John McCain foolishly credited the recent $10-a-barrel drop in the price of oil to President Bush's lifting of the offshore drill ban. What's he going to do when prices nudge or jump upwards again? Is he going to admit that White House announcements about offshore drilling have nothing to do with today's supply-demand influences on oil prices? How can offshore drilling, not even approved by the states involved, affect spot oil prices when it will take years to produce a single drop of oil from these areas?
McCain's statement was so ignorant it was even debunked by a Bushie.
"I don't know if we fully deserve the credit," said spokeswoman Dana Perino. "We don't predict what happens in the market. We can't really tell. Certainly, taking that action would send a signal that at least the executive branch is serious about moving forward and increasing the supply we have in America."
McCain's comments, like Bush's energy policy, betray a complete ignorance of how oil is priced or of the effect of supply and demand. For instance, as prices soared Bush asked the Saudis to pump more oil to reduce prices. They did, by 200,000 barrels a day, and prices kept rising.
So here's the skinny for the Republicans:
Prices went up to $147 a barrel because of demand from consumers around the world and gasoline subsidies in China and elsewhere. Conversely, prices have fallen by $20 a barrel or so because of cutbacks in usage by consumers around the world due to the high price and the fact that China lowered its gasoline subsidies to reduce consumption. The market, or supply and demand, works. It just doesn't work the way McCain and Bush seem to think it works.
There's also little in the way of intelligent energy policy notions coming out of energy guru Al Gore or oil gadfly, T. Boone Pickens. Both have proposed solutions which make no sense.
Gore's would bankrupt the country. He wants to back out fossil fuels and nuclear within ten years in terms of power generation, at a cost of five Iraqi wars or universal health care for Americans and Mexicans.
T. Boone wants massive taxpayer subsidies to build wind and solar farms in order to replace natural gas for power generation and free it up to be used in all vehicles instead of gasoline. That's fine except switching to natural gas may be impeded by the fact that accessible domestic gas supplies are running out.
By far the reasonable and most sensible fixes can be accomplished immediately and have immediate paybacks such as helping to clean up the environment, slash trade deficits, reduce dependency on nasty foreign regimes, finance research into new technologies and bail out Detroit.
1. Mandate increased fuel efficiencies of at least 10 miles per gallon for every vehicle and within two years require all new cars sold in the U.S. to be hybrids. Subsidize Detroit to do this which would help its failing auto makers.
Measures should also be considered, such as subsidies, to help retire the nation's gas guzzlers more quickly. Why? The country's 245 million Cars and SUVs use 55% of the oil consumed every year.
And if all these were replaced with vehicles that were at least 10-miles-per-gallon more efficient, the country would cut oil consumption by four million barrels daily, eliminating $189.8 billion, or 27%, from the total trade deficit.
2. But another measure is essential in tandem with fuel efficiencies: an increase in gasoline taxes to keep prices high. This is because studies show that fuel efficiencies don't necessarily decrease consumption but increase it because the same money can buy more tankfuls. So the combination of fuel efficient cars, and more expensive gasoline, would lower consumption rates even faster.
3. The next step would be to earmark higher gasoline taxes for research into alternatives.
4. Continue to subsidize ethanol, mandate flex-fuel engines (at a cost of $100 per car) and force oil companies to offer ethanol or other bio fuels at every gasoline station. Choice at the pumps will keep oil refiners and distributors honest through competition, now non-existent.
Instead of concrete measures, however, we have a President who doesn't get it and his successor, John McCain, who will rely on White House announcements or coziness with the dreadful Saudis to ease the pain at the pumps.
Convert all base load power to wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal and hydro by 2015.
Simulataneous, create energy efficiency line item tax credit for energy efficiency for 100% percent write off below taxes due for insulation, weatherization, thermally effecient windows, efficient ac/heating systems and LED lighting.
Create regional Independent Service Operators (ISO's) to buy power from utilitiy, business and residential producers of electric power at full market rates. The level the playing field rule.
Create national unifom grid interconnect rules.
Mandate 5 % tarriff on all production for grid maintanance provided by utilities.
Phase out all oil, coal and nuclear subsidies by 2015 and redirect those funds to R&D for energy efficiency, alternative energy and mass transit.
Mandate true green building standards by the end of 2009 to replace the LEED Certified standards which are a complete hoax.
Mandate 40MPG 2010, 50 MPG by 1012 and 80 MPG by 2015. The technology exist today for the 2015 standard. Include no income taxes for 10 years for auto makers who meet or exceed the mandate for their enetire fleets.
No new interstate highways until the new high speed interstate rail system is built. Or, no new interstate highways without simultaneously building the highspeed rail system with it where people actually travel while building out the high speed system on the existing interstate system.
Get off you butts and start sending this plan to your government representitives.
-- Great point about the $6 trillion on foreign oil in ten years.
-- Ethanol is a good idea: Last year, subsidy cost about $8 billion and backed out $20 billion in foreign oil imports
-- The fuel efficiency rules can be sped up. It makes so much sense for Washington to not only mandate hybrids and fuel efficient cars that the worst guzzlers should be taxed so that their owners junk them. Owners should be given five years to dump or retrofit their cars.
