We can end America's oil addiction, but two key events -- yesterday and last week -- tell us a lot about the challenges we'll face as we make it happen.
Last week, the delay (and potential cancellation) of the Keystone XL pipeline showed we can meet the challenge of organizing a grassroots-driven coalition to stop destructive oil development. That was a fantastic victory, but it only marked the start of what is sure to be a long campaign to stop oil companies from pursuing increasingly risky and environmentally destructive sources of petroleum -- in the tar sands, the Arctic, the Amazon, the shale fields in the northern Rockies, and beyond.
After seeing thousands of us surround the White House to stop Keystone XL, I think we're up to that challenge. But to keep succeeding, we'll need more than enthusiasm for stopping the bad stuff -- we'll also need to tackle the root of the problem: our society's seemingly insatiable demand for oil.
That's why although I'm thrilled that President Obama heard our voices and declined to rubberstamp the Keystone XL pipeline, I'm equally excited about yesterday's announcement that his administration is finalizing a fuel-efficiency standard of 54.5 mpg for all cars and light trucks by 2025, as well as a reduction in carbon emissions to 163 grams per mile. Because most of the oil we use is for transportation, improving vehicle efficiency is the single biggest step we can take right now to ensure that we transition to an oil-free society before we've destroyed more irreplaceable wildlands, suffered more oil-spill catastrophes, or allowed carbon pollution to push our climate past the tipping point.
And that's where our other challenge really kicks in. We know that the proposed fuel-economy and carbon-pollution standards are achievable. We also know that they'll help solve the many problems that our oil addiction causes for our economy, our environment, and our national security. In 2030, they'll save as much oil as we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year. Consumers will save billions of dollars at the pump, and innovative automotive technologies will flourish and create thousands of new jobs as a direct result of these new standards.
Sounds great, right? Ironically, though, we need to work just as hard to win a solution like this as to stop a problem like the Keystone XL.
It's not always easy to get people as excited about long-term solutions like fuel-economy standards as it is to galvanize them against immediate threats like tar sands. But if we don't reduce demand for oil through solutions like strong fuel-efficiency standards, better transit options, and smart urban planning, we'll find it a little harder each time to resist the demands to develop projects like the Keystone XL or drill in a treasured wilderness like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So although nowhere near as dramatic as last week's Keystone XL announcement, yesterday's proposed vehicle standards represent an equally significant commitment by President Obama to move our nation beyond oil and toward a clean-energy future. It's a commitment that deserves all the support we can give it.
Ready to be part of the solution? Let the Obama administration know you support the strong fuel-economy and carbon-pollution standards that will move America beyond oil.
Follow Michael Brune on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bruneski
We are in a recession!!!
Increase MPG 30% now!
Cut NOX 70% Now!
Fitch Fuel Catalyst
Sonic Spark Plugs (Piezo) or Halo or Pulstar
Tornado Vortec Generator
EVEN MORE MPGS AND CLEANER AIR!!!
http://www.hydrogenboostnow.com/HHO-Dry-Cell.htm
See MOVING BEYOND OIL on the Aesop Institute website.
This is another path - revolutionary innovation. See also CHEAP GREEN on the same site.
from today’s edition of MaMaMoJo — the Massachusetts Marijuana Movement Journal:
Hemp Energy Farming Breakthrough Study –Corroborates Jack Herer’s Assertions
every ten square kilometers (about 2.5 acres) of cultivated great Hemp yields about 3,000 liters (about 800 gallons) of Ethanol AND 3,000 cubic meters of Methane. Both Ethanol and Methane burn cleanly, causing no Global Warming. Methane left in the atmosphere, however, is a Greenhouse Gas many times as bad as Carbon Dioxide.
I've been asking this "Devil's Advocate" question since the 80s: "Who benefits from the Machiavellian strategy of using up all the oil first before switching to alternative energy sources?" I'm not advocating for that, but if we don't understand these competitive dynamics we may be only an Administration or two or three from using up the Tar Sands. Why not? Aren't the Canadians better allies than the current oil cartels? This is more than just enviro issues and are geo-politico-economic issues... What do you think of the burgeoning Arctic Economy?
I am impressed that you refuted the "Machiavellian" reference. Yet, I am not sure I understand why you say that it is simple economics. Contracts for purchase vary widely. I take the position that the price of gasoline is not perfect competition. Moreover, that the supply of oil is not competitive. On the other hand, if one takes a step back from preferring the Arab states, and gives preferable WTO treatment (controversial: is this a violation of WTO to put in this pipeline), would other countries file and/or win a WTO legal battle? You mention protectionism (perhaps for US refineries?) as a potential area of investigation. Also, you mention that the Arab states might experience a falling production. However, the Arab Spring seems to me to lead to an increased production as short term gains would help the politically unstable economies. Is it predatory pricing by the Arab countries? They probably would not view it so, as they are trying to satiate political instability. $80 as the new norm? I remember when we thought that $80 was so unattainable. Yet, here we are, and people still need to drive, as they live and work where they do, and find themselves stuck in a rigid transportation infrastructure. Your final comment, seems to make a statement about the viability state with that point. Are you alluding to a more stable energy supply for the US?
Kindly,
Deanne Rose Upson
If few can afford the new, efficient vehicles they are not going to do a heck of a lot of good now, are they? The usual answer is that we need to make fuel more expensive via taxes to nudge people to move to more fuel efficient vehicles. Sorry, but that won't make them move if there is no money to throw at a new car, or they can't get a loan because lending standards are now so stringent.
What will happen is that the economy will either stagnate or be thrown back into recession because most of people's disposable cash will be applied to fuel or vehicles. Not everyone works in vehicle or energy production. What are you going to say to the even more people than at present who lose their jobs?
If properly calculated, going from 25 mpg to 40 mpg will give a bigger fuel reduction than going from 40 to 55.
We just need the correct accounting rules to compute averages based upon fuel/100 miles.