is not overwhelmingly complex, costly, or difficult, and the benefits of resolving this problem go far beyond that of simply securing reasonably priced power. This is a book that will free you of all of the conventional wisdom that has convinced you this problem is intractable. You will be struck with more of those "ah ha" moments, where suddenly you are able to see the issues in another light, then you imagined possible. While there is a certain amount of technical explanation beyond the average reader, this book is written so anyone can understand what the problems are and how they can be solved. And, when you are finished, you will understand what choices you can make, both as a consumer and as a voter, to save your country from this deepening crisis your leaders are ignoring. You can be part of the solution.
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
Back cover sports impressive reviews
The issues this book covers include the real cost of oil. It's far more than just the astronomical pump prices we've seen lately. What are the forces, special interests if you will, that lead us to drag our feet on solving this problem? Next they look at past examples that show how similar problems were resolved in surprisingly quick order. Finally, they specifically address the solutions to the oil crisis. This is the most important section, as once you finish, you will no longer believe that nothing can be done beyond desperate drilling for more of what we know is a diminishing resource, at greater and greater cost.
First, the real cost. We all see the tip of this iceberg when we fill up our gas tanks, pay for oil or gas used to heat and cool our homes, or watch our bills for electricity, primarily generated from fossil fuels, climb ever higher. But what about the cost of sending all of that money abroad? How much of our national wealth do we export every year? How many jobs could we create if we were producing our own energy or energy-saving vehicles? How much would that add to our economy? Factor this in, and the cost of resolving this problem (Lovins and all estimate this to be $180 billion) seems a lot cheaper.
This doesn't even get to the cost that many of us don't even like to acknowledge - the military. The authors tread on this one lightly, it being a political bombshell with our troops now fighting in the oil-rich country of Iraq, in the heart of the oil-rich Persian Gulf. They suffice to point out that our last couple of wars have occurred in this area and, even when not at war, we have a constant heavy investment in military forces protecting the supply routes. And, while once this issue was limited to threats from a few ruling tyrants, now a handful of terrorists hidden in the mountains of some friendly nation have the potential to hold our lifeblood hostage. "Prolonged shortages could rip the fabric of American society, throttling everything from daily commuting and air travel to food trucking," the authors point out. Then they note that two-thirds of the oil from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer, goes through one processing plant. "Simple attacks on a few key facilities, such as pipeline nodes, could choke supply for two years." What happens to us then? Does anyone know?
Again, while the authors are circumspect about current military actions, not wanting to antagonize any potential supporters of their plan, I see no need to be. We are fighting an expensive war, both in terms of dollars and lives, in Iraq, for oil. Period. This is not about WMD or freedom for oppressed people. It is about oil. This is not to get involved in the controversy whether we are fighting for the benefit of the oil companies. It seems that our population is split about 50/50 in their beliefs on this issue. Our leaders may have the purest of motives, fighting to protect the oil supply on which all of us depend, rather than the profits of the oil companies. It doesn't matter. Either way, this war is about oil.
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
Chessboard signifies the oil endgame.
Just look at our actions outside of the Persian Gulf. There are far more dangerous WMD in North Korea, but no American troops are there. There are atomic weapons in Pakistan, now headed by a friendly, unelected ruler presiding over a resentful people (much like the Shah of Iran a few decades ago), and yet we just announced a sale of more fighter jets to this nation that could one day turn on us (again like Iran). As for bringing freedom to an oppressed people, the world is filled with oppressed people. They are dying in the Sudan, in central Africa, North Korea, Burma, all over the world, but outside of the Persian Gulf, we do not act. We can debate about whether our actions in Iraq are helping the situation or only making it worse, but it is clear that we are bearing enormous military costs in an area where there is oil that we do not expend anywhere else. This is not a coincidence. If our enemies succeed in shutting down that supply, we will expend even more, much more.
