Can the millions of workers in the U.S. energy sector, their families and neighbors, and the millions more whose lives are built on energy activities, be convinced to vote their concerns about an industry?
In other democracies workers in individual sectors often view their politics through their professional and industrial identities, while many recent election races in the U.S. have hinged on political identities rooted in social values as much as economic beliefs. While the U.S. energy sector remains one of the country's largest employers and most visible sources of economic vibrancy, its natural constituents rarely raise its issues in their lists of concerns politicians (and presidential hopefuls) should address.
Americans are accustomed to identity politics; can their identity as energy workers, producers and consumers outweigh other political identities?
The oil and gas industry has launched a non-partisan campaign this week in which it asks Americans to vote "for" energy. While Republicans remain the traditional party of business, and executives at the American Petroleum Institute were not shy about pressing the Obama administration on issues of importance to their member firms in launching their public awareness campaign this week, one of the most powerful energy voices in Washington decided to focus on the issues rather than the names that have dominated the early months of the 2012 political race.
In part that reflects realistic expectations that little will be achieved at the Congressional level or by politicians this year amid the turmoil and tumult of a hotly-contested national election. The industry's issues, ranging from tax policy to accessing reserve areas, are long-term issues requiring bipartisan agreement that are unlikely to be addressed by a deadlocked Congress.
The industry's first test of its new political approach may be the unlikely issue of the Keystone XL pipeline. In a country widely held to be facing at best an infrastructure mismatch and at worst a disastrous shortfall the pipeline's approval was held until a few months ago to be a done deal, but has become a political football wracked by controversies over safety and environmental impacts.
The Keystone pipeline is a "bright line" test for the Obama administration, API's CEO and president Jack Gerard said this week. If the pipeline is held to be in the national interest by President Obama, or under recent legislation simply left unopposed, it will be a signal to global investors and the American public that energy investment is welcome in the U.S., Gerard said. A decision to turn down the pipeline is a signal that carries "significant political consequences," he said in releasing the group's State of American Energy report this week.
Energy voters are for now still an untested political bloc, an incoherent grouping largely still imagined by strategists and advertising campaigns. Keystone may be the first test of whether this group can emerge as a coherent reality, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it will not be their last.
This AOL Energy Comment reflects the views of the author alone, in this case, AOL Energy Managing Editor Peter Gardett. Join the AOL Energy discussion by leaving a comment below or joining a conversation on our Discussions page.
Follow Peter Gardett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/petergardett
I'll be voting against anybody who is dishonest about energy, such as Willard Mitt Romney: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/10/401222/romney-lying-about-solar-industry/
As API says, "When you've got them by the nads, their hearts and minds will follow."
And lots of money!!!! Wheeeee!!!!!!
The lefty, citizens reps, the progressive and liberals think we should stop the 500M$ per reactor per year breaks for nukes and even more for coal, and the trillion dollar oil wars, and go for
rooftop solar, efficiency, offshore wind and waste bio char, all cheaper than nukes, wind and waste half nukes and solar, and eff half that again.
•Tar sands oil will go to China/Asia instead;
•China — not the U.S. — will have the jobs that come along with refining the oil;
•The U.S. may end up importing more oil from Venezuela’s oil sands and relying on supply from unstable regions.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-I-Would-Approve-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Despite-Environmental-Concerns.html
Unlike all the other Republican primary candidates, Jon Huntsman does not deny climate change. But he proposes no solutions either.
Moderates and conservative NH Republicans concerned about global warming are so desperate for a “fully rational” primary candidate, they are overlooking Huntsman's anti-climate, pro-fossil fuel proposals: expedited oil drilling in the Gulf & Alaska, quick approval of the Canadian oil sands pipeline, full deployment of gas fracking, coal-to-liquid fuel.
Huntsman’s supply-side energy plan relies almost exclusively on toxic carbon, liquid fossil fuels. Worse still, Huntsman has said not a word about energy conservation, energy efficiency or renewable energy. Simply stated, his energy proposals will merely continue “our heroin-like addiction” to oil, natural gas and coal.
For those looking for solutions to climate disruption, Huntsman is the “least bad” GOP primary candidate. But he should be supported because there are so few Republicans willing to acknowldege global warming at all or who are receptive to the overwhelming evidence of climate science.
Republicans sorely need a climate champion. Someday, a Republican president may provide aggressive leadership on global warming, rather than simply pay lip service to its existence.
Given such dismal GOP choices, as a conservative New Hampshire Republican, I will vote for Huntsman in the primary — not with enthusiasm, but with resignation.
So, I hope that Huntsman does well in the primary. But no promises for November.
—Farrell S. Seiler, Chair
New Hampshire Republicans for Climate
Littleton, NH
chair@NHClimateRepublicans.org
Q: Please tell me how to donate money to this cause!
A: waste energy. Fill your gas tank frequently.
Q: Why didn't you include solar?
A: you actually think solar is energy? Every solar panel installed takes away an opportunity to waste energy and make a contribution to our fund. See question 1.
Whether or not Keystone gets built all oil sands oil in Canada will be produced. First of all, there is almost certainly spare capacity in existing US pipelines, which can also be expanded to move a fair chunk of the Canadian oil to markets in the US (a cause for celebration).
