RK ARCHIVE - What is Fareed Zakaria Talking About?

1976: 76.0 quadrillion Btu
2006: 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!

Comments

Energy education (bamboo - 4/9/2007 9:05:10 AM)

Thank you, Lowell! Though my experience as an energy analyst out of grad school was cut short by journalism, your voice is that of one crying in the wilderness (to use another biblical phrase). I'd say that the lack of leadership on energy policy at the national level has spawned much of this ignorance. We need to do more to inprove energy education in schools and the media. The fantasy notion that fossil fuel resources are (for all practical purposes) infinite if we only give energy coporations incentives to commercialize them is a cornerstone of a ntional pro-business energy policy that needs to be changed. We all need to be more energy literate, though unfortunately this may have to be a crash course, as it was in the 1970s.

One other thing you rarely hear about is (Pain - 4/9/2007 9:05:43 AM)

deforestation. Every time we bulldoze even a single tree, we reduce the planets ability to heal. It's not practical to stop all development in the US, and of course we have no control over it in the rest of the world. So, we're working both ends against the middle. We're increasing our greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the earths ability to deal with those gases all at the same time.

Policies based on ignorance (Teddy - 4/9/2007 10:18:12 AM)

Thank you for your usual very insightful comments on energy, Lowell. Does Zakaria's unfortunate error invalidate his whole article, though? Too much of our current policy (or non-policy) on energy is apparently based not just on ignorance, but on willful ignorance.

Examples go way beyond the well-known one of BushCo's denial of global warming (recently modified begrudgingly to acknowlege that it may exist, but it is not the fault of human beings). The early comments on your diary here on RK mention deforestation as an environmental problem. The comment is spot on. Another environmental problem is over-population: the so-called culture of life opposes any form of birth control and encourages human fertility. This completely ignores depletion of resources, risk of famine, over-fishing of oceans, psycholoical impact of over-crowding (which includes violence and wars), and on and on.

The dots on environmental problems are not being connected so that we can see the elephant in the room right before our eyes. Correct information on energy use is one of those dots.

It invalidates his entire point on what he calls (Lowell - 4/9/2007 10:32:16 AM)

"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.

Thanks (Teddy - 4/9/2007 12:12:53 PM)

for the info. The corporate tentacles reach everywhere, it seems. Is this article another piece of evidence that the Washington Post has turned its coat from at least a semblence of impartiality, and crossed over onto the neo-conservative side?

What About Population Growth? (norman swingvoter - 4/9/2007 12:50:48 PM)

Do any of the figures take into account US population growth? In 1976 our population was roughly 200 million. Now it is roughly 300 million, a 50% increase. It seems to me that data would have to take into account that there are 100 million more of us using energy.

Changes in the electric rate structure? (Bubby - 4/9/2007 4:48:32 PM)

Where did I see the recent petition to move the rate structure from one subsidizing residential rates with commercial rates to the opposite? The net result being a big increase in residential $/kWh rates. The cite suggested a 30% increase in residential rates within 10 years.

Maybe we need a new tax structure (humanfont - 4/9/2007 6:28:04 PM)

In the last for weeks I've been thinking we need to junk the income and sales tax and just tax people for the energy resources they use. What if we had a $5 a gallon gas tax and a 10¢ per kWh that for each kwh over 8k/year of usage. We could look at similar taxes on natural gas and garbage. Suppose we replaced the current tax code for one that encouraged and rewarded efficiency and economy.

An excellent concept! (Bubby - 4/10/2007 9:31:07 AM)

That would require a whole new political class. After all the Governor just dismissed the idea of a gas tax as unattainable. And as a result Transportation funding was put on a credit card, to be paid, with interest, later. I don't blame him directly, Kaine knows what he can get from these hamster legislators.

Vocal constituents howl about "taxes" straining their budgets, yet somehow feel a sense of entitlement to a gas guzzling SUV and a Megawatt Mansion located an hour from their workplace.

I'm still waiting on a courageous politician to stand up and say our reliance on cheap energy is a national security issue every bit as critical as 'terrorism'. Then put a tax on energy that would assure that all Americans sacrifice for the common good while we put our house in order. But I'm not holding my breath, after all, the President says we just need better hybrid cars.

Nailed! (Kindler - 4/9/2007 8:26:59 PM)

Excellent post, Lowell, completely debunking Zakaria's...bunk.

Please, please send this as a letter to the WP and an e-mail to Zakaria (his e-mail address was listed at the end of his op-ed) requesting that they print a correction for his faulty numbers.

It seemed to me that he was trying to play the media game of overturning "conventional wisdom" and showing how smart he was in the process. Too bad he ended up looking like a moron instead.

Fareed also has his problems as a political analyst. (buzzbolt - 4/9/2007 10:08:36 PM)

He tends to write concepts that appear to be thoughtful, accurate, and intelligent (especially on the Middle East). Six months or so later he will deliver stunning contradictions that show both a short memory and shallow analysis.