More hope the world is changing

A while back I suggested that changing the world starts with us. Not my idea, of course: that thought has been around forever. Proof that other people are thinking the same way, though, is welcome. Here are a couple of instances, one little, one big:

• The actor Vincent Kartheiser chooses to get around Los Angeles on transit. Give him extra props: L.A. is not exactly known as a transit-friendly town.
  
• The U.S. military is seeking to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
  

The second piece noted an interesting catalyst for the military's action:

Concerns about the military’s dependence on fossil fuels in far-flung battlefields began in 2006 in Iraq, where Richard Zilmer, then a major general and the top American commander in western Iraq, sent an urgent cable to Washington suggesting that renewable technology could prevent loss of life.

Given the military's penchant for wargaming and planning for future battle scenarios, this was a surprisingly late wakeup call. Didn't anybody involved in strategic forecasting see this was going to be a problem? Didn't the term "non-renewable" filter up the chain of command? Why hasn't research along these lines been going on since, say, the 1970s, when OPEC first flexed its muscles?

That article also references a white paper published by the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in 2008. The document, entitled "Department of Defense Seeks Alternative Fuels," is sometimes refreshingly blunt:

Energy reform in both military and civilian sectors is likely to occur if increased public awareness and attention to the issue is an indicator. This awareness, in turn, stimulates attention given to alternative energy policies by the government.

I'll bet this truism was known back in 2001. It explains former Vice President Cheney's refusal to discuss any aspect of his energy task force's deliberations at that time. Any publicity might have drawn attention to the antediluvian direction of the George W. Bush administration's so-called energy policy.

The same paragraph goes on:

The issue of alternative energy has always been politically charged. Politicians are aware that alliances could be called into question if renewable energies are too heavily researched and pursued, putting the United States into a position where oil could not be as easily obtained. If our oil supply were to be limited, the country’s security could be called into question if alternative energy sources are not available.

These alliances are especially difficult due to the instability of the Middle East, as well as the hypocrisy of being allies with certain countries that run contrary to U.S ideals and foreign policy goals. This can be seen most vividly in the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia, a non-democratic country that is a strong human rights violator. Heavy reliance on such a volatile region could lead to numerous problems if a back-up plan is not created.

What a Catch-22.

Perhaps it's time we little people demanded a solution from the free market, sidestepping the politicians. (I never claimed government had or could have all the answers.)

In the meantime, we could all give the researchers time by reducing our energy footprint, like Kartheiser. The trains and buses are running anyway, people: make each gallon count for a little more.

Unfortunately, the white paper is distressingly wrongheaded in spots. It strenuously advocates nuclear power, glowingly describing its advantages (including completely omitting the following from its "environmental impact") and framing its disadvantages as perceived rather than real:

Nuclear energy also has some pronounced disadvantages, although in reality the problems associated with nuclear energy are actually not an issue of safety, but rather public perception. In regards to the environment, nuclear energy creates radioactive waste material that must be stored for thousands of years. Today, this waste is stored throughout the United States in concrete or metal bunkers in solid form. Currently this poses no risk to the public.

This is a brazenly cavalier attitude. Of course a newly minted, properly designed and manufactured storage container poses little (I wouldn't say "no") risk to the public. The problem is when the container is a hundred years old. Whether or not the United States is still a political entity at that time (and in a hundred years, who knows?), those containers will pose a threat: little that our civilization builds is designed to last for a century. Even if the U.S. is still a functioning nation, who knows if the political resolution will exist to maintain or to refurbish those containers? The political will to fix our aging water and electrical infrastructure seems to be in short supply today, and we're incomparably richer now than we were a hundred years ago.

Thinking about the future demands more than short-term thinking when the problems are known to be long-term. We have a responsibility to our descendants not to dump our unresolvable problems onto them if we have a choice, and in this case, we do.

At any rate, the military at least recognizes there's a problem and is taking steps to deal with it. So is Vincent Kartheiser. The rest of us should follow their lead.