What about terrorists? It is no coincidence that the terrorists we find ourselves at war with are those with a connection to the oil capital of the world. There are terrorists all around the globe. They represent different forces in local battles. We have seen terrible carnage in Rwanda and its neighboring countries. Terrorists attack civilians in Algeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. If we think Al Qaida is the only terrorist group capable of unspeakable cruelty, think back to that Russian school and the Chechnyan terrorists. Still, most of them don't bother us in America. It is only those with a connection to what is otherwise useless (to us) land in the Persian Gulf that wreak havoc on our lives. Our need for that oil leaves us no choice but to get involved in these struggles which otherwise have nothing to do with us. But what if we didn't need their oil, had no vital interest in their lands to protect? Suddenly Lovins estimate of $180 billion to achieve energy independence, even twice that, seems cheap indeed.
So who has an interest in maintaining the status quo? There are two primary interests, the oil companies and the automobile manufacturers. The oil companies' reaction is natural. A plan that greatly reduces, and eventually eliminates, the need for oil is not going to please an organization whose existence in based on supplying the substance. However, the public need here is overwhelming, and the fact is, this change is going to come anyway. It is a question of when, not if. Worldwide oil supplies are scheduled to run out sometime later this century. Long before, shortages and accompanying escalating prices will tear apart our economy and standard of living. Fights among dependent nations for the shrinking oil supply may lead to new wars among old friends. It is an ugly scenario. The question is whether we will undertake the transition while it can still be accomplished with a minimum of disruption, or wait until chaos, depression, and conflicts force us to deal with the problem under the worst conditions. That is the only choice we have.
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
none
What the oil companies face is a process described as "creative destruction." That is when new technology overwhelms businesses based on an old technology. The authors cite the rapid destruction of an earlier oil business, whale oil, after the development of kerosene. We all can name numerous other examples, horse-drawn carriages, the Pony Express, the telegraph, typewriters, that have experienced this. Lovins points out that of the twelve original members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, only one company, General Electric, survives today. His suggestion is that oil companies think of themselves as energy companies instead, and prepare to play a role in a post-oil energy world. He cites BP's (British Petroleum) new motto, "Beyond Petroleum." The oil industry may have much political clout, and the reality is that yesterday's technology still has the money to influence elected representatives, while tomorrow's technology does not, but this change is rolling down the track, and it will come, like it or not.
The other major vested interest, and less sympathetic one, is the American automobile industry. They have been watching foreign manufacturers who make a point of getting out ahead of the curve eat their lunch for the past three decades, and still they resist change. Where once (1970) Detroit controlled 90% of the American automobile market, it is barely over half today. We all know how Japan stole their share. They built better cars. Still, American manufacturers cling to the old ways. They responded by convincing Americans to buy SUVs and assorted heavy gas guzzlers. The authors point to a comment about hybrid cars from General Motors, calling them an "interesting curiosity," while postponing production until 2007. Meanwhile, backlogs build for the Toyota Prius. As bad as the situation has been for Detroit in America, it has fallen even further in the rest of the world. While Americans purchased Hummers and the like, fed by still relatively cheap gas, the American behemoths have been rejected by the rest of the world that has had to deal with expensive oil for a longer time. To Detroit, the authors recommend producing cars that are relevant to the world as it is, not as it was.
The next issue is how seemingly overwhelming is the task at hand. How can we possibly make the level of changes needed? First, the book points to earlier cases of "creative destruction." When these happen, they occur with blinding speed. Next, we see some specific examples from the past. Isn't it unrealistic to expect Detroit to turn out a new generation of efficient cars in anything less than many years? They look at World War II. In six months, Detroit's auto plants were turned from pumping out automobiles to rolling out tanks and airplanes. They can't convert to efficient cars? Sure, back then we were at war. Wait a minute. We're at war today.
