We've heard quite a lot recently about how Brazil has achieved energy independence. Politicians and the traditional media alike have told us how we need to follow the Brazilian example. Robert Rapier over at
Oil Drum tells why the real lessons from Brazil aren't even registering with non-envirogeek Americans. Follow me below the flip for more.
According to Per Capita Oil Consumption and Production, oil consumption in Brazil is 4.2 barrels per person per year. In the U.S., oil consumption is 27 barrels per person per year, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil's.
So, all we need to do is each cut our energy usage by a factor of six. Politicians unfortunately don't like to focus on the fact that we as Americans use way too much frickin' energy because it's traditionally been so frickin' cheap. Most politicians seems to at least tacitly agree with Dick Cheney that:
Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.
Unfortunately, conservation would work a lot better than the present policy of giving money to big oil companies and hoping they share with the rest of us.
Here's the money quote:
On the other hand, if the U.S. had the same per capita energy consumption as Brazil, we would be net oil exporters. In fact, our per capita energy consumption could be 11 barrels per person per year - triple the consumption of Brazil
I think that quote is eye opening. It shows that our nation is blessed with an abundance of resources. It also shows that conservation is not only sound policy, but the best policy. Sound conservation policies would save consumers a substantial amount of money. We certainly do need to push renewable energy sources at the same time because they are essential to a sustainable energy policy, and because renewable energy will be a growth industry for the foreseeable future.
Also, Brazil was able to achieve energy independence with sugarcane ethanol which is about 8 times more efficient as a fuel than our corn ethanol. Corn is already highly subsidized and just like we can't drill our way out of this mess we also can't grow our way out it either, at least not with current technology. Those subsidies would be better spent on biofuel R&D rather than poured into the corn market. But, in the mean time conservation is the best short and long term solution.
Americans unfortunately do not like to be forced to conserve, and it pretty much goes against the whole Libertarian Democrat theme that was all the rage yesterday. That's why we need to work on shaping the public debate. Americans are willing to sacrifice for the greater good when they understand the purpose of that sacrifice (see WWI and WWII). We need to emphasize the fact that energy independence is essential to long term national security, and we need to emphasize that conservation is essential to energy independence. If that becomes conventional wisdom our policy options are almost limitless.
Posted to Daily Kos Environmentalists.