Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

While somewhat partisan, the following commentary from NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman is worthy of a read for pointing out that the flurry of activity we are seeing today in the energy arena does not translate into any meaningful solutions.


THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: The Capitol Energy Crisis
Submitted by Kevin © on Sun, 06/24/2007 - 12:35pm.
When you watch a baby being born, after a difficult pregnancy, it is so painful and bloody for the mother it is always hard to tell the truth and say, “Gosh, that baby is really ugly.” But that’s how I feel about the energy legislation passed (and not passed) by the Senate last week.

The whole Senate energy effort only reinforced my feelings that we’re in a green bubble — a festival of hot air by the news media, corporate America and presidential candidates about green this and green that, but, when it comes to actually doing something hard to bring about a green revolution at scale — and if you don’t have scale on this you have nothing — we wimp out. Climate change is not a hoax. The hoax is that we are really doing something about it.

No question, it’s great news that the Democrat-led Senate finally stood up to the automakers, and to the Michigan senators, and said, “No more — no more assisted suicide of the U.S. auto industry by the U.S. Congress. We’re passing the first bill since 1975 that mandates an increase in fuel economy.” If the Senate bill, which now has to go through the House, becomes law, automakers will have to boost the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with about 25 miles per gallon today.

But before you celebrate, pay attention to some fine print in the Senate bill. If the Transportation Department determines that the fuel economy goal for any given year is not “cost-effective” — that is, too expensive for the car companies to meet — it can ease the standard. That loophole has to be tightened by the House, which takes up this legislation next week.

But even this new mileage standard is not exactly world leading. The European Union is today where we want to be in 2020, around 35 miles per gallon, and it is committed to going well over 40 m.p.g. by 2012. Ditto Japan.

There are other things that make the Senate energy effort ugly. Senate Republicans killed a proposed national renewable electricity mandate that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020. Twenty-three states already have such mandates. No matter. Making it national was too much for the Republicans.

And the Senate, thanks again to the Republicans, also squashed a Democratic proposal to boost taxes on oil and gas companies that would have raised some $32 billion for alternative fuel projects.

Despite all the new research on climate change, the Senate didn’t even touch the idea of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax to limit carbon dioxide emissions. An effort by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to legislate a national reporting (“carbon counter”) system to simply measure all sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which would enable a cap-and-trade system to work if we ever passed one, also got killed by Republicans. We can’t cap and trade something we can’t measure.

Here is the truth: the core of our energy crisis is in Washington. We have all the technology we need right now to make huge inroads in becoming more energy efficient and energy independent, with drastically lower emissions. We have all the capital we need as well. But because of the unique nature of the energy and climate-change issues — which require incentives and regulations to build alternatives to dirty, but cheap, fossil fuels — you need public policy to connect the energy and capital the right way. That is what has been missing.

“We have to work to ensure that the House will at least toughen the provisions that the Senate passed,” said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming Program.

The public wants it. But energy policy gets shaped in the halls of Congress — where wily lobbyists, legacy industries and politicians greedy for campaign contributions regularly sell out the country’s interests for their own. Only when the public really rises up — as it has finally done against the auto companies — do we even get moderate change. Don’t look to the Bush team to lead the revolution.

“We are the only major country in the world where no one even knows the name of the environment minister — the head of our Environmental Protection Agency,” said Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. “Whoever it is — and most people don’t even know if it is a he or a she — has been in a six-year witness protection program. Until the Democrats took over, no Bush E.P.A. administrator appeared before the House committee in charge of energy and climate change.”

Folks, we’re home alone. So call your House member — especially the Republicans. If you don’t, some lobbyist will.

That's right, the U.S. Senate indeed passed an energy bill last week with some provisions included that we haven't seen addressed in many years. This article provides some of the details of the bill, as well as reactions from across the political spectrum.

The U.S. Congress greeted the first day of summer by passing a new energy bill that provides modest gains in conservation and efficiency, including mandates to boost the average fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet for the first time in over 20 years. The bill mandates auto fuel efficiency standards of 35 mpg by the year 2020, which is a step in the right direction. But though it might seem encouraging to see Congress finally take action on this issue, it would be dangerous for us to conclude that our nation’s energy crisis is being addressed at the speed and scale necessary to avoid serious economic, environmental and national security consequences. The fact is, the legislation Congress has passed is just a small step along a way we must traverse much more quickly if we are to arrive at a comprehensive national energy policy in time to avoid disaster.

