iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Steven Cohen

GET UPDATES FROM Steven Cohen
 

Mitt's Meaningless Campaign for Energy Independence

Posted: 08/27/2012 8:47 am

Last week Mitt Romney released his plan for energy independence. His idea is that over the next decade or so North American oil production could nearly double from 15 to 28 million barrels a day. As Ashley Parker reported in theNew York Times, Romney figures if we can increase drilling it will eventually equal the amount of fuel we use:

"The net net of all this, as you can see, is by 2020, we're able to produce somewhere between 28 million barrels per day of oil and we won't need to buy any oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or anywhere else where we don't want to," Mr. Romney said.

For a sophisticated private sector mogul, Mitt seems to have forgotten that we buy and sell oil in a global marketplace. Moreover, the companies that produce oil tend to be multi-national, and therefore focus on their corporate interest, not America's national interest. True energy independence is not a realistic goal in a global economy. Producing more oil in America does not mean that the energy we burn here will all be made here. Unless, of course Mitt wants to nationalize the oil companies and force them to sell their oil only to Americans -- sort of hard to imagine.

Like a sports car driving on the wrong side of the road, Mitt Romney's version of "drill baby drill" would have the entire country heading in the wrong direction. Romney's plan would end federal control over land use on government lands and give that control to state governments. This would end a century of national control of these lands. Under national control, only a small portion of government land has been used for energy production. According to Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss of the New York Times:

The federal government owns about 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. But as of March 2012, only about 37 million acres were under lease for oil and gas operations, of which about 16.3 million acres have active oil and gas production or exploration, according to the Interior Department.

The careful stewardship of undeveloped land by the federal government could end with state control. This is more of the simple minded, shortsighted mantra of drill baby drill that we heard from McCain and Palin in 2008 and we will now be hearing more of until November. Romney is also out accusing Obama of trying to raise the price of fossil fuels to make renewables more competitive. It's pretty clear that Obama's energy policy is to try to generate energy from any sources we can find. While I think we should focus on renewables, Romney is suddenly only interested in fossil fuels. Forget about global warming, forget about the long-term preservation of ecosystems needed for human survival, Mitt has an election to win and he is determined to win it at any cost.

Any look at the data on population and energy use will tell you that both will be growing for the remainder of the century. As China and India continue to develop, the two billion people living in those places will have a thirst for energy that will make ours look trivial in comparison. Energy independence is, of course, an illusion, since the oil, gas and coal we extract from the crust of the planet will be sold to the highest bidder -- wherever they appear in the global economy. Just because an oil company "drills baby drills" in the United States doesn't require them to "sell baby sell" in this country. They'll sell to whoever will pay them the most... why wouldn't they?

What is absolutely astonishing is the belief that persists across America that $4 a gallon gasoline is caused by the lack of drilling for oil in America. The fact that millions of cars and massive amounts of energy have been added by the growing economies in China and India never seems to enter the discussion. The demand for energy worldwide is growing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

"China and India... continue to lead world economic growth and energy demand growth... Since 1990, energy consumption in both countries as a share of total world energy use has increased significantly, and together they accounted for about 10 percent of total world energy consumption in 1990 and 21 percent in 2008. Although energy demand faltered in many parts of the world during the recession, robust growth continued in China and India, whose economies expanded by 12.4 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively, in 2009. U.S. energy consumption declined by 5.3 percent in 2009, and energy use in China is estimated to have surpassed that of the United States for the first time.

The Energy Information Administration's projections over the next two decades predict continued economic growth in China and India, and according to these projections: "... their combined energy use more than doubles, accounting for 31 percent of total world energy consumption in 2035. In 2035, China's energy demand is 68 percent higher than U.S. energy demand." In 1990 we used over three times as much energy as China and nine times as much energy as India. China now consumes more energy than the United States. World energy consumption has nearly doubled in the last two decades. The simple laws of supply and demand will continue to drive the price of energy up as long as we continue to depend on fossil fuels that are expensive to mine and expensive to transport. Energy prices are increasing due to the control of energy resources by a few large companies along with massive increases in demand. Our addiction to energy throughout the economy contributes to the price growth and volatility experienced by the average American energy consumer.

