RosenbergFuel

Fuel

The film // Fuel //, released in 2008 and directed by Joshua Tickell, chronicles the director’s personal experiences in working to promote the use of alternative, biodiesel fuels, as well as providing a background of the historical path dependencies which have led to our dependence on oil. Although on the one hand suggesting that monetary and other conflicts of interest within the oil industry and government have held back progress in weaning the United States off of fossil fuels, it opts to take a more optimistic point of view than the previously observed works concerning the possibilities for the future. Rather than proclaiming the “doom and gloom” scenario of loss of economic well-being and social order, it is instead proposed that we utilize the existing compatibilities of the modern diesel engine with biodiesel and algae-based fuels to ease a transition towards a more sustainable society without making significant sacrifice.

In carrying out this ambition, numerous conflicting stakeholders are encountered which represent various perspectives on the necessity of our dependence on oil. In one end of the arena are the oil companies, which wish to preserve the status-quo and maintain their enormous level of profit in years to come. To accomplish such, they have been expending a substantial sum of money on lobbying national governments, to the tune of $420 million in recent years in the United States, with $60 million of it originating from Exxon. In addition, these entities have embarked on public relations projects meant to qualm the environmental concerns of local inhabitants, which was demonstrated no more clearly than through the provision of the // Louisiana Story // film, which was funded by the Standard Oil Company and screened to schoolchildren in the region to portray a friendlier petroleum industry. In addition, in the name of profit, these corporations have been engaged in various practices which have caused substantial environmental damage, including burning and the dumping of polluted water in local rivers and streams.

At the other end of the spectrum are the residents of the communities in which oil companies operate, who have suffered greatly in some cases as a result of these practices. In Louisiana, for instance, 200 to 300 “accidents” are chronicled per year at the plants, which have led to increases in fertility problems, birth defects, miscarriages, and among the highest number of cancer incidents in the United States. Since local water sources and communities have become contaminated without provision for the local occupants, it is clear that there is substantial tension between these opposing interests.

In attempting to mediate these conflicts, national and regional governments inevitably become involved in the process, and as detailed previously have often seen their impartiality compromised by monetary incentives. In March of 2001, Dick Cheney held secret meetings with oil company executives, in what was termed an “Energy Task Force,” to discuss the viability of Iraqi oil fields and promote an energy strategy in which oil remained a key element. While governments have some interest in protecting the natural environment and preserving the economic and energy security of their nation, they have been deterred from this goal by these connections of the “military-industrial complex” under administrations such as that of George W. Bush.

The last major party involved is the citizenry, which through environmentalist movements has expressed its dissatisfaction with the lethargic approach towards resolving the impending energy crisis. Clearly these individuals have a significant stake in the process, since the lives of both themselves and their children are likely to be affected by the climate change and other modifications of lifestyle which are looming in the event of inaction. Citizens have seen increased rates of asthma as a result of air pollution generated from the burning of fossil fuels, and as was suggested by the case of the school bus switching to biodiesel fuel to reduce the toxicity of the air being breathed by children, may serve as a crucial vehicle of change through the use of their collective voices to force action.

In referencing the complex political and economic forces which have run parallel to the oil industry, the film suggests that our dependence on oil is the result of weakness on the part of our leaders to force change in this regard. On the one hand, we rely extensively from an economic standpoint on fossil fuels to power our electricity grid, to engage in personal and commercial transportation through our cars, trucks, and airplanes, and also to heat and cool our homes. In addition, petroleum based products are utilized extensively in agriculture, particularly through fertilizers and pesticides which enhance the yield of our farms, in addition to their pervasiveness in the consumer culture through plastics and related substances.

However, it is primarily believed that this economic dependence has been fostered by significant conflicts of interest arising between politicians and oil executives. In one among many examples of these kinds of collaborative efforts, the Louisiana Environmental Protection Agency obtains 90% of its funding from permits issued to oil companies hoping to do business in the state, which runs contrary to the prevalence of pollution and health concerns detailed previously. In addition, it is believed by some that the implementation of Prohibition of alcohol in the United States was in large part due to pressures of the Standard Oil Company, which hoped to force Henry Ford’s Model T to run on oil rather than ethanol. Although efforts have been made at times to curtail this influence, they have been hampered by politicians with ties to the oil industry, as in the case of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. In violation of his objectivity, he was found to be receiving gifts from oil companies while preventing executives from being sworn in under oath when testifying before congressional committees. As was demonstrated in the film by examples of Germany and Sweden, the citizens often do demand greener energy sources and protection of the environment, but in the case of the United States it is clear that such will not occur until these conflicts of interest are resolved.

