The Gulf of Mexico spill has been permanently sealed, but each day brings new reports of missteps and error. As we try to sort out how this disaster occurred, we are reminded of the short- and long-term devastation it caused.
Needless to say, this oil spill will be written about in text and history books for generations to come. Experts and commentators will dissect every minute detail of the incident: what went wrong, why did it happen, could anything have prevented it?
Today, the economic, material and environmental impacts of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill are simply incalculable -- it has cost us lives and livelihood. Further, it leaves economic and environmental repercussions that we will struggle to cope with for decades to come.
Our thoughts are with those affected by the tragedy. It is, at least, encouraging to note that the Obama Administration seems now to be properly focused on the disaster and has taken substantive measures to hasten the clean-up and provide federal funding for those affected.
These are difficult times. But as clichéd as it may sound, we cannot let an event of this magnitude be forgotten.
It is -- and needs to remain -- a trigger to focus our attention on the bigger picture. In other words, we need to consider what can be salvaged from what is probably the most significant such incident in a generation. Is this not now the time to put political differences to one side and have a grown up conversation about our energy demands and how we meet those for today, tomorrow, and future generations?
It is helpful to remind ourselves of the facts:
The U.S. consumed 25 percent of the world's total energy use in 2006 -- with annual per-capita consumption at 334.6 million BTU, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That contrasts with 178.7 million BTUs per capita in Japan, 177.5 million BTUs in Germany, and in India, just 15.9 million BTUs, according to the EIA. The majority of the U.S. consumption in 2006 was provided by traditional sources, like petroleum that accounted for 40 percent and natural gas and coal for 23 percent each. The newer energy sources, such as nuclear, accounted for 8 percent and renewables, like wind and solar, provided only about 7 percent. In 2009, those percentages hadn't changed much.
Energy security remains the top priority, and -- among other things -- that means reducing (quickly and sustainably) our dependence on foreign oil. But we also need to create green collar jobs and take into account climate change.
America needs a more diversified energy portfolio.
Any objective examination of energy -- from fossil fuel to nuclear, from solar and wind to natural gas -- shows that too much dependency on a single source is not advisable.
Oil, as the terrible Gulf spill reminds us, can be a hazardous business, as is nuclear and even the gas-extraction process from shale. With solar, the initial cost of the equipment used to harness the sun's energy is expensive and a solar installation requires a large area for the system to be efficient in providing a source of electricity. Wind, though actually "free," sparks negative reactions from those who don't like the sight of wind turbines, as well as arguments over who should fund the infrastructure required to support wind farms and connectivity to the grid.
Contemporary energy security demands a mixed basket of energy sources. A move from the current carbon energy usage, to a more balanced energy portfolio, delivers this as well as opening up almost unlimited business opportunities and a pathway to creating thousands of green jobs.
"The time to embrace a clean-energy future is now," President Obama said in his address to the nation about the oil spill -- can anyone really disagree with that?
The president has made it clear he understands the critical importance of action now. Indeed, he said this generation must, "embark on a national mission" immediately -- to "seize the moment" and accelerate the transition to a clean-energy future because it has the potential "to grow our economy and create millions of jobs."
And Americans agree, according to a recent survey. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey in June found that three of four American adults (73 percent) said they believe the U.S. needs to change its dependency on fossil fuels, and 41 percent say government policies should encourage the use of alternative energy sources.
Pending energy legislation should include a sound national renewable electricity standard (RES), the percentage of renewable energy sources that utilities must use in their energy, such as 20 percent by 2020. And while such legislation won't necessarily stop another Gulf disaster, it could reduce the risk significantly.
We must act now. We need Congress to pass strong energy legislation and diversify our energy portfolio in a meaningful way. Energy security has to become a reality rather than simply the subject of political speeches, our coastline and marine environment requires proper protection, and the issue of climate change has to now be taken seriously.
Our Congress and Senate members have a history of doing the right thing. We need them to do the right thing now and make energy legislation, particularly the RES, a priority.
Andris (Andy) E. Cukurs is chief executive of the North American operations of India-based Suzlon Energy Limited.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user Pandrew Nguyen.