 Okay, welcome back to Think Tech, I'm Jay Fidel. This is America, Energy in America, and we have Jeff Kissel on Skype on the line, from where are you, Jeff, anyway? I'm actually in Southern California, you know, the second, California produces the second largest amount of energy of any state in the Union. Yes, it's a huge state and a huge energy project all over California. So, Jeff is with EPRINC, that's the Energy Policy, what is it, give me the extension of that acronym? Energy Policy Research Foundation, out of Washington, D.C., with Lou Pooley-Racy as president. And Jeff joins us to talk about a very interesting topic, and then this is the implications of the energy implications of the contention with North Korea. Welcome, welcome back to the show, Jeff, we love having you and talking to you about these things. Well, thank you and aloha, Jay, it's nice to at least be connected by Skype, even though I can't be there in person. Well, tell me what, you know, we know that there are many implications of the North Korean contention, and some of them are scary, I would say, scary to Hawaii. But what about the energy implications? You've been researching that because you research a lot in energy, and you stay informed on global issues around energy. So what have you found about the implications of North Korea? Well, we're looking more at the specific implications to Hawaii and the Pacific region that are not political, they're resource related, they're factual. Hawaii has undergone a sea change since it became an economy that is fundamentally dependent upon tourism. It lost a lot of its sustainable infrastructure when agriculture went away. So it's got to consider what it's going to do in the event of conflict, a serious conflict breaks out in the Korean peninsula. It's a lot different from what has gone on in Vietnam and other areas in the Asia-Pacific region, because the Korean conflict, if it occurs, has the potential to interrupt vital supplies for Hawaii that are not easily replaced. Now, I brought a little slide pack to help me talk through some of these issues and show your viewers what we mean physically by what could happen if a conflict broke out. So if you look at my slides, we talk about the need for a contingency plan in Hawaii. Now, we know that Hawaii has laid elaborate civil defense plans and they're excellent plans. It's got a very caring government and they're very concerned about what happens if there's a hurricane or some other natural disaster. It also has laid contingency plans if there are other kinds of events that occur. But nobody, unfortunately, today can predict what will happen if there's a conflict in the Korean peninsula. We have a slide on the screen, or we had it a moment ago, called Asia-Pacific Energy Distribution. Is that risk? Can I connect that up for us? That's correct because Korea has the ability, if necessary, to interrupt the whole Asia-Pacific Energy Distribution complex. If you look at that complex, it is served not by Indonesia any longer because Indonesia is no longer an OPEC exporter. They simply produce enough energy to meet their own needs. Asia is not served any longer by Vietnam or China. They consume what they produce. Asia is served by the Persian Gulf and the Asian energy complex, including Hawaii, is served through the South China Sea and through the Sea of Japan and out into the Pacific and North. It's really important to understand that that is a choke point. It's a vital supply line. If you go to slide three, I talk about what we've got in Hawaii now that we no longer are producing very much of our own resources. That's great. That's slide three then? Slide three, Hawaii energy and food supplies are very limited, although its population and tourist population is at a record high. We have less than 60 days worth of food. We have 35 days at best worth of fuel. Our neighbor islands are particularly vulnerable because with the demise of sugar and pineapple, they have even fewer days supply of those critical materials. We haven't even discussed medical supplies and the like. Typically, what people do when there's a hurricane coming is they fill up their gas tanks and buy toilet paper. This is a hurricane potential on steroids. We will have limited access to Honolulu Airport because it'll be used for military purposes. We share that with Joint Base Hickam. Our commercial airlines will not be allocated fuel to fly to and from Hawaii if the fuel supplies in the Asia-Pacific region are interrupted. So we'll have difficulty evacuating our population. If you go to slide four, take a look at what the Department of Defense is saying is the potential area that a disenchanted or aggressive South Korea could impact with its weapons of war. You can see if you compare slide four to my original slide two, that they can interrupt those vital supplies of energy flowing into the Pacific. Of course, the resources would be constrained from the continental U.S. because they're necessary to deal with a potential conflict in Korea. If you just for a moment so that we can have a basis to have a little conversation, look at my slide five, you can see the trade routes in the South China Sea that would be disrupted by a Korea that chooses to influence and extend its force range, project its force sorry, by that amount. So with that, what I wanted to do is set the stage and talk about the need for a Korea facing contingency plan that would supplement what is going on in Hawaii for our natural disaster planning and other contingency plan. Yeah, that's great. That's very important. We should be thinking about that now. We can't isolate ourselves from these events around the Pacific. No, we can't. And the events around the Pacific, we can recall what happened when 9-11 