Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

November 19, 2008 - The London Financial Times reports that Europe’s first auction of allowance emission permits for carbon dioxide brought the UK government roughly £54m. These permits fall under the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. The auction was heavily oversubscribed, with electricity producers expected to be the main buyers.

While European Union member nations are required to participate in emissions trading, other nations are eyeing the allowance system. Japan and Australia have announced plans for experimental carbon emission trading, and President-elect Barack Obama has promised to introduce a similar cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in the US.

Labels: climate change, economy, energy policy, u.s. energy policy

November 12, 2008

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2008 World Energy Report. The Report stressed that world energy systems face a crossroads, and must combat patently unsustainable behaviors. Despite the recent economic downturns which have lessened demand on oil, the Report states that "Oil is the world’s vital source of energy and will remain so for many years to come, even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the pace of development
and deployment of alternative technology."

Given the world's reliance on oil, the IEA calls for radical and coordinated policy action from national and international authorities in order to both decarbonize energy sources while speeding up the transition to alternative energy forms. The IEA promoted increasing financial incentives and regulatory frameworks, and removing existing conventional energy subsidies, as viable policy paths. The Report stresses that any policy choice must support both energy-security andclimate-policy goals in an integrated way.

While the IEA holds that world oil has yet to reach a peak, the fact that oil field declines are accelerating should prompt government actors, despite the fall in oil prices, to continue aggressively investing in alternative energy paths.

To read the IEA World Energy Report, and access other IEA materials, click here.

Labels: energy policy, environment, oil price, oil supply

It is a testament to our media driven society that Paris Hilton actually puts forth a more reasonable (albeit over simplified) energy plan than either presidential candidate! Below is an article on the subject, including a link to the video.



