Written by William F. Pickard   

Energy is the biggest national security threat to the United States; and Climate Change is a NOT inconsequential symptom of the challenges it poses.


In the presidential debate of last Tuesday, the five wannabe candidates were asked to name “the biggest national security threat to the United States”. Bernie Sanders named Climate Change and seemed to favor transforming “our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy”. This of course is a no brainer, of which far far too little has been said in the present campaign; and Bernie was only calling a spade a spade. Let us hope that he hammers relentlessly on this banality.

Yes, burning fossil fuel IS releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is predicted to linger for many centuries, and even millennia.

Yes, coal ash pits will pose environmental hazards into the distant future. And why those who mine the coal are not tasked with providing secure long term repositories for the ash is beyond me.

Yes, low-cost energy-dense fossil fuels make it seductively tempting to ignore fifty- and hundred-year time frames and hopefully assume that Science will, in the end, come up with “deus ex machina” solutions for our energy-related problems.

Folks, fossil energy use is a lot like unsafe sex. Except that with energy the chickens aren’t expected home to roost for several decades rather than just nine months.

Weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is a lot like belling the cat: It is one thing to say that something should be done, but a quite different matter to do it.

First, a preponderance of evidence DOES appear to indicate that carbon dioxide related Climate Change IS real. If so, when are the presidential wannabes going to hint that the USA should put a use fee on its supply of primary nonrenewable energy? That would encourage energy conservation, encourage investment in renewable sources, and provide capital for energy research, development, and demonstration. A ten dollar fee per barrel-of-oil-equivalent would yield at least a hundred and fifty billion bucks a year to propel our switch to renewables. WARNING: Holding your breath whilst waiting for this to happen, may be hazardous to your health.

Second, there seems to be a consensus among experts that the World’s resources of fossil fuels could be pretty well polished off by 2100. If we want to leave some of that carbon in the ground, we don’t have that much time to go renewable. As far as a meaningful throttling of carbon dioxide production goes, it’s pretty much a case of now or never.

Third, our wonderful technology-enriched lifestyle is critically dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity. But electricity from sun and wind is intermittent. Somehow, consumer demand must be matched to electricity availability, and this is the unresolved Intermittency Challenge, sometimes called the Achilles’ heel of renewable energy. Sure, all sorts of people have all sorts of dazzling ideas in which they profess profound faith. Sure, “solutions are just around the corner”. But I’m from Missouri, I hesitate to depend upon faith-based solutions, and my motto is “Show me!”

What the country needs now is for all the presidential candidates of all the parties to buy into these three imperatives.