occurred and air transportation went down for a number of days. We can recall what happened when the Great Recession occurred and fuel prices went up and the planes flew empty. Our supply chain was interrupted. And unfortunately, now that the shipping, the surface transportation from the continental US is limited because we've lost a couple of carriers over the last year because again there's no agriculture to be hauled back from Hawaii. And if Korea were successful in interrupting the supply lanes so that we couldn't bring in supplies from Asia and Australia, we would have a very serious problem feeding our people and remember tourists are hungry. They're actually hungrier than our resident population. Isn't that true? It's not that they want fancier meals. They don't have refrigerators and freezers in their homes. And of course, if we had to curtail power, we would lose the ability to provide the kind of refrigeration and freezing capability that would take our food supplies and stretch them beyond the 30 to 60 days that we know we've got in store. Just moving water requires energy. Again, if energy is curtailed, moving physically, moving fresh water through the pipe systems to our homes is going to be a major problem. If you look at what happened when we had the Asia-Pacific Conference, they had container loads of water stored in our parks so that they could be mobilized if there was a disaster to keep the participants in the Asia-Pacific Conference going until they could be safely evacuated. So it's a matter of planning, it's a matter of being realistic, and it's a matter of doing the math to calculate how we could stretch our energy supplies in the event of that conflict. One comparison I wonder if you could make is the comparison between how the tourists would be affected and how the population in general would be affected because there would be shortages, obviously, as you described, but there would be priorities too. And one thing and another, the people who run this island, you know, have the power to manage energy and other resources would probably be making decisions as to who gets it first and who gets it second. So can you compare for me how you think this would impact the tourists who are here and the tourist industry that is in Waikiki and other hotels around and the population in general? Years ago I served on a civil defense committee that was charged with developing allocation plans in the event those things were to occur. We actually had plans, at the time we had a plantation industry, ag industry. We actually had plans to move the tourists out of the hotels and into plantation housing because we could make water and food stretch further because the plantations were used to feeding and caring for their people, but they used fewer resources to do it than the big hotels did. Those decisions, I'm sure, being considered, I don't know how they're being considered in light of the developments on the Korean Peninsula. You might want to invite some of the civil defense planners to talk about that with you. That's a great idea. That's Jeff Kissel. He's with Ebrink, which is an energy think tank in Washington, D.C., but he joins us by Skype from the West Coast here on Energy in America every other Wednesday afternoon at 4 p.m. And today we're doing Thursday. We'll take this short break, we'll be right back and continue the development of this contingency plan that Jeff is talking about right after this break. Aloha, my name is Justine Espiritu. This is my co-host Matthew Johnson. Every Thursday at 4 p.m. on Seantech we host the Hawaii Food and Farmers series. We like to bring in folks from the whole realm of the local food supply and agriculture, anyone working on these issues, any organization or individual that has plans or projects. What kind of people have we had on? We've had farmers, we've had chefs, we've had people from government, larger institutions. Everyone who's working to help make Hawaii's local food system that much better. So you can see us every Thursday and join the conversation on Twitter and we hope to see you there. We're back here on Energy in America with Jeff Kissell, who is with E-Pring, the energy policy research organization, think tank in Washington, D.C., and he joins us by Skype from Southern California where I guess he's on travel or on business. And we're talking about today the energy implications of the contention with North Korea which could disrupt all kinds of trade and commerce and transportation in the Asia-Pacific region. So Jeff, you were talking about developing a plan to deal with this contention and the implications of it. Can you shape that plan for us, tell us what it has to consider, and what choices could and should be made to develop the plan? Yes, the issue is one of timing. We may not have time to go into a robust planning process where we get input from all of the areas of the community. I'm watching the activities in the current legislative session, things that are being considered, and some of them, of course, they're all important and I don't want to diminish the importance of them, but they are trivial in the face of a conflict in the Korean peninsula. And I think that our leaders would do well to accelerate the planning for the contingency that we have now. If you look at what has occurred, you see that the Trump administration, whether you like them or dislike them, has at least worked with the Chinese and determined, whether it's from the Chinese standpoint or not, that they have got a lot less influence on the activities of the North Korean government than we previously thought. That presents a problem that could get out of control very quickly. Now, again, civil defense planning is very advanced in Hawaii, and I don't