Then they point to the nation's response to the energy crisis of the 1970s. From 1977-1985, when, as the authors say, "the U.S. last paid attention to oil," use dropped by 17%, even as the gross domestic product increased by 27%. Imports declined 50% over eight years. That was the period when higher mileage was mandated by the government. The automobile companies screamed, but efficiency rose 50% anyway. The pricing power of OPEC was broken for years. "Today we can rerun that play, only better," the book states. Unfortunately, once oil prices declined, we lost interest. Instead of continuing the trend toward efficiency, Detroit began focusing on "light trucks," a class of vehicle not subject to the aforementioned mileage standards. Since 1985, there have been no further mileage requirements, except one that now requires a miniscule 1.5 mile per gallon improvement for light trucks by 2007. While Detroit fought any additional requirements beyond the current 27.5 mpg, European manufacturers voluntarily committed to a 39 mpg average by 2008. Meanwhile, the Japanese automaker Toyota has produced the hybrid Prius, with its 55 mpg in a five-passenger car. Yes, it can be done. It's just that we are no longer the ones doing it.
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
none
So, then, what is the plan, and does it require enormous sacrifices in our lifestyles to achieve? Listen to Lovins and all again: "Americans have also been too ready to accept dismissive claims, often from those whom change may discomfit, that any improvement will be decades away, crimp lifestyles and freedoms, and require intrusive interventions and exorbitant taxation." Don't accept that anymore! As they note, "Consumer electronics every month get smaller, better, faster, cheaper; why can't anything else?"
There is a two-pronged attack, alternative fuels and greater efficiency. They are intractably tied together. Most people think that sources such as biomass fuels are too limited to solve our problem. Perhaps they are, but if we can substantially reduce demand through greater efficiency, suddenly these potential sources become very large.
But, we have all said it, how can we ever gain enough more in efficiency to make a serious dent in oil imports, particularly since worldwide demand is rising? Leaving aside the fact that the Japanese have already made huge strides, the authors examine what happens when gasoline is burned in an automobile engine. What they tell us is, "Only an eighth of that fuel energy ever reaches the wheels, a sixteenth accelerates the car, and less than one percent ends up moving the driver." Think about it. Less than one percent of the energy in the fuel goes to accomplishing the desired task, moving you from point A to point B. What if we could raise that to some "enormous number," like 2% or 3%? We could so reduce our need for oil that we could replace it with biofuels and/or hydrogen cells. We could free ourselves of our narcotic foreign dependence.
This issue implies what may be their most important means of increasing mileage, vehicle weight. Once you have finished cursing out their plan to stick you in a tiny, unsafe minicar, you'll want to read about modern polymers that weigh a fraction of steel but are stronger and more durable. They quote Henry Ford that one of the biggest fallacies of the business is that heavier weight means more strength. They then point to a racecar accident where a lightweight, polymer car crashed into a wall at 220 mph. The driver did break a few bones, but recovered to race again. Don't try this with your heavyweight SUV! What they dub "ultralightweights" have the potential to increase mileage by enormous amounts while being roomy, comfortable and safer. Combine this with other advances such as hybrid technology, and/or efficient hydrogen fuel cells, and the potential is astonishing.
There are many other steps too numerous to go into here. Some cars employ more aerodynamic designs, but most don't, and few have paid attention to the drag caused by the bottom of the car. Engines can certainly be more efficient, and fuel cells can convert other fuels to far more efficient hydrogen. Tires can be designed to save fuel. Automotive air conditioners can be more efficient. And, we are only talking about cars. Power plants and home furnaces that burn oil can be more efficient. And gas burning and other fuel plants and appliances can be made more efficient, freeing up more of these fuels to replace oil burned in power plants. There are changes that can be made in highways, traffic lights, and such to reduce fuel consumption. The list goes on and on, but hopefully, you can see the point. Astonishingly, these are all based on technologies available today. Does anyone not believe that further advancements will be made in the years ahead that will enable us to increase efficiency even more?