Furthermore, while maintaining such strong ties to oil, we also suffer many of its negative externalities. From a political standpoint, a diminishment in available world reserves has forced countries such as the United States to engage Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia to maintain supplies, which are notable for human rights abuses and represent a perception of a betrayal of values to some. Additionally, the crucial nature of these fuels in global politics has drawn the United States and the United Kingdom into a perpetual “War on Terror,” in which $50 Billion per year is expended as of the time of the film in protecting the pipelines and other infrastructure which enable access to reserves. Drawing from these outcomes, the film suggests that the “imperial mindset” promoted by this dependency has cost the United States its international reputation, which is contrasted with the Kennedy trip to Europe in the 1960’s in which hundreds of thousands of onlookers greeted the officials as they traveled through the region.

From an economic standpoint, oil production is inefficient, in that it extracts only 80% of the energy utilized in its manufacture. Although at present subsidies from national governments have helped to defray this cost, it is likely that this dependence is diverting funds that could be applied to other social projects. Additionally, the inability of automobile companies to make the adjustment towards hybrid and electric vehicles characterized by this crisis has cost the United States over one-hundred thousand jobs in recent years, which increases the economic suffering of individuals and families.

The last major set of effects generated by our reliance on oil is that pertaining to the environment and climate. In addition to the harm to personal health and well being in Louisiana detailed previously, the piece depicts numerous consequences of the release of excess Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, gasoline, and other fossil fuels. With the director hailing from Louisiana, one of the most extreme cases demonstrated by the film is that of Hurricane Katrina, which was fueled in large part by unusually warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico which were believed to be triggered by global warming phenomena. This disaster also led to the spilling of nearly 9 million gallons of toxic crude oil into the Bayou, which exacerbated the suffering.

In a particularly ironic fashion, it is even suggested that the creation of alternative fuels such as Ethanol and Biodiesel may be damaging to the environment as well. This claim is due in large part to the deforestation required to undertake agricultural practices, and the continued reliance on petroleum-based fertilizers in growing the crops. Such practices are believed to have enlarged the so called “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, which has led to the loss of numerous species of fish and wildlife in the region. Although not directly related to oil, the inactivity in technological innovation fostered by the dependence has likely contributed to the significance of these effects.

Although a shift away from our dependence on oil is an idealized solution to the energy crisis, it is an imperfect one in itself. It is unlikely that the societal attitudes which promote consumption habits and the vast expansion of trade will subside in the aftermath of such a shift, and the reliance of overseas shipping on the diesel engine makes the solution incomplete. However, it is also suggested that a social movement occurring in conjunction with a shift may serve to modify these attitudes. In Texas, numerous residents are striving towards building more energy efficient homes in the name of saving money, and these increases in overall efficiency may free up energy for unforeseen uses. It is even believed that these shifts can occur without significant modification to present infrastructure in the event that algae farms are located side-by-side with power plants which emit the Carbon Dioxide that is vital as an input to their respiration processes.

In terms of economics, the so called “Green Collar Jobs,” or those which operate in sustainable industries, may open up new opportunities for those who have been displaced by a potential restructuring of the energy industry. However, it is equally likely that there will be strong protests from both the oil executives, as well as communities along the Gulf of Mexico and similar regions which rely on these activities to sustain the local economy.

Of the arguments presented in the film, I was particularly compelled by that suggesting that biodiesel could be utilized even without modification to the currently implemented diesel engine. Whether the example of toxicity being four times higher in a school bus using regular diesel fuel, or the relative competitiveness of these alternatives in countries such as Germany and Sweden in the event of tax breaks, it seems likely that these fuels are viable options for easing the transition into more sustainable sources such as solar or wind power. In recalling that boats, trains, and trucks are nearly entirely outfitted with diesel engines, it seems likely that the structure of globalization may be maintained even in the face of these obstacles.

In a similar fashion, it was also astonishing to learn that over one-hundred years ago, peanut oils not unlike the biodiesels proposed today were the source of fuel for Dr. Diesel’s creation. As was described throughout the film, this use was a way of restoring power from the large corporations to the individuals in communities, and it was notable to consider how prescient such an assessment was in light of the eventual shift towards petroleum-based diesel fuel fostered by none other than the large oil conglomerates.

