Today in the Washington Post (link not up yet for some reason), Newsweek Editor Fareed Zakaria has an op-ed, "In Search of a Better Kyoto." His conclusion, that "the Bush administration's record on energy and the environment is shameful" and that the Bush-Cheneyites have "been weak leaders, bad policymakers and poor stewards of the world" is correct. Unfortunately, Zakaria makes a HUGE mistake in his article, which undermines one of his key points, that "Conservation is worthwhile but not enough."
The mistake is this. Zakaria says:
In America over the past three decades, almost all the machines and appliances we use to power our lives have become significantly more efficient (with the exception of cars). And yet we consume three times as much energy as we did 30 years ago.
Uh, no. According to the US Energy Information Administration, U.S. total energy consumption over the past 30 years :
- 76.0 quadrillion Btu
- 99.7 quadrillion Btu
% increase over 30 years: 31.2%
% increase according to Zakaria: 200%
Factor by which Zakaria is off: over 6-fold
Why is is this important? Because, actually, increased energy efficiency and reduced energy intensity - not "conservation" per se, these are all VERY different concepts - have had a remarkable impact over the past 30 years. During a period when real, inflation-adjusted U.S. gross domestic product has nearly tripled (from $4.5 trillion to $11.4 trillion), U.S. total energy consumption has increased only 31.2%. Thats' remarkable, yet Zakaria completely misses it.
And, as stated earlier, Zakaria apparently does not understand the difference between increased energy efficiency (a particular machine or factory producing the same output using less energy), reduced energy intensity (shifts in economic structure and other factors which lead to an overall, economy-wide reduction in energy use per dollar of GDP), and energy conservation (using less energy by whatever means necessary, including getting "less for less").
I could go on and on, but I guess my biggest frustration, having worked at the Energy Department for 17+ years, is simply the vast amount of ignorance out there on energy issues. Whether it's the risk of a nuclear power accident (extremely low), the number of birds killed by wind turbines (an infinitessimal fraction compared to the number of birds killed by cats every year, let alone collision with buildings and power lines, etc.), the concept of "clean coal" (note, that phrase refers to getting NOX, SOX and particulates out of coal-fired plants, NOT carbon emissions), or basic statistics like Zakaria's mythical 3-fold increase in U.S. energy consumption (try 31.2%), no wonder why our energy policy is so screwed up. Even the supposed "experts" like Zakaria (although I could have sworn he was a political analyst and not an energy analyst, but who knows) writing for the Washington Post and Newsweek can't get their basic facts straight. And the "mainstream media" thinks that the BLOGS are factually reckless? Physician, heal thyself!
P.S. The problem here is not trivial. Zakaria's error invalidates his entire argument about (what he calls) "conservation." The fact is, when the economy triples and energy consumption only increases by 31%, there's an almost total disconnect between economic growth and energy consumption. Zakaria completely, wildly misses that point. He also completely misses the point that without what he calls "conservation" - energy efficiency improvements and energy intensity reductions due to shifts in the composition in US GDP - he comes to a completely flawed conclusion, that Cheney had a point when he said that "conservation may be a personal virtue blah blah blah..." It's very frustrating to see such ignorance spouted on the pages of the Washington Post.