want to for a moment suggest that the state of Hawaii is not thinking about it, that the federal government hasn't thought about it, but in terms of running out of the essential energy to operate the fuel pumps to pump the water, I think we need to have a fresh look at it, and I think the public needs to be informed about what they should do and how they should participate if in fact the crisis develops to the point where it is acute. Today the public is not educated. They don't know what the civil defense plans are. It's not a question of reading the front of the phone book anymore, because for those few of us that have the phone book, it doesn't talk about anything like this. Timing is critical. The planning needs to be made and shared with the public on an urgent basis. People need to know what to do. It's not the kind of thing where you can duck and cover. It's the kind of thing where you actually have to change your daily lives to understand how to stretch the resources that we've got to last through a severe disruption. Do we take tourists into our homes? Do we bring our food and our other personal resources together at central points in some cases so that we can share them? What do we do about medical treatment? How do we triage the ongoing needs of the vacation for our population? Who gets it and how does it allocate? And again, energy is one of the three most important pillars of a plan. It's energy, food, and of course, infrastructure. You know, it strikes me, Jeff, there's a couple of messages in what you've said. Number one is, you know, if we have a blinding nuclear flash coming from the western shores of Oahu, this may not be relevant because it'd be too late for most people in Oahu. On the other hand, that's not all that likely. What's more likely is some kind of violence war in the western part of the Pacific, which disrupts the South China Sea and otherwise disrupts transportation of fuel and other goods to and from Hawaii, and which shuts down our tourist industry almost immediately, as I think would be obvious. And so the question is, you know, with that disruption, how do we handle what's on the ground right here right now? Because that's the more likely scenario, and that's the scenario where we can actually have a plan that takes steps to avoid the effect of the disruption. Otherwise, there may be nothing we can do, but in that case, there is something we can do. The other thought I had, and I want to throw it at you, is that this is a plan that deals with the contention and possible war in Asia by virtue of all this contention with North Korea. But you know, the same kind of plan dealing with the same kind of disruption of energy and fuel and goods traveling through our shores, this kind of plan would apply to other disruptions as well. Let's take a short break. Oh, there you are. You're back. I don't know if you heard everything I said, but my second point, Jeff, was that this kind of plan would apply to things other than, in addition to disruption with North Korea. It might apply to any kind of disruption. What do you think? Let's go a little break. We'll come right back and deal with that question with Jeff Kissel of E-Princk in California. Aloha. You can join the Hawaii Farmer Series every Thursday from 4 to 5 on FeetTech. And I'm your co-host, Matthew Johnson, here with Justine Espirito. And we are so thankful to have this show to use as the forum to get to know all the movers and shakers in agriculture in Hawaii and hear kind of their background in history, as well as their perspective on what they're doing and also the future for agriculture in Hawaii. So join us every Thursday. You can tweet in your own comments and suggestions and be a part of the conversation at FeetTechHi. And we can... All right, that's Jeff Kissel. We're back online. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Energy in America. We're talking about the implications of the contention with North Korea. And one of the points that I made before we lost you, Jeff, is that this kind of plan you're talking about, the plan of dealing with corruption, dealing with disruption of food and fuel and other, you know, transportation to Hawaii and the loss of tourism and all that, it applies not only to contention with North Korea. It applies to anything that would disrupt these elements of our trade and our connection with the rest of the Pacific, right? We don't actually have to have a missile land in the South China Sea and explode. Anyone can threaten action, which might actually cause that disruption. Korea is the immediate threat, but anything could materialize a conflict among the nations that border that area. A revolution in, for an example, the Philippines, with someone getting a hold of significant weapons to block those ship lanes, any of that could occur. And Hawaii is one of the most vulnerable places in the whole region when it comes to that because it's so far from everywhere. And it takes so much effort to get resources in and people out. I think a lot of people in Hawaii assume that if this kind of disruption happens, whether by North Korea or otherwise, the American military station here, the joint base and elsewhere in Oahu, will save us. But that's not true, is it? They're not really prepared and organized and, you know, have the men and material and other resources to save us. We're going to have to save ourselves, don't you think? Well, we have to contribute to our own well-being because the joint base Hawaii and the other military bases and installations may be consumed by the need to defend this nation. You know, there are 300 million people that they are responsible for defending, unfortunately, not just the 1.3 million people that live in Hawaii. And they may have to take