As citizens, we have to face the reality that the cheap energy sources to which we have become accustomed are simply not going to be much longer available to us. The price of oil continues to climb, and for good reason – oil is becoming far more difficult to discover and extract, and most of the world’s remaining reserves (some 90%) are controlled by governments, which renders energy supplies vulnerable to shifts in political stabilities and interests. Our most plentiful and cheapest source of domestic power, coal, has come under intense scrutiny as we begin to realize the deleterious environmental effects of its use. Until we can more surely and safely capture and sequester carbon coal emissions, reliance on coal as an energy mainstay is not the answer. Other options such as nuclear, solar and wind energy present myriad opportunities and challenges our federal government is nowhere close to addressing adequately.

Our current national crisis is like a very old dam through which more and more leaks are bursting and growing. It is good to see Congress, automakers, and the American public beginning to acknowledge the leaks in the dam, but simply putting our fingers in the holes and hoping for the best does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us use this fresh attention on energy as a wake up call. For starters, let’s acknowledge how deeply dependent we are on energy to drive every aspect of our economy, and therefore how devastating a large disruption in energy supplies would be. From there, consider the environmental effects of our current energy use, and how different the world and the global economy will look if we continue to underestimate the consequences of global warming. Last, let us not forget the sacrifices we demand of our troops in regions where we deploy them to protect U.S. and other countries’ oil interests, not to mention the need for a more sustainable U.S. foreign policy trajectory for the sake of long-term national security.

As we are only now beginning to realize, the key to healthy U.S. economic, environmental and foreign policy is a sound energy policy. The more informed our democracy is about the magnitude and urgency of our national energy crisis, the more responsibly it will demand our legislators act. A responsible, comprehensive national energy policy would heavily promote efficiency and conservation, provide incentives for clean use of conventional energy resources, and place emphasis on the development of fossil fuel alternatives. Whatever our party affiliation, we are all citizens and guardians of our country’s health and our children’s future. It is our duty to demand far more from our national legislators.

In the meantime, our citizenry is being lulled into complacency by a political culture that thrives on creating impressions of progress far short of the level of action required. If we are to have a future preferable to the predictable, we simply must wake up, get informed, and demand the level of action our country really needs.



Jamie Lang
Executive Director
EnergyLiteracy.org
720-222-0556
jlang@energyliteracy.org

Dr. Chris Atwood
President
303-495-2900
catwood@energyliteracy.org

How long will it be before gas reaches $5 - $6 a gallon? And contrary to what many are saying, the issue is a little more complicated and troubling than the notion that U.S. oil companies are simply being greedy. We have an emerging energy supply problem that the whole world, including our own federal government, must work with energy suppliers to address.

Denver Post News Brief, 5/21/07:
Camarillo, California

Gas reaches record U.S. average of $3.18

The average price of self-serve regular gas hit a record of $3.18 a gallon, rising more than 11 cents in two weeks, accroding to a national survey released Sunday.

That topped the record of $3.07 set two weeks ago and the previous inflation-adjusted record of $3.15 in March 1981, said the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations.

The lowest average for regular fuel was $2.87 in Charleston, S.C.; the highest was $3.59 in Chicago.

Labels: gas prices, oil companies, oil supply

Here is another article, this time from the Denver Post, announcing the new wind farm in Colorado. Congratulations to Vestas International, Xcel Energy, and Gov. Bill Ritter!

"One wind farm is a good start"
By The Denver Post Editorial Board
Article Last Updated: 05/20/2007 09:28:23 PM MDT

Everybody's gabbing about the potential of renewable energy these days, but all that talk often seems to be in the future tense.

So, it's worth noting when a concrete step is taken toward a more diversified energy supply, such as the new wind farm near Sterling. It will be built, start to finish, in just a year's time.

It makes one wonder why Colorado didn't make a bigger push to develop wind energy sooner.
The 400-megawatt Peetz Table project will power 120,000 homes through Xcel Energy, which will buy the entire electric output. Xcel also is purchasing energy from three other wind farms, enabling it to meet the state's new renewable energy standards several years early. Those standards require power companies to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020.

Colorado is the 11th windiest state in the nation, by some measures, and wind is a commodity without a price tag, unlike coal, oil, uranium and other fuels. The wind farm also will provide a boost to the local economy, because the people on whose land the 267 windmills are located will be paid a fee and can still use their land for farming. And the farm will provide more than 300 jobs during the construction phase and 20 jobs once the project is completed.

Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature deserve credit for helping move Colorado into the renewable energy age in a serious way. During his campaign for governor, Ritter vowed to create a new energy economy. He got a good start during this past legislative session. Lawmakers passed at least eight bills that will enhance renewable energy development in addition to another dozen efficiency and conservation laws.

