U.S. can't afford to wait any longer on switch to clean energy
One million gallons. Few people have seen or smelled this much crude oil.
I have.
As a 1st Lieutenant in the Marine Corps deployed to Iraq's al-Anbar province in 2007, my battalion oversaw a corner of the Haditha Triad suffering from an untapped oil well, broken by insurgents trying to thwart progress in the region. The oil seeps into everything, singes your nostrils and makes the air bitter in the heat.
The people along the Kalamazoo River now know the most uncomfortable part of being a ground troop in Iraq's al-Anbar province. Before them, it was the Americans due almost directly south of Michigan in the gulf coast.
The cry "Drill, baby, drill" has been answered with "Spill, baby, spill." And for what? To feed an economy that thrives on carbon-based fuels when a clear alternative exists?
We can do better.
Last year, 15 retired flag-level officers, admirals and generals who had commanded fleets and combatant commands, analyzed the effects of climate change and our country's addiction to oil on our national security for the nonpartisan Center for Naval Analysis. They concluded that our continued rate of use was unsustainable and that the effects of its use were both real and served to accelerate the scarcity of natural resources that often cause our military to become engaged in everything from humanitarian relief to combat.
Meanwhile, developing economies such as India and China are increasing their consumption of oil, making what is left scarce and, by extension, driving up the global price.
The same month that the CNA report was released, McKinsey & Co. published a report funded by environmental groups and energy, automotive and technology companies titled "Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy." They find that the right combination of incentives and investment by both the private and public sectors would yield a 55% reduction in atmospheric CO2 (from 1990 levels) by 2030 and generate 200 new opportunities for growth in 10 sectors spanning 21 geographical regions.
Specifically, for those of us here in Michigan, that means a renewal in the manufacturing, engineering and service sectors that have been responsible for the region's prosperity for generations.
So, what to do? Opponents of a cap-and-trade system have been successful in painting legislation as a "cap-and-tax." An Environmental Protection Agency study confirms that in the short-term, the average American would pay approximately $100 extra per year. However, over time, they would save $900 per year in lower energy costs.
That $100 cost in the short-term? It could easily be refunded with tax credits or payroll tax exemptions, making the effects a net-zero in terms of initial out-of-pocket costs. The return? Nine times the initial investment in savings, and the creation of new industries and technologies.
These are commonsense, fiscally conservative solutions that, according to a Pew Research Poll last year, have been embraced by 59% of Americans.
One of my commanders in the Marine Corps had a favorite saying: "That hill isn't going to take itself."
We find ourselves in a position where we have enough information on the challenges we face. We have enough information on the available solutions.
Yet another year will pass without legislation to tackle our challenges. How many more oil spills, military interventions and upticks on the global thermometer are needed before our representatives will "take the hill"?
Steve Maddox of West Bloomfield is a former Marine Corps captain, and an Iraq war veteran. He is currently a national security fellow at the Truman National Security Project.