More ideas: Density zoning limits should be lifted along the subway or streetcar, mass transit, routes in every city.
Suburban sprawl must be arrested and greenbelts declared to contain urban areas. this will prevent consumption.
governments should subsidize through fast tax writeoffs conservation measures such as double glazing windows, caulking and other measures to reduce energy consumption.
Americans and Canadians must live like Europeans and both countries spill more oil than they probably need. Some eestimates are that serious conservation measures can reduce consumption of all energy by one-third.
In 2007, the ethanol industry produced 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. In round numbers, that is about 170 Million bbls of oil allowing for refining. At the even at a sustained price of 100 per bbl, that is only $17 Billion. Recall that in 2007, oil averaged $72/bbl, so ethanol saved $12.24B in imports in 2007. So where do you get this idea that this ethanol saved $20 Billion dollars last year? This is simply a false claim, like so many others I see on this blog.
source: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1656/argonne_efficiency_analysis.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
Ethanol is a REALLY BAD idea. No, a REALLY, REALLY BAD idea.
All out development of solar energy to power hydrogen and electric veicles would be much, much better. It also gets us away from wars of empire to secure fossil fuels which would also help our national security.
If little Iceland can work to replace all its fossil fuels use with hydrogen for all its energy needs, so can we. Norway is working on a hydrogen highway, why can't we?
Until that happens, we could use tailpipe and smokestack converters of CO2 to methanol where we burn the methanol as a transportation fuel until hydrogen and electric cars become more mainline. That, at least would slow down the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere.
There is a lag in the effects of global warming. There is NO good scenario if fresh water from the Arctic and Greenland ice fields slow down or stop the thermal conveyor which we notice in the Gulf Stream. If/when that comes to pass, all talk of costs to the economy for converting away from fossil fuels use will be as relevant as talk as to the exact year of the change from the Stone Age to the Bronze.
Also, I do not think Al Gore's ideas for getting us off of our fossil fuel addiction would disrupt the economy. Rather, I think it'd BOOST the economy through creation of an entirely new manufacturing and service economy.
Wilbur
So if gas is running out(and I've heard the same from gas co representatives) then shouldn't we be doing this anyway? May not get us off oil, but I'd like to be able to turn the lights on.
Vinod Khosla has been mightily criticized for his role in promoting ethanol.
For now, all the solutions have a place, but can we react in time? The BLM has stopped any new solar projects on government land for the next 2 years while they do an environmental impact study. There are no subsidies for renewables in the 2009 budget.
Why haven't the oil companies drilled on the 80% of their paid leases that have not been drilled on - and need to go to the coasts?
We need more gas, and we need more electricity.
Ethanol can be used as a oil extender, but corn is a bad idea. Switchgrass is 16 times as efficient, sugar cane is much better than corn. BUT we currently tax imported ethanol 53 cents a gallon, and our subsidies of the sugar and oil industries keep our sugar industry from making ethanol.
Electric cars with recharging on the road capabilities (like the Chevy Volt) look like the hot ticket - as soon as they get into production. This will strain the electric system.
We need solar, we need wind, we need nuclear, we need oil. We need it all.
Is anyone listening - or are they just arguing about giving the oil companies another rape of the environment?
His mission, as directed by Seaborg, was to determine the biological effects of inonizing radiation with his co-researcher- Arthur Tamplin. They released their report in 1969 showing that there is no safe level of exposure which completely debunked the theory of linear exposure and makes the former current standards for exposure a sham. The Gofman/Tamplin report was given to Seaborg and refused to release the report and simultaneously reduced their research budget to $150,000 in 1970.
Their research was particularly revealing when it comeS to Alpha Emiters which act like neutron bullets at the cellular level causing point mutations and deletions on DNA. They could not find a dose low enough not to cause damage to DNA. Plutonium comes to mind when discussing Alpha Emiters which is a principal byproduct of fission controlled or uncontrolled.
T. Boone Pickens has set a pretty clear bar for what our future energy policies have to do. We need to use $600 Billion dollars a year less foreign oil. More fuel efficient cars will not do it alone. Though everything you say about automotive fuel efficiency is true, you are wrong about Pickens and Al Gore's proposals.
How can T. Boone Pickens' or Al Gore's plans be unreasonably expensive compared to 10 years of foreign oil at $600 Billion dollars a year?
Worst case estimates for Al Gore's 10 years to zero carbon electricity generation program are $3 Trillion dollars. This is $3 Trillion dollars less than we would have to pay if we kept going as we are. Without the Pickens and Gore approaches we will spend $6 Trillion dollars for foreign oil in 10 years.
Regards
Not to mention, there's an election coming. Hey, oil guys, take a little loss for a while, just for the team. (Though I'd say that's a few months early..........)
Our solutions must include as many paths as possible, but ethanol doesn't help carbon emissions and is affordable only with massive government subsidies...which we'll need for something else, like solar research and tax credits for retro-fitting buildings to greener standards.
Appreciate your passion, but you need to couple it with research.