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
none
We have not even touched on the supply side, but the authors have much to tell us about biofuels. They talk about Brazil, where substitution of biofuels allowed the country to cut imports by $50 billion, create 700,000 new jobs, and save over ten times the investment made from 1975-1989. Brazil used a program of guaranteed government purchases, loans, and setting of prices to provide an advantage to ethanol to achieve these results. The authors note that such a program would be an enormous boon to a dying rural America as a byproduct of our energy independence.
What is the government's role in all of this? Again, trying to gain as broad a coalition as possible, they focus on private sector action. As they describe it, "government steers, not rows." So, for example, they propose "feebates." This puts fees on the purchase of inefficient cars, using these to fund rebates on efficient ones. To avoid forcing people to select certain types of automobiles (they do not want to interfere with customer choice), they are placed by vehicle type. In other words, inefficient SUVs fund rebates for efficient SUVs, so you can still choose an SUV if that is your preference.
Some people may think this is unfair. It is not. As the authors have shown, there are enormous hidden costs, such as the military ones, we are all forced to bear to enable some to drive gas guzzlers. Why should one person, who chooses a car that requires only that person's share of domestically produced oil, have to pay for military protection of the foreign oil his neighbor needs to feed a gas guzzler? If we can ask our young to go off to war and die so we can have gas guzzlers, should we not at least charge the people who drive them the financial cost? Right now, the responsible energy users are forced to support the profligate. Is this fair?
One thing about the above program is that it is revenue neutral. It funds itself. Conservatives should approve. Other suggestions include providing loans for lower income people to replace their old cars with efficient ones. Many of the oldest, most inefficient cars are owned by the poorest people. Alternatively, the government could provide guarantees to private lenders to lend to people who would not otherwise qualify. Here is my favorite suggestion, although it gets only one line in the report. Provide preferred parking spaces at malls, stores, and elsewhere to people with efficient cars. These would be something like handicapped parking spaces today. Make the people driving gas guzzlers walk farther. Watching drivers prowl parking lots for a space ten feet closer to the door tells me that this will be a major incentive for the typical consumer. Suddenly, the efficient car affords greater privileges. The cost is zero.
|
The Most Important Book You Will Ever Read - The Oil Endgame.
- By Michael Stillman
none
There are lots more ideas in this book, and you should read them all. Yet despite the gravity of the problem and the creativity of the solutions, I hear next to nothing about it. I have no idea what my representatives think of all this, or what they are doing about it. Do you? I do know that our government provides large tax breaks for businesses which buy these huge gas guzzling SUVs for "business purposes." Our representatives have chosen to subsidize our downfall. Perhaps we should subsidize theirs.
I've never heard a word about this book or its solutions on TV either. I know all about Michael Jackson, Terry Schiavo, O.J. Simpson. I know Britney Spears is having a baby, and feel wonderful for her. I know all about gay marriage. Why didn't I know anything about solving our oil problems until I stumbled across this book? Is part of the cause of our problems that we have our priorities mixed up?
The authors talk almost apologetically of the $180 billion price tag for the steps we need to take, even though much of it comes from private funds. To me this sounds incredibly cheap, and I am a taxpayer. Double it and it sounds cheap. This year alone, our deficit will exceed $400 billion. What of lasting value will we get from a deficit that is more than double the entire cost of this project? Nothing that I'm aware of. Before a year is over our mission in Iraq will have cost more than $180 billion, but it hasn't increased the oil supply, reduced its price, or even reduced the risk of a supply disruption. Isn't an investment of $180 billion that could bring us energy independence within 20 years, and possibly the total elimination of fuel oil a few years thereafter, a "no-brainer?" Or are we the "no-brainers?" Must we wait for gasoline to go to $5, gas lines to reappear, the economy to go into a tailspin, the rest of our money to be exported along with our jobs? How many more of our young people do we need to send to the Gulf? Enough to fill Iran, Saudi Arabia? What are we waiting for to tackle this problem? What are we waiting for?
To download this important book, go to the following website NOW:
www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
|