Don’t Laugh. Paris Is Right.
What Ms. Hilton could teach Messrs. McCain and Obama about our energy crisis.
Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:27 PM ET Aug 7, 2008
Even if you know this statistic it's worth repeating: In the mid 1970s, the last time we were in a dither about energy, we were getting a third of our petroleum from abroad. Now, decades later, we buy more than two thirds of it from overseas. As T. Boone Pickens says, it's the largest transfer of wealth in history, with the possible exception of the armadas of gold and silver the Spanish took home from the New World centuries ago.
The new "oil shock"—not an Arab oil embargo this time, but a scary run-up in the price of crude—has dragged us back to an old storyline and a confrontation with the monsters we failed to destroy decades ago. We're still using up our resources too fast, damaging the environment unnecessarily and becoming too dependent on others for our survival. This time, the challenges are even more difficult to deal with. China and India are growing too fast; oil producers are choking on dollars whose value they distrust; Russia and Venezuela (and some Muslim countries) are antagonistic, turbo-charged petroligarchies.
So where should we turn for inspiration and leadership? To Paris Hilton, of course!
I mention her not only because I am betting she looks better in a one-piece bathing suit than John McCain or even Barack Obama. No, we need Paris because her cheerful and sensible approach to the energy problem—encapsulated in her own poolside “ad"—is a lesson in leadership to the two "real" presidential candidates.
Paris's message: don't stress, don't dis each other's ideas, let's just try everything!
It doesn't get any smarter than that.
McCain and Obama, by contrast, are engaged in a phony war that refuses to accept the Hiltonian point: we need every tactic in this new energy war. We need all the production, conservation and research strategies we can imagine. Nothing should be belittled, or dismissed; everything should be attempted. We can't afford to think otherwise.
At the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival recently, I was struck by the fact that the captains of industry from Silicon Valley and the academic and journalistic muckety-mucks agreed on only one thing: we need to tackle the energy challenge with the urgency and imagination of the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan combined. Men and women who are paid to see over the horizon, and who have a good track record of doing so, said privately that we are a decade from ruin at best.
So what are McCain and Obama doing? Arguing about tire gauges and offshore drilling!
It didn't have to come to this.
Perhaps because of his national-security and Navy background, McCain was the first of the two candidates to see the urgency of the issue. The other, less generous explanation, is that McCain needed to tap into the old Bush crowd at the Houston Petroleum Club, and that the only way to overcome their skepticism of him was for him to abandon his semi-green stance on things and go pedal-to-the-metal on the need for more production. And it is true that McCain has racked up lots of donations.
For whatever reason, he was the first of the two candidates to capture the urgency that the American people feel. His Lexington Project was unveiled early this summer at a time when Obama, who had just wrapped up the Democratic nomination, wasn't paying much attention. And to McCain's credit, his plan does have an all-hands-on-deck quality to it, stressing production, to be sure, but also creative tax and investment notions for pushing the technology and conservation envelope.
But in recent days, McCain has gotten sidetracked by some of his own (and his advisers) juvenile rhetoric, as they attempt to portray Obama as an unmanly and out-of-touch Ivy League fop. McCain has wasted valuable time ridiculing Obama for his sensible reminder that individual self-help acts on conservation—like making sure your automobile tires are properly inflated—can add up to tremendous energy savings.
Eventually, McCain was forced to concede that everyone from the American Automobile Association to the Department of Energy has been saying exactly the same thing about tires. In fact, I'm sure even the guys at NASCAR check the pressure on the tires of their civilian cars, not to mention the ones they drive around the track.
As for Obama, his own New Energy for America Plan, released last week, bears similarities to McCain's in terms of a cap on carbon emissions and trading of emission rights; various tax incentives and awards to push the technology of alternative fuels, especially for cars. He, too, is in favor of a "smart grid" to wheel power more efficiently as we increase of reliance on electricity to power all kinds of vehicles.
But Obama can't let go of the chance to portray McCain as a mindless, rapacious driller and digger who eats uranium for breakfast and quaffs kerosene with his coterie of Big Oil friends. Obama's plan dwells on problems associated with nuclear power, and none of its benefits (such as the complete absence of carbon emissions). In his original proposal, Obama flatly opposed opening up new offshore areas to oil exploration, too.
As rapacious as McCain is, however, Obama has now joined him—at least part way—in agreeing that some drilling in newly permitted offshore spots may in fact be a good idea. Obama knows the truth. New ocean prospecting won't produce immediate results, but it can at the least be an expression of American determination—and that can have an effect in and of itself.
Just ask Paris.


URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151256

Labels: energy policy

Fears of an energy crisis, according to columnist Gerald Seib, mean 2008 Presidential candidates must grapple with answers neither easy or cost-free. Yet Seib notes that America is not without historical examples in overcoming energy issues, and contends that the oil shock of the mid-1970s, and the Arab oil embargo of 1973 offer valuable lessons to today's policymakers.

Then, as now, a weakening U.S. dollar placed upward pressure on oil prices, eventually leading to a quadrupling in cost. While attempts at government price controls on oil proved, historically, to be a particularly bad idea, Sieb cites two government steps which were effective: first, an increase in energy supplies, and secondly, policies aimed at reducing consumer demand. The 1970's saw the creation of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, which required auto makers to produce fleets that got better gas mileage. The standards required that new-car gas mileage, on average, double over the following decade. When combined with a national speed limit set at 55 miles-per-hour, CAFE standards helped lower demand for oil by 2 million barrels per day.

While energy transition is not simple or quick, improvements in America's energy portfolio combined with increased efficiency have proven historically useful in lessening a crisis. To read more about the policy precedents of the 1970's and potential contemporary applications, click here.

Labels: election 2008, energy policy, oil supply/demand, u.s. energy policy

"Oil at $110 a barrel. Gasoline at $3.35 (or more) per gallon. Diesel fuel at $4 per gallon. Independent truckers forced off the road. Home heating oil rising to unconscionable price levels. Jet fuel so expensive that three low-cost airlines stopped flying in the past few weeks. This is just a taste of the latest energy news, signaling a profound change in how all of us, in this country and around the world, are going to live - trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will only become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the global struggle over their allocation intensifies."

