Unwanted truths

"Gusher of Lies" is a book by Robert Bryce, debunking various myths about "green" energy and the possibility of energy "independence". The book sounds more scholarly and respectable than Bryce's later book "Power hungry", which is written in a more popular style.

Ever since the Arab oil embargo in 1973, American politicians from both parties, and all presidents, have called for "energy independence", preferably within a decade or so. Jimmy Carter even went so far as to put up solar panels on the White House! Bryce argues in some detail that the interdependence of the world energy market makes U.S. energy independence impossible. The United States needs large quantities of oil, so large that isolationism simply isn't an option. The United States passed the peak of its oil production already before the Arab embargo, and will become even more dependent on oil imports in the future. Ethanol and other biofuels cannot replace more than a fraction of the American demand for oil. Wind power is simply silly, and coal-to-liquid (CTL) is far too expensive, at least for the foreseeable future. Nuclear power is a more realistic option, but it's dependent on imported uranium. Meanwhile, the real epicentre of the world's energy market has moved to Asia, where several nations are experiencing explosive economic growth, in large part built around oil. Energy interdependence, not independence, is the wave of the future.

For a long time ahead, the oil market will be dominated by OPEC and national oil companies in non-OPEC nations such as Russia. However, this is not necessarily a threat to U.S. national security. Energy interdependence goes both ways. In the author's opinion, OPEC cannot embargo the Western nations again. First, the West has large oil reserves in case of an emergency. Second, the OPEC member-states need to sell their oil (a trivial point - but well worth making). They have little else to sell, and their booming economies are built on the profits from oil sales. Bryce also points out that even Saudi Arabia and Iran *imports* oil products, despite also being the world's largest oil exporters! If not even these nations can become "energy independent", what makes American presidents and their voters so sure that the United States can make it?

Despite the globalized character of the energy markets, a weird combination of energy isolationism and interventionist militarism remains strong in the United States. The United States wants to isolate Iran (an OPEC member), and some political factions also want to break free of Saudi Arabia (another OPEC member-state). Bryce doesn't believe that this is feasible. Iran can't be isolated, since they have too lucrative trade and investment deals with China, Russia, India, Turkey and even some European nations. Bryce also criticizes the Saudi-bashing prevalent throughout the political spectrum. He doesn't believe that the Saudis are responsible for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Nor does he believe that terrorism is funded primarily by petrodollars. Osama bin-Laden's fortune comes from the construction business, Iraqi terrorism is financed by trafficking, the Taliban have opium, etc. The world's largest and (until recently) most successful "terrorist" organization, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, had no connection to oil money. They weren't even Muslim. The author also notes that the very same people who shout loudest about "energy independence" also organized the Second Iraq War, thereby proving that they don't really believe that energy independence is possible - by occupying Iraq, the United States got control of the third largest oil producer! Rather than militarizing the Middle East, Bryce wants to appease the Muslim nations in the region through a peaceful policy of trade. These parts of the book might be the hardest to swallow for the average American reader.

Bryce believes that U.S. isolationism wouldn't bankrupt Saudi Arabia. The Saudis would simply sell their oil to somebody else, perhaps China. Indeed, if the oil prices plummet as a result of U.S. "energy independence", Chinese demand will soar, making the OPEC oil fields profitable despite lower prices. The United States doesn't buy any oil from Iran, yet this hasn't prevented Iran from becoming the world's second largest oil producer. Even if the U.S. had been self-sufficient in oil, the ups and downs of the international oil market would affect the American economy anyway, since (of course) the rest of the economy isn't self-sufficient. And regardless of what we may think of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq (I for one don't like them) it's obvious that the United States and its allies simply cannot attack these nations and keep them occupied forever.

Two things stand out here. First, the connection between Arab-bashing/Muslim-bashing, calls to make America oil-independent and a hawkish foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, rather than a *real* isolationism. It's obvious that the slogan of "energy independence" is often used as a codeword for an even more interventionist foreign policy. The second thing that stands out is the unholy alliance between Neo-Cons and confused Green and liberal groups, who also call for energy independence, since they want to end dependence on fossil fuels. Another player exposed by the author is the ethanol lobby, which finances both Democratic and Republican politicians with the sole aim of securing billions of tax dollars in subsidies to corn ethanol, which the auhor regards as a worthless fuel.

But what is the author's alternative, apart from appeasing America's traditional adversaries and competitors? The author believes that the world should adapt to climate change rather than attempt to stop it, since stopping it is impossible. The demand for cheap fuel and electricity will get larger in the decades ahead as China and other developing nations experience rapid economic growth and higher living standards. Somewhat contradictorily, "Gusher of Lies" ends with a call for increased domestic oil production, more solar power, increased energy efficiency, superbatteries and an expansion of both nuclear power and natural gas. In his later book, "Power hungry", Bryce drops all alternative forms of energy and squarely embraces N2N, natural gas-to-nuclear, while predicting a long transition period during which oil and coal will still be used.

I don't agree with everything Robert Bryce is saying - he is too positive towards the present regime in Saudi Arabia, for starters - but "Gusher of Lies" is nevertheless an important contribution to the debate. Even Greens should read this book, despite the author's anti-Green perspective (even more marked in his later book). What "Gusher of Lies" shows, above all, is the immense difficulty of combining economic development with Green sustainability. If the world goes off fossil fuels and nuclear power, the present system might collapse entirely! Moderate Greens often live in the illusion that we can keep our high standard of living (and develop China and India) by rapidly replacing oil, coal and nuclear with renewable energy sources. If Bryce is right, this perspective is utopian. If our present fuels go, so does the economy. But if climate change is real, fossil fuels *must* be replaced, and fast. Bryce is an "official optimist" who cheerfully thinks we can make it. I'm not so sure anymore. Finding the golden mean in all this won't be easy, provided it even exists.

Despite its pro-fossil fuel agenda, what "Gusher of Lies" really shows is the terrible bind modern civilization has gotten itself into. Will we able to extricate ourselves from it in time? That's the question.