The Honorable James Woolsey is the Chairman of Paladin's Strategic Advisory Group. He is a partner at Booz Allen Hamilton and from 1993 to 1995 was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He endorsed Senator John McCain for president and served as one of McCain's foreign policy advisors. In his government service, his law practice, and his service on corporate boards, Mr. Woolsey has focused on the practical application of innovative technology and on the legal and managerial requirements that are necessary to accomplish this. During the last two decades, he has served on the boards of fourteen companies; almost all have been significantly involved in using high technology to improve security as well as provide other benefits to private and public sector consumers. He was an early member of the board of directors of Yurie Systems, Inc., a provider of ATM access technology and equipment and access concentrators, which, in 1997, was named by Business Week as the fastest-growing corporation in the U.S. As Under Secretary of the Navy, as a member of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (Packard Commission), the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S. (Rumsfeld Commission, 1998) and as Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey has been identified with promoting technological innovation in the interest of improving security.
Mr. Woolsey received his B.A. Degree from Stanford University (With Great Distinction, Phi Beta Kappa), and a M.A. Degree from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and an L.L.B. Degree from Yale Law School, where he was Managing Editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Question: When did you become interested in renewable energy?
Jim Woolsey: Well it wasn’t really sudden. I got exercised about oil dependent sitting in gasoline lines stretching down the block in the early ‘70s with the Saudi embargo . . . ’73. And I was in the government shortly after that. And when I got out I worked with a friend, Bill Homeberg, who had been at the Department of Energy, and we set up a program at one of the think tanks in Washington, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, that we called the Jefferson Group. And it had some interesting people in it. It had a big real estate developer. It had Admiral Thomas Moore who had just stepped down as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It had Hunter and Amory Lovins, the soft path energy advocates par excellence. And the reason we called it the Jefferson Group is we had this hypothesis that although Hamilton had been proven generally more correct than not in his and Jefferson’s argument about the future of the American economy for the 18th, and 19th century, the 21st century coming up might be one that where Jefferson, in his yuleman farmer focus, might be more comfortable. Technology hadn’t caught up with Jefferson at the point; but increasingly with distributed generation of solar and wind, with things like thin film, solar with the possibility of plug-in hybrids, meaning that you could drive from energy generated on your roof with wireless mesh, and new types of communications gear that makes it a lot easier to operate very effectively without an elaborate and centralized communications structure, we may have the wherewithal to make our society a lot less vulnerable to things like terrorist attacks on energy, let’s say, or communications, then would have been the case just a very few years ago. None of us saw those things clearly in the early ‘80s, but it was the general idea. And in about ’82, I wrote the forward to Hunter and Amory Lovin’s book “Brittle Power” about the vulnerability of the energy industry. And I kind of followed energy while I was over negotiating arms control for both the Bush one and Reagan administrations in Europe. And then when I was Director of Central Intelligence in the early Clinton administration, shortly after I got out of the Clinton Administration in ‘95, Senator Richard Lugar called me. He was Chairman at the time, I think, of the Agriculture Committee. And he asked if I could testify about energy and national security. I said, “Well I’ve been interested in this in one way or another for some time. I’ll have to do some reading.” And the hearing wasn’t for a couple weeks, so I started doing some reading and found out about cellulosic ethanol, the genetic engineering of the biocatalyst to make it possible the breakdown of the cellulose into constituent sugars and then ferment. It was, at least in the laboratory, done. And I remember thinking, “My gosh, that’s catalytic cracking.” I grew up on the fringes of the oil business in Tulsa. Tulsa called itself the oil capital of the world in the 1950s, and it wasn’t real far off. It was very central to a lot of the oil companies, and oil equipment, and the rest. Most people in business, a very large share of them were in the oil business in one way or another. Well anybody who is familiar with the oil business knows that up until the early 20th century you could only get gasoline from a tiny share of petroleum; but first with thermal cracking and then ‘30s catalytic cracking, you could use much larger shares – 70, 80 percent of oil – to produce gasoline. And it was that expansion of the feed stock that made possible the transportation revolution of the early 20th century, and the reason gasoline was 25 cents a gallon when I was growing up in Tulsa. So if you had catalytic cracking or the functionally equivalent thereof for plants – and it doesn’t have to be crops, it can be grass – that changed everything I thought. And I started doing a lot of writing and reading and some speaking about cellulosic ethanol. And as time went on I got more and more interested in other fuels as well, and other aspects of energy and security. So I’ve been on this in one way or another since the ‘70s and early ‘80s, and in a relatively dedicated way since the ‘90s, and full time for the last three years or so.
Recorded on: 7/2/07
Woolsey talks about the 50s oil boom, the 70s oil bust, and the prospects of renewable energy.
We're more dependent on them than we realize.
- Scientists says our survival depends on biodiversity.
- A natural climate strategy we often forget.
- Seeing our place among the Earth's living creatures.
There's a high social cost that comes with lighting up.
While short-term results are positive, there is mounting evidence against staying in ketosis for too long.
- Recent studies showed volunteers lost equal or more weight on high-carb, calorie-restricted diets than low-carb, calorie restricted diets.
- There might be positive benefits to short-term usage of a ketogenic diet.
- One dietician warns that the ketogenic diet could put diabetics at risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.