So begins Michael Klare's article chronicling the end of the energy world as we know it. Klare identifies intense competition over energy sources among economic powers, insufficiency of existing energy supplies, the delay in developing alternative energy sources, migration of wealth and power to energy-rich nations and a growing risk of conflict as factors shaping our new energy reality.

For the full text of this article, click here.

Labels: energy, energy policy, energy sources, oil price

In remarks that flew under the radar screen of American media, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah revealed orders to preserve new oil discoveries untapped, in order to extend the reign of oil wealth in his country. "When there were some new finds, I told them, 'no, leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it'," King Abdullah said.

King Abdullah's position mimics that of Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi who, when asked "How high can your production go?" replied, "We’ll get to 12.5 million barrels a day and then we’ll see." Current Saudi production capacity stands at roughly 11.3 million bpd.

To read more on this subject, including the responses of American energy analysts, click here.

Labels: energy policy, oil supply, peak oil

The United States' trade deficit, which totaled $815 billion in 2007, continues at nearly double the levels of 2001. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, petroleum currently accounts for 36% of the share in the deficit, or $293 billion, while automotive vehicles and related parts account for 16.9%.

The trade deficit is calculated by measuring the annual amount spent by U.S. individuals, companies, and government agencies on foreign-made products, minus the amount spent by foreign entities on U.S.-made products. The heavy and costly reliance of the U.S. on imported oil is easily seen in these deficit calculations.

For further information, click here.

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

The following op-ed piece from the NY Times offers an interesting perspective on the subject of carbon taxation. It uses Denmark as an example of how a carbon tax can work, but with a twist - all tax revenues were returned to the industrial companies paying them as subsidies for the adoption of clean technologies or energy sources.

Read the article.

Labels: economy, energy policy

Five million is up for grabs as part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign, authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will target appropriated funds toward five Midwestern states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. How to qualify? Innovators can receive grants for their proposals aimed at diesel emission reduction.

The EPA estimates that projects will likely include engine upgrades, cleaner fuel use, and vehicle or equipment replacement. To learn more about this campaign, click here.

Labels: biofuels, energy policy

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed stronger than anticipated diesel emission standards today from Houston, Texas. Applicable to trains and shipping, the EPA's action matches those emission guidelines already applicable to large diesel trucks and buses, and for construction, mining and agricultural equipment.

This article further describes the EPA's new standards, which aim to aid communities in achieving better ozone standards.

Labels: energy policy, environment

In this article, President Bush delineates federal plans to increase the United States' energy security. Bush delivered these remarks today to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference.

Bush's remarks emphasize the December 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), which includes mandates increasing vehicle fuel economy and an aggressive renewable fuels quota. Further EISA provisions encompass home lighting and appliance efficiency standards, and federal loan guarantees to support alternative energy research.

This article additionally provides highlights of recent federal developments in energy policy, both domestically and internationally.

Labels: energy policy

While not written for Energy Literacy Advocates, this article by former Senator and ELA board member Gary Hart cuts to the chase and hits the nail on the head for some of the more hard to discuss points about our current energy policy.

Read the article here.

Labels: energy policy

This article, from Bloomberg, provides accurate and interesting facts and figures and also discusses the oil issue from the car makers perspective.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels, energy policy

The article below, from Time magazine, does a wonderful job of framing 1) how the mountain west region is more vulnerable to energy price spikes and climate change, 2) how the mountain west can play an integral (and profitable) role in a new energy future, and 3) how states might provide a "prototype" environment for new energy policies prior to their adoption by the federal government.

Read the article here.

Labels: energy policy, environment, oil prices, renewables

The article below appeared today in the Wall Street Journal, and is right on the mark in regards to the vehicle miles driven issue and its ramifications and causes...