Secondly, Canada is a sovereign country. It will not mothball billions of dollars of capital employed in oil sands production (nor will it forgo the related massive income) by shutting in capacity. If this oil doesn't come to the USA it will go to China and havethe same climate impact.
It's astonishing that the same people who whine about jobs trivialize the prospect of shovel-ready construction jobs or sustaining of great jobs in US refineries, whether the products made in them are are for domestic consumption (don't be misled, that is where most of the fuels will go) or for export.
Alternate energy will be a big emerging industry when the energy can be produced for the same or better cost per unit of energy produced as energy from coal, oil and natural gas. Alternate energy hasn't a prayer against $3/MMCF natural gas (and neither does coal for that matter). Alternative's economics could improve if US taxpayers assign a value to avoided CO2 emissions and then pay for that value. But we see no indication of willingness to do that.
We need to use the policy mechanism used successfully all over the world - the Feed in Tariff so that WE can become ratepayer-generators and realize the profits that Big Energy has been skimming for the past century. What will it take for people here to start pushing for that?
Germany gets about 15% from renewables. But that is 12% from hydroelectric, 2% from wind and 1% from solar. "Regular people like you and me" DO NOT own hydroelectric projects, and few own windmills. So that leaves regular people owning 51% of 1%! (solar)
Yopu realize of course only a very few can benefit from "Feed in Tariffs", the rest of ratepayers have to pay more to cover the cost. Since solar only works for about 5.5 hours a day, and we have no storage for it, the regular power plants must still be run and paid for.
“Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.”
“Germany, where feed-in tariffs have been in place since 1991, has about five times as many photovoltaic panels installed as the United States, though they still account for only 1 percent of electricity in that country.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/business/energy-environment/13solar.html
Ask a German fellow like Reuters instead:
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6E7NT1WK20111229?sp=true
Getting oil from tar sands is a frightfully inefficient way to get energy. You must burn a lot of energy - methane and gasoline to get any sort of energy return. The only way that the Keystone XL project can remain profitable is through government subsidies and/or sky-rocking oil prices.
Worse, the Keystone Project dumps tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Since it invovles a lot of methane, and since the pipelines are subject to methane leaks - methane emissions will skyrocket - and methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide.
Has Gardette even attempted to calcuate the costs of global climate change. Right now at time of writing, Los Angeles is having lovely, sunny weather. Great for tourists, but bad for our water supply. Worse, the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada's is low. I'm also hearing reports of warm temperatures throughout the Rocky Mountains. If this warm trend continues throughout the winter, what might happen?
We are witnessing all sorts of examples of extreme weather, not just now, but for a number of years. Gardett and the American Petroleum Institute are lying to the public. So is the GOP.
That's aint gonna happen. Actually we will generate more jobs cleaning up our environment. We'll generate more jobs by retrofitting coal-fired power plants to eliminate mercury emissions.
And we'll generate more jobs by going green. Alternative energy is the biggest emerging industry. In California alone, solar energy alone is generating more jobs than the Keystone Project. Check out Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs if you want more information.
We already have Keystone Pipelines. Although the Keystone Pipelines are new, they already have experienced a number of ruptures, simply because TransCanada flagrantly disregards safety regulations.
The BIG reason TransCanada wants to extend the Keystone Pipeline to Port Arthur, Texas, is a no brainer. They want to export all of the oil to places like Europe and Canada. They are pushing for Port Arthur Texas because they can do it tax free.
The Keystone Pipeline will place a strain on our roads, which the US will have to pay to maintain. It will dump toxic chemicals into our water supply. BUT we won't get any of the oil. And gasoline prices will remain sky high. The only winners are the lobbyists and of paid liars like Peter Gardett.
No the Keystone is for US use, not exports, that's a myth put out by pipeline opponents.
And no, it certainly will not "dump toxic chemicals into our water supply"
"there are numerous pipelines already crossing the Ogallala. Further, cities have been built on top of the aquifer. Industrial activity takes place above the aquifer. An enormous amount of farming is conducted above the aquifer. If it was that easy to contaminate the Ogallala, then it would be contaminated all the time because farmers put tons of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers on the ground above the Ogallala every year."
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-I-Would-Approve-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Despite-Environmental-Concerns.html
The “OMG, IT COULD LEAK” argument was always a strawman argument.
“The idea that the Ogallala could be contaminated was never grounded in reality.”
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-I-Would-Approve-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline-Despite-Environmental-Concerns.html
In fact, it has been proven over and over again that pipelines are both the safest way to transport oil and the most enviromentally friendly.
60% of Americans support Keystone and 75% say the US is not doing enough to develop it’s oil and gas resources?
“Sixty percent (60%) of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor building the pipeline which President Obama has delayed until at least 2013 because of environmental concerns. Just 24% are opposed. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. “
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2011/60_favor_building_keystone_xl_pipeline
“75% Say U.S. Not Doing Enough To Develop Its Gas And Oil Resources”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/75_say_u_s_not_doing_enough_to_develop_its_gas_and_oil_resources
Because they are smart enough to know we can not afford to send $3000.00 per family out of the country each year to import oil from many unfriendly countries.
“the net amount of money the nation pays to other countries for oil is on track to reach about $3,000 per household in 2011 and in the first quarter of the year, petroleum-related products made up nearly 60 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/oil-gas-prices-fuel_n_864031.html