On the other hand, I was somewhat less convinced by the suggestion that automobile companies in the United States had the choice to promote smaller, hybrid type vehicles instead of larger SUV’s as Toyota had in Japan. With the tax breaks provided to purchasers of vehicles over 6000 pounds during the recession of 2001, in addition to the social stigmas against diesel fuel due to a lack of knowledge, it seems that it may have been unwise from an economic perspective to engage in such practices in the absence of subsidies and other incentives to promote R&D. It also seems likely that the tendency of American consumers towards the acquisition of material wealth may have also spilt over into the types of vehicles they purchased, and ones which served as displays of this success in career may have been in greater demand by consumers. While it may have still been possible to engage in these kinds of practices, it seems likely that promoting such a line of products may have been unfeasible without the accompaniment of significant shifts in social values.

In building off of the theme of transitioning towards alternative fuel sources, the film suggests numerous forms of corrective action which may help to wean our societies off of the dependence on oil. In drawing from the examples of Western European nations such as Germany and Sweden, the film argues that the beginning of such change relies on the mobilization of the people in favor of these projects. Since governments are established with the purpose of serving the population, it seems likely that they would deliver stronger incentives if the proper pressures were applied by a plethora of non-governmental organizations and social action networks. In the cases of these two nations, the removal of taxation on biodiesel, solar, wind, and other such fuels has led to reduced prices which have enhanced their competitiveness in the market for energy. In Germany in particular, in the early part of the 2000’s biodiesel was actually 15% cheaper than petroleum-based alternatives, and these economic incentives seem likely to bring about some of the desired change.

It is subsequently suggested that smaller-scale, symbolic actions can help to promote the ideas of alternative fuel sources among the population. In 2005, the United States Navy switched to biodiesel, and corporations such as McDonald’s and Virgin Atlantic soon followed. Similarly, the Clark County School District in Las Vegas has a fleet of 1500 busses which has been operating on biodiesel for seven years as of the production of the film. Building off of this principle of social action, the film opens with a significant number of examples of how the home can be made to be more energy efficient, including the taping up of windows to reduce heat loss, switching to fluorescent light bulbs, and unplugging devices which draw “phantom power” from the outlet when not in operation.

Beyond the role of the individual, the film suggests that technological and scientific breakthroughs could be significant in accelerating the process. One of these proposed solutions is algae-based biodiesel, which was developed by the Solar Energy Research Institute of the Carter Administration. In locating such algae farms next to present infrastructure such as power plants, it is believed that one can generate the same kinds of products as is presently done from petroleum sources, in addition to providing a large portion of the energy necessary to power the United States. Another potential source of fuel is suggested to be biomass, and in particular wood from the recently developed Megaflora Tree, which grows to maturity in only 3 years and regenerates from its own trunk.

Also drawn from are the typical examples of solar energy, wind power, and plug in hybrids/electric vehicles, the latter of which the film claims could reduce petroleum reliance by as much as 80%. Most simple of these options, the film preaches the shift towards energy efficiency, and particularly in the residential sector, in which 20-30% of energy use currently takes place. Also mentioned is the hypothetical “vertical farm” in cities, in which each thirty-story tower could potentially feed up to 50,000 people, in addition to generating biodiesel fuel and water for the community. Although intriguing, it was unclear from the film as to how this structure might function, and whether the technology is under development.

In observing the piece, I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the Vertical Farm Project. The following links proved useful in this endeavor:

[]

[]

From the first link, which is the official webpage of the project, it seems as if there is still a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the technology. With the lack of consensus over the most feasible design, as well as the lack of a time horizon for developing it, it seems as if this vision is simply an idealistic one at present. However, it does raise some interesting implications, among them that it will permit year-round farming, provide grounds for experimentation with technologies which may ultimately prove useful on the Moon or Mars, and potentially contain the release of greenhouse gasses within the facility.

From the second source, however, it is suggested that it may not be economically feasible to implement the proposed designs to feed large city populations. In estimating that 30,000 people could be fed by one of these structures, it is determined that 334 of these buildings, at a cost of at least $150 billion would be required to feed New York City. This cost is further described as comprising about 10 years of a NASA-size budget, which suggests that vertical farming may not be viable on the more localized scale on which these projects are presently championed. Although an interesting proposal, it seems unlikely that these technologies will rise up the ground substantially in the absence of economic subsidies and other incentives to defray portions of the costs.