interview
>
lovins
> lovins 17
Lovins 17 (1:55)
Topic(s): Foreign Oil / Government
User Comments
© 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.
Video Transcript
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.
