The Expansionist View

A consumption-oriented, expansionist, problem-solving, optimistic attitude has dominated public policy and private thought in the United States throughout most of its history. Whether it was manifested in the expansion of the western frontier in the 1800s or the "New Frontier" of the Kennedy years, and whether it was shaped by the industrial revolution, the eighteenth century enlightenment, or the science-based explosion of knowledge, the American outlook has been characterized by improvement, expanded control over nature, and widening horizons. There have been transitory periods of uncertainty and pessimism, of course, and there has always been a minority undercurrent of dissatisfaction. Nonetheless, the essence of the "American" approach has been "growth." And, in the public mind and in government policy, that growth has been associated to a remarkable degree with increased reliance on inanimate energy.

In the United States the industrial revolution of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was premised upon using inanimate energy (from falling water and steam) to do work previously performed by man. The expansion of trade had as a precondition more efficient ship design, which allowed better use of wind. Public works emphasized the infrastructure—ports, roads, canals, and later railroads—through which transportation of goods and people could be accomplished more efficiently via greater concentrations of energy. And the post-Civil War agricultural revolution depended upon development of animal and steam-powered machinery which made large areas economically cultivatable. "Scientific" management, electrification, and the assembly line, which were broadly applied after the beginning of the twentieth century, were essentially innovations which substituted more effective use of machinery and energy for strong backs and nimble hands.

The Great Depression interrupted a long period of economic growth in the United States, but it had little effect on the long-term increasing importance of inanimate energy in the economy; nor did it shake the assumption that greater use of energy was a means of making life better for all. The successful conduct of World War II not only gave America back its confidence, but also suggested that almost anything—domestically or internationally—could be accomplished. Astounding production miracles had been associated with getting, using, and deploying energy. The later development of nuclear power for civilian use seemed to open the final door. It promised unlimited energy and even the transmutation of materials. The postwar era was expected to be one of unprecedented progress.

Progress, to most Americans, has meant the widening of access to the "good things of life." Those good things have included mobility, enhanced access to health care and education, reduced drudgery, more leisure, and more "stuff." For virtually everyone—the farmer, the housewife, the laborer, and the businessman—energy use has helped overcome the obstacles of space and time. Ultimately, an industrial system fueled by abundant energy was expected to overcome want by spreading the blessings enjoyed by the American middle and upper classes to all.

Over the past century, predominant dependence on renewable and natural energy sources—animals, wood, wind, and water—has shifted to primary reliance upon exhaustible fossil fuels: first coal, and then petroleum and natural gas. Periodic concern about the long-term availability and cost of these fuels proved groundless as new reserves or new energy sources became available. The U.S. petroleum industry increased output during the Great Depression and World War II and, with the end of the war, gave every indication that it could and would expand production still further. The knowledge that reserves of oil were ultimately finite seemed irrelevant as long as the size of the known domestic reserve was growing, when the outer continental shelf had scarcely been touched, and when deposits abroad—firmly under the control of mostly U.S. interests—were being discovered with unprecedented ease. Moreover, natural gas—which had been the unsought stepchild of petroleum for decades—was newly available to distant markets because large-scale, high pressure natural gas pipelines could be built economically. Potential energy supply was multiplied when this extremely clean, efficient, and cheap fuel became available. Consequently, some functions that were inexpensive to serve with oil became even more cheaply served by natural gas. Finally, nuclear power was on the horizon, lessening uncertainties about the long-term accessibility of energy. In reserve were enormous quantities of coal, which could be used to generate electricity or—if necessary, be converted into liquid and gaseous fuels.

Energy policy decisions have flowed from three main tenets of this expansionist perception:

1. The use of energy is good, and the more of it the better. Hence policy should be directed toward making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible and available to everyone.
2. The energy future lies with development of new sources which will replace depleting reserves at an appropriate time. There is a faith that scientific research will reveal such sources and that technology will be able to exploit them. Hence, policies have facilitated technological and other developments that support continuation of an energy-absorbing industrial system to meet the expanding wants of a growing economy, taking due notice of evolutionary changes required in response to the changing relative costs of different resources, including the environment.
3. Secure supplies of energy are essential to avoid sudden shocks to the economy.

This "expansionist" viewpoint sees the primary energy policy objective as facilitating the process of making supplies available to meet consumer desires. It recognizes that changing conditions lead to shifts in the source of energy and to alterations in the way it is used, but it does not seek to impose any constraints on energy acquisition and use beyond those that flow from the objective conditions of energy supply and demand. From what is seen of these conditions, they make growth appear feasible, and the products of growth make it appear desirable. Energy production is favored so long as the market price covers its costs. The prescription for a better tomorrow that results from this viewpoint is to increase energy availability from new sources rather than to save existing energy supplies for use later. Given this view, the proper public debate over energy centers on questions of method and of dividing the spoils; it does not involve questions about the desirability of "more."