Next Car Debate: Total Miles DrivenFebruary 5, 2008
WSJ – Joseph White
I lead a double life.
Monday through Wednesday, I get to work by walking a block and a half from a high-rise apartment building to a stop on Washington, D.C.'s Metro subway. I emerge three stops later a half block from my office. My commute is pretty close to a zero petroleum experience (never mind how the Metro gets its electricity.)
The rest of the week, I am back in Detroit, where I return to the 20th century. I drive about 20 miles to my office, which is located by the side of a freeway in a suburban "edge city." I sometimes walk to a sub shop for lunch, but it's an arduous slog along busy four lane streets that sometimes have sidewalks, and sometimes don't. To get just about anywhere from my office requires another car trip.
It turns out I am straddling the frontier of the next big debate over the role of the automobile in America. Congress and President Bush late last year agreed to order car makers to boost the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
Last year's energy debate centered around CAFE, the acronym for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The next phase of the energy/climate change debate over cars will force us to learn another piece of technical jargon: VMT, or vehicle miles traveled.
Car makers and consumers will bear considerable costs to switch to a fleet of cars that meets the 35 mgp CAFE goal. But that might not result in a significant reduction in U.S. petroleum consumption or cut the CO2 we add to the atmosphere if we keep driving more and more miles.
From 1977 to 2001, the number of miles driven every year by Americans rose by 151% -- about five times faster than the growth in population, according to data compiled for a 2006 report to the U.S. Department of Transportation written by Stephen Polzin, a transportation researcher at the University of South Florida in Tampa.
The reasons for the big growth in miles traveled are pretty obvious if you don't live in the center of a big city endowed with functioning public transport. To make space for ever larger suburban homes, housing developers pushed further and further from city centers and shopping areas. New neighborhoods often had street layouts cluttered with cul de sacs that forced people to drive farther to get to main roads or stores. Local zoning laws -- reflecting the preferences of residents -- tended to separate commercial and residential uses, and single family from multi-family dwellings.
Meanwhile, the bulk of the money spent on transportation infrastructure was directed to building more and bigger highways. We could have subsidized bullet trains and more light rail systems, but we didn't.
Now, many of the environmentalists, politicians and scientists who made the case for boosting vehicle fuel efficiency are turning their attention to the problem of how much we drive -- and the legacy of 20th century land use and transportation choices.
Just how much more driving Americans will do is a matter of some debate. Higher gas prices, changes in demographics, and a recent upturn in urban redevelopment aimed at luring empty nesters back to city neighborhoods all could result in vehicle miles traveled growing more slowly in the future than it did during the past 30 or so years.
Still, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that miles driven will keep increasing in coming years, and by 2030 could grow by 59% compared with 2005 levels -- still outpacing population growth, though not by as much in the last three decades of the past century. That means even though we'll be driving vehicles that slurp less petroleum per mile, carbon dioxide emissions could grow by as much as 41%, according to a report titled "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change," published by the Urban Land Institute.
Deron Lovaas, a transportation researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council, predicts that the debate over how to curb driving will come to the fore next year, when Congress is scheduled to debate a massive bill to fund transportation projects using federal gasoline tax revenue. The NRDC and other environmental groups, fresh from their victory in the fuel-efficiency debate, are turning their attention to issues such as reforming land use rules to promote denser development and concentrating more public spending on better mass transit systems for metro areas, he says.
Meanwhile, the Energy Department, in response to a 2005 congressional mandate, has enlisted an arm of the National Academy of Sciences to study how travel behavior will change as people live in communities that are designed to have different services closer to their homes, and more homes closer together.
How all this will affect the experience of driving and what we want to drive is a problem that's starting to keep executives of big car companies up at night. If you live the way I do in Washington, you don't really need a $35,000, all-wheel drive luxury wagon. On the other hand, the challenge of dictating to Americans where and how they should live is a problem that will likely keep politicians up at night. There's a reason why so many of us live in big single-family houses, and it's not because living in a small apartment wasn't available as an alternative.As for me, I think it's time for a pair of new shoes.