a lower priority to other events. And again, it's an issue of not starving but curtailing our resources, the use of our resources, so that we can weather the storm and recover. So from a political point of view, I mean, from a call at a governmental point of view, what foot do we put out first? I mean, it sounds like to me this is something that could come from the governor or it could come from the legislature or possibly an agency of the state to say, here's the problem and here's the potential solution. Now we need a legislative and funding steps necessary to make the solution available to us when we need it. At a level to do the planning, it needs leadership at the community and county level to implement the plans. So just as there are three pillars to the survivability of Hawaii, there are our three important steps, planning, educating and training, so that we actually know what to do and where to go when the event happens. And our population is already comfortable knowing that. The tourist industry knows that generally speaking, you will shelter in place in the event of a tsunami. You'll take the hotel guests above the ground level to a certain level of safety. The community knows what to do. Generally speaking, when an ambulance comes down the street with a siren, you pull over to the side, it is no different. This is the world we live in and it's a contingency plan that needs to be made, communicated and trained. Well, a couple of thoughts come out of that too. Right now, people are aware, by way of national news, not so much local, that we are having a serious contention. The country is having a serious contention, one thing and another, with North Korea. And North Korea is making a lot of threats on a daily basis about what they're going to do in sending missiles and blowing people up. In addition to the kinds of sub-silential things that they do on an ordinary basis, maybe hacking into bank accounts, which they do. They're a rogue nation. They do a lot of things that are not nearly as threatening as nuclear war. But I guess the question I put to you is, what role does the federal government play in making a plan like this? First of all, it seems to me that people in Hawaii are ready for a plan. They're ready to take action because they know the problem. I think they know the problem. But then who steps in and who does the education? Who marshals the assets? Well, civil defense has always been a state function in the United States, assisted by the federal government. And I'm sure that the federal government is currently working with state agencies across the country to plan for terrorist attacks and all the other eventualities. I don't want to imply for a moment that it isn't doing that. We, in Hawaii, because we are so dependent upon the energy flow through the South China Sea, need to be particularly aware that we need to provide input to the planners so that we can preserve and protect our scarce energy resources and scarce food resources. In the event the worst happens, because if something happens in the Korean Peninsula, then there are other adversaries that this country has that might use that opportunity to make more mischief for us. They might use it to create an act of terrorism somewhere else, which would divert even more resources away from Hawaii. So these are things that are important to consider. And of course, it takes a lot of effort and a lot of thought and input to do that. We may not have much time because the events are moving very, very quickly right now. Well, let's take a page out of Charles Dickens and the Christmas Carol. Let's talk about the ghost of Christmas future. Let's talk about the possibility that we do nothing. I'd like to get that clear on the record before we end the show, Jeff. Let's assume for a moment that people think that someone else will handle it. They don't want to be involved. The legislature be locked. The governor not going to do anything. Let's assume the worst case analysis. At the same time, we have this ongoing and increasing contention nationally with North Korea and through, you know, by virtue of that through Asia Pacific. And then the worst case happens. What is the worst case for Honolulu? Short, of course, of nuclear war. What is the worst case for this disruption? What happens to our lives? This is the 1907 incident. We did nothing. We stayed on oil. We then had another oil crisis in the 1980s, and we did very little. Finally, we had the oil crisis in the early 2000s, and we have finally moved off to a renewable energy platform. So we've had experience doing nothing. And I don't like it. We've had an economic disruption, but we didn't have our physical well-being at risk. Well, I'm afraid to say that if a prolonged conflict breaks out in South Asia and disrupts those supply lines, we will be physically hungry. We will be physically in need of medicine, and we will be physically in need of reducing the population in Hawaii so that the people who need it can actually service the industries and service the defense establishment so that we can survive. How serious are you? How serious should we be? How serious should our listeners take this whole cause for alarm? This is so severe. A successful parachutist has to make 1,000 out of 1,000 jumps. You cannot retire after 999 jumps if you fail on your last jump, and that's the consequence of failing here. Wow. That is memorable. Jeff Kissel on the apron, joining us by Skype from Southern California. His headquarters is Washington, DC. I hope he'll come out here next couple of weeks so we can see him and break bread with him and say hi. It's been a while. Thank you so much, Jeff. Really enjoy these discussions, and thank you for the analysis and the advice and the concern. Aloha.