The Bruce Report

On news that Hurricane Rita was advancing on Galveston, Texas (where 25 per cent of U.S. refining capacity resides), the cost of regular unleaded topped two bucks a litre in Halifax, N.S. That was enough to send me and most other combustion-engine-addicted Monctonians into a state of barely controlled panic.

“We gotta hit the gas station now,” I told my wife. “Before it’s too late.”

“We have more than three-quarters of a tank,” she replied. “Look at that line-up. It’s like the 1973 energy crisis all over again. It’s ridiculous.”

“Don’t you understand, woman?” I shrieked. “This is only the beginning. The end is nigh. You remember our first date? It wouldn’t have happened without the gas. Don’t tell me we don’t need the gas. It’s only ever been about the gas!”

My wife, a composed and intelligent adult, now regarded me as she might a toddler who hasn’t yet learned to keep his paws off the candy in the supermarket check-out line.

“You know what, sweetie?” she soothed. “You stay right here, and I’ll walk home. It’s only a few blocks.”

“What, you’re leaving me?”

“I’ll see you sooner or later.”

Much later, as it turned out. After two hours of queuing up, I finally managed to drop precisely $8.64 into my oversized tank. I was full, but also feeling, oddly, empty.

My wife had a point after all; and one that is the subject of an extraordinarily persuasive article by the marvelously named Amory B. Lovins in the September issue of Scientific American. Dr. Lovins – who is a Colorado-based physicist, engineer, consultant, and author of hundreds of scholarly works on energy technologies – contends that focusing on efficiency, rather than production and consumption, will actually make consumers and businesses richer.

Here’s his thesis: “Experts on both sides [of the energy debate] claim that protecting Earth’s climate will force a trade-off between the environment and the economy. . .Both sides are wrong. If properly done, climate protection would reduce costs, not raise them. Using energy more efficiently offers an economic bonanza – not because of the benefits of stopping global warming but because saving fossil fuel is a lot cheaper than buying it.”

According to Lovins, the world is already replete with examples of smart energy use: “Over the past decade, DuPont has boosted production nearly 30 per cent, but cut energy use seven per cent and greenhouse gas emissions 72 per cent, saving more than $2 billion (USD) so far. . .The United States now uses 47 per cent less energy per dollar of economic output than it did 30 years ago, lowering costs by $1 billion a day. These savings act like a huge universal tax cut that also reduces the federal deficit. Far from dampening global development, lower energy bills accelerate it.”

What’s more, Lovins says, the business case for renewable energy sources is much stronger than many suppose. “In recent years, alternatives, [such as] wind and solar power and decentralized cogeneration plants that produce electricity and heat together in buildings and factories, have really hit their stride. . .The most common criticism of wind power – that it produces electricity too intermittently – has not turned out to be a serious drawback. Utilities [in Europe] have overcome the problem by diversifying the locations of their wind turbines, incorporating wind forecasts into their generating plans and integrating wind power with other energy sources.”

Ultimately, though, the real agents of change are consumers, themselves. Consider, for a moment, that only 13 per cent of the average North American-made car’s total fuel energy actually reaches its wheels. What do you say when you know that $35 of every $40 fill-up is blowing out of your exhaust pipe?

I know what I say: I’m going for a walk.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.