Labels: efficiency, energy policy

While this article covers several topics, the fact that 69% of Americans believe that the president has control over gasoline prices is significant. This actually may be true over the long term - good public policy could reduce demand for gasoline, and therefore it's price. However have no delusions, any demand abatement would have to be taken on by CONSUMERS, regardless of whether the cause is a shift in public policy. I doubt the 69% cited understand thoroughly that oil (and therefore gasoline) is a fungible commodity traded the world over, so direct control of pricing by the president in our free market system is impossible.

Read the article here.

Labels: energy policy, oil price

This opinion editorial by the Denver Post does a nice job of addressing what so few are willing to: the fact that demand side solutions to our economic oil equation are rarely addressed.

Read the article here...

Labels: energy policy, oil supply/demand

Countless economists have noted that an increase in the federal gasoline tax will have the effect of decreasing gasoline use, thus lowering demand for oil and at the least stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.

This article proposes such an increase, the funds of which are to be used for infrastructure enhancements. Others have argued for a gas tax increase with the funds going towards oil conservation efforts directly.

Labels: economy, energy policy

OK - I admit I am a little late on this post! The Energy Independence and Security Act was signed into law by President Bush on December 19th, 2007. The bill includes provisions for increasing the automobile CAFE standards, increasing the renewable fuels standard, implementing new energy efficiency equipment standards (e.g. refridgerators, freezers, lamps, etc.), and repeals a very modest amount of oil and gas industry tax incentives in order to pay for the CAFE standard increase. While a step in the right direction, our work is far from done.

A good summary of the bill is available here.

Labels: energy policy

This article, recently published in the MIT Technology Review magazine, provides a balanced perspective on the biofuels boom. It includes possibilities for future development and is fairly accurate - containing and commenting only on credible information.

Access the article here (you will need to register for free to view this article - but its worth it!)

Labels: biofuels, economy, energy policy

This article about the potential of oil shale brings the reader up to speed on the latest technology advances in the difficult field of oil shale recovery. Oil shale may play an important role as a fossil fuel source in the future, with reserves located in the US that are three times that of Saudi Arabia. However there are limitations and drawbacks, including an extraction process that is far more intensive than conventional oil, leading to environmental concerns. A more intensive process also means fewer barrels can be easily extracted per day (witness the Canadian tar sands, who have worked for 30 years to reach the current level of production). In short oil shale, as with all other energy sources, is by no means a silver bullet.

Read the article here...

Labels: economy, energy policy, energy sources

While simplistic, this overview by CNN provides a primer on each candidate's stance on popular energy policy topics.

Click here to view this interactive piece.

Labels: election 2008, energy policy

The article below, from the Economist, highlights why our economy is more resilient to oil price increases presently while still pointing out the serious danger of energy complacency.


SHOCK TREATMENT
Nov 15th 2007

Why the economy has absorbed high oil prices fairly easily, and why it may no longer
OIL prices have a special place in economic folklore. The two nastiest global recessions of recent decades were preceded by huge and sudden rises in the price of oil, first in 1973 and then in 1979. These twin spikes, both engineered by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries limiting its oil shipments, are still the textbook example of an economic "shock"--a sudden change in business conditions. Abrupt increases in the oil price have prompted anxiety about stunted growth ever since.
Higher oil prices hurt the economy because they act like a tax increase. Firms that use oil face higher costs which, if they cannot be passed on in higher prices, might mean that some production becomes unprofitable. Consumers paying more for their petrol and heating oil have less to spend on other things. If they look for higher wages to compensate for a drop in purchasing power, that will only lead to job losses.

