A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from
Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment
Reviewed by M. L Lamendola
Author: Jay Hakes
Wiley
Pages: 256
Released July 2008
$28 USD
ISBN: 978-0-470-26763-9
Strengths: Offers
various scenarios all of which would go far in helping the US out of the
latest so-called Energy Crisis. |
![](DeclarationofEnergyIndependence_files/image004.gif)
|
Weaknesses: Chapter 5 on Global Warming defies logic. |
Introduction
"If you’ve wondered about how
America can break links between oil consumption, terrorism, and the war in
Iraq, A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can
Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment will show you how
our country can gain energy independence and solve its energy crisis. Written
by a top energy expert, this book outlines seven economically and politically
viable ways America can more efficiently use and produce energy. Find out how
carbon fuels negatively impact our lives and understand the political framework
of the energy crisis."
All I can say is a healthy, hearty "Amen" to
everything M. L. Lamendola of Merriam, KS wrote in his Amazon.com review of
this book. I could not have
written it better, so here is his review;
"Have you ever wondered why 80% of the cars in Europe
have standard transmissions while 80% in the USA have automatics? While that
question does not appear in this book, the answer does.
Jay Hakes is, by training and experience, a researcher and
data cruncher. Given Hakes' background, I was surprised to find the text was so
readable. I had expected wordy prose in passive voice, but it's not that at
all. He presented a huge amount of information in the fairly tight space of 230
pages, and yet kept the narrative flowing.
Hakes uses his special qualifications to build the
foundation for recommendations that are right on target. He also uses these
qualifications to build the (strong) case for following those recommendations.
While many people are in denial that there's an energy problem, the reality is
we do have one. We also have a closely related pollution problem, largely from
the same causes.
This book has one glaring flaw that I will discuss in
detail at the end of this review. I don't want to start off discussing it
because this book is, on the whole, an excellent work that provides a dose of
reality and reason that is badly needed among our misrepresentatives in
Congress as they go about their usual job of making poor public policy.
One of Hakes' core philosophies is that there is no silver
bullet that will solve our energy problem. It's a complex problem with a myriad
of causes. It requires a myriad of solutions.
One of those solutions is waste reduction. We can slash
energy demand by simply being less wasteful. This doesn't mean extremist
measures such as turning thermostats down to 55 degrees Fahrenheit in the
winter, as recommended by Jimmy Carter. Other, more reasonable measures can cut
energy demands significantly. Hakes provides an excellent overview of such
measures. I won't list them here.
Millions of individuals and businesses are already
implementing these (and other) measures to varying extents. There are economic
and other pressures to make this happen. But even with waste reduction measures
being increasingly adopted on a voluntary basis, there is plenty of room for
improvement in this area--without becoming severe about it.
Hakes doesn't harp on conservation (buzzword today is
"efficiency") as "the solution." Nor does he present some
complex, integrated program or claim that only government or only the market
can do the job. Instead, he presents several solutions that draw on government
and the private sector, acting in their proper roles. Hakes is not a
self-proclaimed expert with a personal agenda to push. Instead, he's produced a
timely work of research that is, with the exceptions noted here, authoritative
and well-substantiated.
So, what's actually in this book? It consists of three
parts and fifteen chapters.
Part One consists of seven chapters, and it explains why
our lack of energy independence is a problem. The first chapter explains how we
got to the not very good position we find ourselves in now. Chapter Two shows
how we won our energy independence in the late 1970s. Chapter 3 explains how we
lost it again. I appreciate this particular sequence of chapters, as it builds
the proper foundation for what follows.
Chapter 4 discusses the huge cost we pay militarily. What
Hakes didn't point out is the USA spends more on its military than the next
nine nations combined. Which explains quite a bit about why we are now the
poorest nation in history, saddled with a debt approaching $10 trillion.
Chapter 5 doesn't belong in the book. I provide a detailed
excoriation of it at the end of this review.
Chapter 6 explains, correctly, why "market
solutions" alone cannot solve our energy problems. Chapter 7 explains why
liberals and conservatives can come together on it. That's the horizontal plane
of the political arena. The vertical plane, which Hakes doesn't mention, consists
of the statists and the libertarians (not referring to the Libertarian Party).
Hakes correctly explains the proper role of government in helping to solve the
energy dependence problem.
Part Two consists of another seven chapters, each of which
describes a path to energy independence. I won't list the actual
recommendations, because doing so is a bit like revealing the plot of a movie
before the other person has seen it. I will say the prevailing technical
literature supports the economics and feasibility of his recommendations (some
tweaking may be required).
Part Three consists of Chapter 15. Here, Hakes discusses
what he feels we need from public policy makers and from voters. But he errs in
advising people to make energy an election issue. If you look at the history of
elections in the USA, you will see we really have a single-party system. No
matter which arm of the Demopublican Party gets "elected," we still
end up with massive over-regulation, egregious overspending, and wars. So, you
don't have the power of choice at the ballot (at least, not on the federal
level where the big money is in play). Your only power there is the power of
objection, and to exercise that power you cannot vote Republican or Democrat.
To get our misrepresentatives in Congress involved in good
public policy related to energy (or anything else), you have reach their actual
employers: the special interest groups that hire the lobbyists. You may not
personally be able to afford a $10,000 seat at a fund-raising dinner that gives
you an audience with your misrepresentatives, but as a consumer you can lobby
those who pay the lobbyists. You can vote with your dollars, for example, in
buying a fuel-efficient car instead of an SUV and then send a letter
(explaining your choice) to Public Relations at the auto companies you didn't
buy from. That's just one example of the power you can wield to effect change.