The Peetz Table project is just one good sign. Vestas, the world's leading maker of wind turbines, announced in March that it will build a turbine factory in Windsor that could employ more than 400 people. As the industry ramps up, there will be other trickle-down benefits, such as employment in businesses that serve the industry and increased sales tax revenues.

Renewable energy sources have great potential to protect the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But Coloradans should remember that one wind farm doesn't change everything, and that future energy needs will have to be met with a combination of renewables, conservation and traditional energy sources.

This article by Thomas Friedman is one of the best I've read recently on the subject of the great divide between the present level of energy/global warming rhetoric we're hearing these days vs. actual policy options being developed and implemented. There is way too much at stake for this generation and the next one for us to waste the narrow window of oportunity we have on fiddling around while Rome burns. We simply cannot allow energy and global warming to become co-opted by those who benefit from a lot of talk and gesture about energy and global warming when swift and decisive action is needed!

June 3, 2007Op-Ed Columnist, nytimes.comOur Green Bubble By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Surely the most glaring contrast in American political life today is the amount of words, speeches and magazine covers devoted to the necessity of “going green,” “combating climate change” and gaining “energy security,” and the actual solutions being offered by our leaders to do any of these things. You could very comfortably drive a Hummer through the gap between our words and deeds.

We are playing pretend — which, when you think about it, is really troubling. Here are the facts: Our worst enemies, like Iran, have been emboldened by all their petrodollars. The vast majority of scientists tell us that global warming caused by our burning of fossil fuels is a real danger. And with three billion new consumers from India, Russia and China joining the world economy, it is inevitable that manufacturing clean, green power systems, appliances, homes and cars will be the next great global industry. It has to be, or we will not survive as a species.

And yet ... and yet our president and our Congress still won’t give us an energy bill that would create the legal and economic framework to address these issues at the speed and scale required.

If you were President Bush, wouldn’t you want to leave behind something big, bold and important on energy, just in case — you know, just in case — Iraq doesn’t turn out so well? I sure would. But the president still has not challenged Congress or the country to undertake a radical departure on energy. So we still have only “energy politics,” not “energy policy.” Like previous energy bills, the packages working through the House and Senate today represent more “the sum of all lobbies,” as the energy expert Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free Coalition, puts it, not the sum of our best ideas.

Some lawmakers are pushing corn ethanol from Iowa, either because they hail from that area and are looking to give more welfare to farmers by wasting money on an alternative fuel that will never reach the scale of what is needed, or because they plan to run in the Iowa caucuses. Others are pushing huge subsidies to turn coal into gasoline, because they come from coal states. Those who don’t come from Michigan want higher mileage standards imposed on Detroit, while those who come from Michigan prefer to continue their assisted suicide of the U.S. auto industry by blocking tougher mileage requirements.

“The only green that they are serious about in Congress right now is the one with Ben Franklin’s picture on it,” Mr. Luft said.

Yes, it is helpful that Mr. Bush expressed a desire last week to work with other nations to limit greenhouse gases. His bully pulpit matters. But no one will — or should — take him seriously unless his government first leads by example. What would that look like? It has to start with a clear, long-term price signal. That is, a carbon tax or gasoline tax — or a cap and trade system with a binding national ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions — which would set a price for dumping carbon into the atmosphere or driving a gas-guzzling car.

Get Washington to signal that gasoline is never going to retreat from a level of $3.50 or $4 a gallon — and that wind and solar subsidies will be there for a decade, not stop and start as they always have before; get Washington to commit to buying a fixed volume of solar and wind power for government buildings and Army bases for 10 years, with only U.S.-based manufacturers able to compete for contracts; get Washington to set a new fleet average of 35 miles per gallon for Detroit within 10 years — with no loopholes; establish government loan guarantees for any company that wants to build a nuclear power plant; and, finally, build a national transmission grid — a green power superhighway — so that solar energy from Arizona or wind from Wyoming can power homes in Chicago. Do all that and our private sector will take America from green laggard to green leader.

Unfortunately, Congress is brewing instead a hodgepodge of incrementalism. This is particularly disappointing when America’s corporate icons — G.M., G.E., A.I.G., DuPont, PepsiCo — “have all come out in favor of a national mandatory limit on carbon emissions,” notes Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. “But Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have not risen to their challenge.” We have a multigenerational problem that requires a systemic, multigenerational response, and that can happen only if we get our energy prices right.

Only that will guarantee green innovation and commercialization at scale. Anything less is wasted breath and wasted money — and any candidate who says otherwise is only contributing to global warming by adding hot air.

Labels: economy, energy, global warming, u.s. energy policy