Oil-producing countries benefit from higher crude prices so the impact on global demand depends how their extra income is spent. But even if oil windfalls are spent largely on goods produced by oil importers, the abrupt shift in the distribution of global income will still be destabilising.
Given the gloomy history, the lingering unease about higher oil prices is understandable. A demonstration of this came on November 13th when, after a rough few days, stockmarkets rose on news that the oil price had fallen below $93. After all the talk of breaking the three-figure barrier, a drop towards a mere $90 spurred a relief rally.
Yet for all that, something has changed. Today's oil prices would have been unthinkable until very recently. Six years ago, when a barrel of crude could be bought for as little as $20, oil prices at today's levels would have raised fears of deep recession. Notwithstanding the spectre of past oil shocks, crude prices have risen to ever-dizzier heights without derailing a five-year period of strong global growth.
But why has the oil bogeyman become less scary? Two new papers*[1] by three well-known economists set out to explain. They come to similar
conclusions: oil shocks do not hurt as much because oil is used less intensively than before, because the economy is more flexible and because central banks are better at controlling inflation.
What makes oil special is that it is a uniquely dense and portable form of energy. It is not easy to switch to alternatives very quickly, so disruptions to supply are damaging. Yet improvements in energy efficiency mean dependence on oil is not what it once was. Rich countries use less than half as much oil as they did in 1970 for each inflation-adjusted dollar of GDP. So although prices in real terms have returned to levels last seen in the 1970s, their impact is not as powerful when set against the diminished economic importance of oil (see charts).
The blow from dearer oil is less powerful than it was and compared with their rigid state in the 1970s, today's more flexible economies are better able to take a punch. Higher oil prices have some unavoidable direct consequences on companies' production costs and on prices paid by consumers for oil-derived products. Wider damage to jobs and output depends on how well these increased costs are absorbed. If workers insist on higher cash wages to maintain their spending power, firms'
costs will take an additional hit, resulting in lay-offs, higher unemployment and depressed demand. To the extent that workers take it on the chin, accepting higher oil prices as a temporary tax increase that lowers their real take-home pay, the collateral damage will be smaller. The rigidity of the 1970s economies, where union power and indexed contracts meant wages were unyielding, only magnified the adverse effects of oil shocks. Today's flexible jobs markets allow oil shocks to be absorbed less harmfully.
If consumers are more forgiving of oil shocks, it is partly because they have become more accustomed to volatile prices and partly because they have greater trust in policymakers to keep inflation under control. Dearer oil has pushed up consumer prices, but expectations of future price increases have remained remarkably stable. That in turn reflects a belief that central banks will act where necessary to keep a lid on inflation. There is a self-fulfilling aspect to that faith.
Employees are less pushy in seeking inflationary wage deals and firms think twice about raising their own prices. As a result, central banks do not need to respond as aggressively as in the past to the inflation caused by higher oil prices. A less jerky monetary policy makes for greater stability.
PUMP-ACTION PROBLEMS
Both papers help tell us why oil shocks hurt much less than they used to. But that is not to say that oil prices no longer matter at all.
Neither analysis takes the run-up in oil prices over the last year into account. The rise in crude prices since the summer has been rapid even by the standards of the 1970s shocks and comes at a particularly bad time for America, the world's largest oil user. Consumers are now having to absorb a flurry of punches. Falling house prices, tighter credit conditions, rising unemployment, as well as higher prices at the petrol pump, all cloud the outlook for consumer spending.
Moreover, part of the cost of absorbing past oil-price hikes has been higher consumer debt and a huge trade deficit, both of which make America's economy more vulnerable. And though the Federal Reserve's credibility has allowed it to cut interest rates in anticipation of a downturn, the persistence of oil-led inflation may yet shift expectations of future price pressures, forcing the central bank to keep monetary policy on a tighter chain. America's economy no longer has the glass chin that it had in the 1970s. But a combination of powerful blows could still have a shattering impact.

*"The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Shocks: Why are the 2000s So Different From the 1970s?", by Olivier Blanchard and Jordi Gali.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Paper 07-21 (August 2007).
"Who's Afraid of a Big Bad Oil Shock", by William Nordhaus. Preliminary draft (September 2007) prepared for Brookings Panel on Economic Activity.