Drill baby drill is a cynical and misleading response to a complicated question. If we want lower energy costs we must look to new technologies for energy generation and distribution. Not only does fossil fuel mining and burning damage the environment and cause global warming, but there is no way for increased supply to keep up with increased demand. Moreover, I am confident that Romney has seen the numbers and knows this already. This is not to say that we will run out of fossil fuels in the near future, but even with shale gas, these fuels are not getting easier or cheaper to extract or transport.

Our goal should not be energy independence, but a reduction in the proportion of our GDP spent on energy. Lower cost renewable energy, smart grid technology, distributed energy generation and increased energy efficiency will enable us to reduce the cost of energy. Drill baby drill and energy independence should be treated as meaningless, cynical political slogans.

 

Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute

FOLLOW GREEN
Last week Mitt Romney released his plan for energy independence. His idea is that over the next decade or so North American oil production could nearly double from 15 to 28 million barrels a day. As A...
Last week Mitt Romney released his plan for energy independence. His idea is that over the next decade or so North American oil production could nearly double from 15 to 28 million barrels a day. As A...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
10:17 AM on 08/28/2012
The repub energy policy, like all their other policies, is designed simply for vote getting, not for anything else.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rick Huggins
You got a better idea...
08:02 AM on 08/28/2012
Well of course it's meaningless. we are already a net exporter of crude. So, what will be the cry in 8-10 years? "Sell our energy to pay down the deficit" !!! The tar sands from the Keystone pipeline have spoken for; from .... you got it, China. So, keep listening to this hollow ego driven character and if you are in the camp he missions too, stop and think of what you are being told and be careful of what you believe.
01:09 PM on 08/27/2012
The key word is "meaningless"...

Mitt Romey; "The Least Interesting Man In The World"...Stay Stupid My Friends!
12:36 PM on 08/27/2012
So if drilling for oil in the US isn't completely safe in the first place and it doesn't even necessarily benefit the American citizens since oil companies can sell their oil to the highest bidder, why must American taxpayers still subsidize these companies?
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
10:16 AM on 08/28/2012
They have a lot of employees in congress.
11:53 AM on 08/27/2012
not to worry, mr. romney has enough political capital to persuade all those oil and gas execs to keep all american production right here, just as long as americans have to pay world prices
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
11:47 AM on 08/27/2012
28 million barrels per day ? Compared to about 6 million bpd of crude and maybe 3 million bpd other liquids? How will that happen? And how much oil does he imagine exists in US territory?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neillevine
want to go into waterwheel business
10:02 AM on 08/27/2012
Sorry, but it is my understanding that Obama is blocking hydro, waterwheels and hydrogen so all of the above sources of energy is not coming from him, but rather the Republicans. Since wind and solar are high priced in comparison to hydro and waterwheels, of course, Obama's policy is high priced. Just ask for a paperwork comparson using 24 7 365 flow for water plus weight of water plus scaled up size of turbine area. That is using comparwbpe labor costs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EdwinNeal
Evil Emperor of the World... evil is good
10:00 AM on 08/27/2012
Hemp for Victory!!! grow it HERE, use it for energy HERE!
09:22 AM on 08/27/2012
Mitt wants to drill off the East Coast. Based on reserve data, there is not really much oil there anyway- perhaps 3-4 billion barrels. That's about one year's supply based on current consumption in the US. It will take years, and a lot of $ money to get extract that oil. In addition, deep water drilling is not without huge risks. We've already mortgaged our future through the government's robbing of our entitlement program funding, and borrowing money from foreign governments. Can we agree not to rob all of our natural resources without a comprehensive, reality based, and implemented action plan for energy which will insure that future generations will not be left in the dark?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doodlebug2
05:16 PM on 08/27/2012
there is not much oil there. Plus Shell gave up its lease in 1984. They and others ran about 42 well tests of the East Coast in early 80's. Remember James Watt and Reagan. You are right. So they gave up their lease as did Tenneco and Murphy in 1984. So now a petrol geologist is going to tell his boss "lets go drill there". And he will be fired.