Unfortunately, Hakes doesn't take this reality into
account when he talks about public policy. That doesn't change the technical
accuracy of his research or his recommendations. If he could wave a magic wand
and make his recommendations simply happen, I'd be all for it.
Hakes and Global Warming
While most of the book reflects thorough research and
reasoned analysis, Hakes does have the religion of "global warming."
When he's writing in the throes of religious fervor, all reason leaves him--and
I mean that literally. While the rest of the book carefully builds arguments
and backs statements with facts, "global warming" is presented as a
self-evident truth that only infidels do not accept.
Hakes devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 5) to this
particular theology and yet the few facts supporting it are cherry-picked and
he spews a few discredited statements such as those about "consensus of
scientists." Rather than excising the material (which is unnecessary to
the main points of the book), he defends this "faith-based" viewpoint
by asserting such things as we don't really need the data and people pick on Al
Gore instead of listening to his message (which, based on Al's behavior, is
"waste as much as you can").
A huge danger in spreading this particular religion is it
sets the stage for the carbon tax scheme, which will divert smart minds away
from focusing on the problems of efficiency to focusing on how to game the new
tax scheme. This diversion of rare resources is one of the big problems we have
right now with that mess we call the Federal Income Tax (the tax code consists
of 64,000 pages of absurdity). Anyone wishing to exacerbate our existing
problems will find this new scheme very helpful.
Here are some facts not mentioned by Hakes:
Remember the August 2006 heat wave that killed so many
people in Europe and the USA? We saw that heat wave coming, and not because of
carbon dioxide levels. We knew it was coming because we could see a solar flare
that was 50 earth diameters in size (the sun rotates, so we see some anomalies
before we are in their path). That's an enormous amount of energy. Anything man
can do is insignificant compared to that.
The sun so dwarfs the earth that if you were to use a
basketball to represent the sun, you would not be able to see the earth with
the unaided eye (unless you can see something only 1 millionth the size of that
ball). A little variation of the sun causes a lot of variation here (and on
Mars). Energy from the sun reaches us in only 8 seconds.
Mars has shown warming signs similar to our own (yes, we
do have warming--but also cooling). Read about Mars warming, and you will see this.
What do Mars and Earth have in common? Hint: it's not SUVs.
We have had record cold at both of our poles in recent
years. Just this year, the military had to cancel a training exercise due to
record low temperatures. Last year, icebreakers opened an Antarctic migratory
channel (the size of Texas, if I recall) that had inexplicably frozen
over--biologists said failure to do so would have caused massive kill-offs of
Antarctic life. Why doesn't Hakes mention such things in his proselytizing and
explain them away? It appears we have more weather cycling between extremes,
rather than global warming or, as some assert, an impending ice age. Since
contradictory data can support either claim, maybe another theory makes more
sense?
I read that 80% of the record high temperatures over the
past two centuries occurred before 1950, but couldn't trace that back to an
authoritative source. What's a fact is that 1,000 years before the invention of
the SUV Greenland was actually green and didn't have ice--much warmer than
today. The remains of the grass huts are still there. And a mile under today's
glacier are the remains of a lush forest.
Carbon in the air does not explain why we are seeing
volcanic activity under the ice at both poles or why the poles themselves are
moving (you can find the pole movement history online).
Using core samples, we have found past eras with markedly
lower carbon and markedly higher temperatures. What's the correlation between
carbon and temperature?
Hakes refers reverently to the infamous Rio conference on
environmental issues, with no mention of the enormous piles of waste that
conference generated or the fact that Al Gore chose a chartered jet instead of
saving fuel and flying commercial like everyone else. Gore's motivation has nothing
to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with sating the
outsized ego of Al Gore (and, of course, adding even more millions of dollars
to his millions of dollars of net worth).
Hakes tries to nullify any objection to Al Gore by
remarking that people like to hate Al Gore and so don't listen to him. No, we
hate Al Gore precisely because we have listened to him and are downright sick
of his blatant and voluminous lies. In 2006, Gore inflicted the world with a
fraudumentary that should have been named, "It's Inconvenient for Me to
Tell the Truth." Various analysts have produced rebuttals identifying 40+
errors of fact or outright falsehoods. That's hardly a work of nonfiction.
From a June, 2008 issue of The Week: "Al Gore's
energy consumption at his spacious Tennessee home rose 10 percent in 2007,
despite the installation of solar panels and more efficient light bulbs. Gore
still consumes 50% more electricity every month than the average American does
in a year."
Looks like Al doesn't believe his own spiel. Who should
know better than Al himself that he's peddling absolute nonsense? He's telling
us this in no uncertain terms, which is rather sporting of him. Hakes should
forget about global warming, and we should all forget about Al Gore. We do not
need these "ignore the data" theories or "make Al Gore
rich" programs to drive home the point that we need to be better stewards
of our resources.
I say this as a person who, unlike Al Gore, has a negative
carbon foot print (yep, I absorb more carbon than I release). I've been on the
"save energy" bandwagon since I was a little kid. That's because my
parents realized money doesn't grow on trees. They were taught Depression era
economics as kids, and they passed that thinking on to their kids. Waste not,
want not. I have so structured my energy-conscious life that I buy gasoline
only once every six weeks despite living in a Midwestern suburb with no mass
transit."
Conclusion
Great book with good solid scenarios we could pursue in
obtaining energy independence.