Labels: economy, energy policy, oil supply/demand

While climate change facts and figures are much harder to nail down due to their subjective nature, hundreds of the world's best scientists have joined together to draw reasonable conclusions on the subject. The results are clear - climate change is occuring and human activity is most certainly the cause.

"Climate change is 'severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action' can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday. The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis."

Read the full article here.

Labels: energy policy, environment

A recent article on the front page of the New York Times makes some excellent points regarding the proposed increase in CAFE standards sought by the energy bill currently under consideration by congress. Some key excerpts:

“Gas mileage would go up under the compromise reached by Congressional leaders last week, but not as high as the trumpeted numbers. And despite the tougher 35 m.p.g. standard, a growing population of drivers would push up total fuel use, as well as greenhouse gas emissions — but not as rapidly as would occur without the legislation. Those are some of the conclusions of auto policy experts, who were still struggling on Monday to determine exactly what the proposal would do…”

“The fleet average for vehicles in the 2020 model year would be set at 35 miles per gallon, versus about 25 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks today. Both numbers, though, come with a familiar caveat: actual mileage may vary. In fact, the actual performance falls short of the current standard by about 20 percent, as would be true as well of the higher standard if the proposal becomes law.”

“Even if the bill becomes law, the fuel-economy improvement that it calls for will probably not be great enough to prevent some increase in American fuel consumption because of the expected growth in the number of cars on the road and miles traveled. In 2020, the combined total of gasoline and ethanol use would be slightly higher than it is today, according to David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, on whose calculations the Democratic leaders relied.”

Clearly every option for efficiency must be evaluated for the ACTUAL affect it will have on consumption in order to sort out the best policy options. While estimates are just that, we must be careful to stick to the facts when analyzing each option.

Labels: CAFE standards, efficiency, energy policy

Time magazine recently ran an article on the "peak oil" concept - another case of the mainstream media slowly becoming more aware of the energy issues we are now and will continue to face. An excerpt:

"This isn't quite the same as saying that oil production has peaked and is about to start declining sharply--the view of the true peakists. In "peak lite," as some call it, the big issues are not so much geological as political, technical, financial and even human-resource-related (the world apparently suffers from a dearth of qualified petroleum engineers). These factors all delay the arrival of oil on the market, meaning that production would not so much peak as plateau. But with demand rising sharply, especially from China and India, even a plateau could be precarious."

Very true, and great to see in a major publication. View the whole article here.

Labels: energy, energy policy, oil companies, peak oil, u.s. energy policy

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/20/warming.poll/index.html

Poll shows Americans getting more concerned about global warming

Survey finds more Americans believe phenomenon proven. Majority say U.S. should take action even if other nations don't. Most Americans believe emissions from cars, industries the primary cause.

(CNN) -- Most Americans blame emissions from cars and industrial plants as the primary cause of global warming and believe the United States should reduce levels even if other countries don't, a survey shows.

Fifty-six percent of poll respondents said the phenomenon of global warming has been proven, and can be largely blamed on human endeavors, such as power plants and factories, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

In comparison, 21 percent of those surveyed claimed global warming problems are caused either by natural changes or are unproven.

Sixty-six percent of Americans believe the United States should do what it can to reduce global warming, even if other nations ignore it. This compares with 52 percent of respondents who believed that way in 2001.

In that year, 34 percent thought the United States needed to reduce harmful gases only if other nations did. A much smaller proportion, 16 percent, responded that way in 2007.

The survey of 1,212 adults was conducted October 12-14 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Labels: climate change, energy, energy policy, global warming, u.s. energy policy

Certainly there are pros and cons to any approach we take as we try to avoid an economically painful energy future, but most mainstream economists agree that one efficient option would be to raise gasoline taxes in the U.S. in order to decrease demand. A recent article on this topic explores the option of a gasoline tax further (read it here). This policy option alone will not solve our energy issues, but should be seriously considered along with many other conservation, efficiency, and supply mitigation measures.

Labels: energy policy, gas tax