Book Review - Gusher of Lies

(1/2/2009) - The basic premise of Robert Bryce’s Gusher of Lies is that U.S. efforts to attain energy independence are A) not worth it and, B) probably not even possible. Though Bryce does a pretty good job dissecting the meaninglessness of political rhetoric of energy independence from the past four years, Gusher of Lies fails to recognize the energy-related problems we do face.  Bryce’s world is one in which global warming is nothing to worry about, extraneous costs associated with burning fossil fuels don’t exist, and the average American is destined to remain a consuming, tax cutting machine forever.  This shortcoming severely limits the book’s applicability to the wider world of energy issues. 

In the first half of the book, Bryce looks mostly at the oil industry, and describes the differences between political rhetoric with regards to energy independence and the reality of the situation.  The long and the short of it is that the United States uses more oil every year as it produces less, and is therefore increasingly reliant on imports.  Even if the United States could move itself quickly off of oil or only buy oil from countries we like, the so-called petro-dictators will still get plenty of money selling its oil on the world market.  Plus, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia need our money just as much or more than we need their oil.  Overall, Bryce does a good job describing why the foreign policy rationales for trying to achieve energy independence don’t add up upon close inspection.  If you are an energy independence diehard, this section of the book is worth a read if you are left unconvinced by shorter articles.

In the second part of the book, Bryce looks at what he sees as the future of energy – increasing international energy interdependence and a continual reliance on fossil fuels.  This section includes my favorite part of Gusher of Lies, a 50 page dissection of corn-based ethanol (“The Ethanol Scam” as Bryce calls it).  Its one of the best examinations of the issue I’ve read.  Bryce demonstrates how the duel policies of corn subsidies and ethanol import tariffs are a farce in terms of energy, farm, and international policy. 

Overall, Gusher of Lies’ analysis of the future of energy is incomplete, fatalistic, and narrowly framed.  First, Bryce tries to take an agnostic view when it comes to global warming: “This book is not designed to determine who is right or wrong when it comes to the science of global climate change.”  However, his ridicule of Al Gore for his use of electricity and cheering the “doubters who are fighting back” against the science of global warming leads me to believe that he doesn’t take the threat seriously. 

If Bryce wants to critique the global warming movement, the more power to him.  But his unwillingness to take and firm stand on the subject is a cop-out.  Because he doesn’t consider all the costs of carbon energy, he can only see solar and wind energy as 1% solutions due to present-day cost and public resistance.  However, his paltry examination of these alternatives doesn’t consider 1) the trend of reduced costs, 2) a future price on carbon or any extraneous costs, 3) changes in public opinion, 4) solar thermal or industrial-scale PV (he only looks at home-based solar PV), and many other variables.

Bryce makes lots of other good points in the second half of Gusher of Lies, even if they aren’t exactly original or big.  In his chapter entitled, “A Few Suggestions,” Bryce calls for a rejection of the culture of fear surrounding terrorism, and, by extension, the fear that Arab countries can effectively use energy as a weapon.  Instead, he calls for us to adapt a more diplomatic posture.  He also points out that the area that would be effected by drilling in ANWR would be as little around 2,000 acres (the size of the reserve is 19.5 million acres). 

My suggestion: Perhaps environmentalists should consider using it in a “compromise” bill that would strengthen other environmental standards, increase funding for renewable energy, and implement a carbon-trading system or tax.  Offshore drilling could be used to buy some more votes for a larger package as well.

Aside from these sorts of small suggestions, Bryce offers no alternative vision to the status quo.  Indeed, Bryce’s fatalistic ideas and attitudes hamper the potential of Gusher of Lies.  For example, Bryce writes “the fact that energy use continues ever upward in nearly every country on the planet, we likely have no choice but to adapt to the changing global climate for the simple reason that curbing carbon dioxide emissions to any significant degree appears hopeless.”  Its true that it will take a lot of effort to bring about meaningful change to global greenhouse gas emissions.  And efforts still might fail.  But over the past ten years, study after study has shown that it is in the best interest of humanity – socially, politically, and economically – to prevent significant climate change.  The fact that real reform will be difficult is not the same thing as saying it will not happen and we have to live with that, which is essentially Bryce’s argument.  His fatalistic acceptance limits the imagination and creativity of his ideas.

In another example of Bryce’s what-was-done-in-the-past-will-be-done-in-the-future logic, he says, “there is no practical way to cut [aviation emissions] because large segments of the aviation business are considered international activity and are therefore excluded from the Kyoto Protocol.”  The Kyoto Treaty was negotiated in the 1990’s, and never ratified by the United States because neither Clinton nor Bush II submitted it to the Senate for approval.  The treaty also neglected to require any changes from India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other “developing” nations.  Basically, the Kyoto Treaty was DOA and never seriously addressed the problem of climate change to begin with.  Saying that Kyoto doesn’t offer a way to limit a specific type of emissions and therefore we can't limit that type of emissions is silly, because Kyoto didn’t really offer a way to control emissions in the first place.  On the other hand, a future treaty (and there will almost certainly be one) could easily impose restrictions on aviation emissions.

Finally, I didn’t particularly like Bryce’s style and tone, which is abrasive at best.  Personally, I do not find it intellectually stimulating or entertaining when an author describes opposing ideas as “downright idiotic,” “numbskulled,” or “hogwash.” 

Overall, I can only recommend Gusher of Lies for the sections of the book that I outlined above.  Bryce’s unwillingness to consider the question of global warming or broader energy issues severely limits this otherwise insightful book.