interview > lovins > lovins 17
Lovins 17 (1:55)
Topic(s): Foreign Oil / Government
© WGBH Educational Foundation
Please watch the clip first. If you plan to use it, review the Rules of Use, then click on the download button.
This clip is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
We always have an energy policy, including a policy of
inaction. I think at this point the gravest threat to our national energy
security is federal energy policy. Just think about it, it's prolonging
our dependence on oil through either blocking the improvements or just paying
lip service to them in our efficiency of using oil and the little bits that are
starting to be done in biofuels and so on are really not very serious compared
to what we need.
Our federal energy policy is also increasing, not just perpetuating,
an overly centralized architecture so that one hurricane can take out a lot of
our oil and gas infrastructure because so much of it is in Louisiana. Our power
system is more brittle than that, as we saw in the northeast blackout recently.
And we're building more facilities like LNG terminals and possibly
nuclear plants that are an attractive nuisance to terrorists; they're
very vulnerable to attack.
The centerpiece of national energy policy is still
drilling in the Arctic Natural Wildlife refuge. The only way to get that oil
down here is the most vulnerable link in our energy infrastructure called the
Trans-Alaska Pipe Line. It's an all-American straight of Hormuz—one of
those were enough.
And then on top of that having correctly declared that
the gravest threat to our national security is the spread of nuclear weapons.
The administration seems to be doing everything it can to promote the spread of
nuclear weapons through expanded nuclear power and reprocessing and ruling out
the non-proliferation treaty. Well, if these are not the national security
outcomes we want, we ought to say so.