The Pickens Plan Marches on Washington
$18 billion. Sound like a lot of money? It sure does to me. The worst part is that's how much Americans shelled out last month to import 386 million barrels of oil. Think about the impact those dollars could have made right here right now as our country works its way out of this recession. In less than six months we could have wired every American home and every American business for broadband. Talk about a way to help our country set the pace in the Information Age. But, instead of building our own infrastructure and creating much needed new jobs, we lined the pockets of state-owned oil companies run by Hugo Chavez and others. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Now I'm going to up the ante to $475 billion. That's how much the Department of Energy estimates we spent in 2008 feeding our addiction to foreign oil. We could have funded every single highway repair in all 50 states for the next seven years with that amount of money. Or we could have maintained and repaired every one of our nation's bridges for the next 25 years. Take your pick. Yet instead of investing in America, we wrote off almost half a trillion dollars so that other countries could invest in theirs.
I've got one last number I want to throw out, and it's the most important one of all: 4,558,010. That's how many people joined me last week in our Virtual March on Washington, D.C. Millions of Pickens Plan supporters teamed up with millions more from our 32 partner organizations in the private and public sectors. All of us had the same goal in mind: to get Congress to write, to debate, and to vote on the many components of an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
Boy, did we get a lot done. That's what happens when almost five million people email, phone, fax, and visit their elected officials non-stop for three days. I did my part, too: meeting with sponsors, attending bill introductions, and keeping the news media focused on the importance of getting us off foreign oil.
I joined Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), and Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) as they announced the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009. The idea behind their bipartisan NAT GAS Act is to develop domestically produced natural gas as a replacement fuel for the imported diesel oil that most heavy-duty vehicles and fleet trucks are using right now. It's good for the environment. It's good for the economy. And it's good for America.
I also offered my support to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who is promoting policies to create a National Renewable Electricity Standard. Right now 28 states have a Renewable Electricity Standard, which directs utilities to produce a set percentage of their electric power using alternative sources. California already requires utilities doing business there to produce 20 percent of their power from alternatives by 2010, and the rest of the country needs to follow their example. Sen. Bingaman wants us to get 20 percent from alternative sources by the end of 2020. Why? Because it's good for the environment. It's good for the economy. And it's good for America.
There's legislation to begin the process of building a 21st century transmission grid as well as to extend Production Tax Credits for wind and solar. In addition, proposed tax credits for energy efficiency in homes and buildings are already in the works. Senators Dorgan and Voinovich introduced a bill that would address many of the issues that have impeded development of transmission lines needed for renewable energy. That's the second bill to address developing a smart grid. The other of course is Majority Leader Harry Reid's. Both bills are good for the environment. They're good for the economy. And they're good for America.
I'm going to wrap this up with a personal observation. I've been going to Washington for a long time. Back in 1960s when I first went to Capitol Hill, there was always a good long wait before a Congressman or a Senator took the time to see me. But as the years went by and I enjoyed more success, that wait grew shorter and shorter. But that's nothing compared to what I saw last week when our Virtual March came to town. With three or four million people on my side, I'm a hell of a lot more important in Washington than I am as a rich guy from Texas. And you know what that means? America is finally going to get an energy plan.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Geez! I'm surprise at how many negative comments there are for this post.
The guy's trying to help. He's got good ideas, and he might just pull a few Republican heads out of the sand.
Pickens is trying to help in the same way that Halliburton "helped" in Iraq.
It has to do with him funding the Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth, which smeared John Kerry, as well as his own interests in natural gas.
Just would like to say thank you to Mr. Pickens for all of your time and effort.
This is the same crap that was defeated at the polls in California last election. Pickens has vast interests in natural gas, which is why he is pushing that as a "replacement" for diesel fuel in heavy trucks and buses. The rest is window dressing. We shouldn't be getting rid of diesel, we should be using more of it and converting to biodiesel. About 70% of the cars in Europe are diesel. Then don't smoke, they don't chatter, they aren't slow (6 speed manual BMWs that are are not slugs and get better mileage than anything over here) and you wouldn't know you're in one until you have to fuel up. the big 3 auto makers have been terrified the U.S. would start importing them, so they've done everything they can to keep them out. Yes, there are dirty diesels, but there are also very clean ones, and biodiesel doesn't have to be made from petroleum.
We don't need to create an entirely new distribution system for natural gas as Pickens would require, just so he can make a killing selling it as fuel.
He's suggesting natural gas because batteries aren't powerful enough to run trucks.
He's trying to help.
Do you have a better idea?
The truck thing is a marketing wedge, since his broader initiative failed here in California. Truck fuel usage by itself wouldn't impact foreign oil importation much. And greenhouse gas reduction gains are pretty minimal.
Absolute agree that Pickens is running a cynical greenwashing scheme here, just the latest Texan fossil fuel energy scam. Natural gas is somewhat cleaner than petroleum, but has no real gains in greenhouse gas emissions.
Do disagree with biodiesel. It has many of the same problems as ethanol. At any significant usage, it competes with food crops and drives further deforestation. Photosynthesis is really just a very inefficient form of solar energy (
Wow. Three to four million behind you. I wouldn't brag about 1%.
sour grapes!
What about "tidal energy" plants in Washington it seems to turn there enough to power the planet.
http://pit
I seriously dislike and mistrust you Pickens. The more I read your c.rap the less I believe what you say. Please go away fast you are schemer and its blatantly obvious who stands to benefit the most from your "plan" it definitely isn't the American people or the planet.
After the T.Boone funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did their smear job on Kerry - I'm sorry, I just don't trust him. It seems the billionaire throws his money at anything that'll make him more and 'drill, baby, drill' just ain't good policy.
The first thing we need to do is nationalize all energy resources and manage them as public utilities.
That would be a good start, when you consider their mission statement mandated by law requires they put shareholder oil profots first and screw the house we all live in.
No energy plan is viable unless it includes an agressive, dramatic reduction in consumption of energy. I'm am talking along the lines of 50% reduction. America consists of 5% of the world population yet consumes 24% of the energy produced. Mr. Pickens, do you think we can continue with our standard of living and survive? I am reading the book "Collapse" by Pulitzer Prize winning author Jared Diamond. I recommend it if you haven't read it. Producing more energy to meet our growing needs is not the answer. Keeping our needs from growing, and in fact reducing our needs (and wants) significantly will save our planet. This can ultimately help save our civilization.
No to fossil fuels. No to nuclear energy. No to off-shore drilling. No to arctic drilling.
We can't cut our allies off who depend on our oil addiction for their very survival. Let us wean ourselves off fossil fuels but do so gently with our allies. Don't replace foreign oil for domestic oil or gas. We must transition to clean alternatives but primarily, reduce our consumption.
I think the first thing that has to go is the electricity you use to power your computer.
I especially like your suggestions that we we need to focus more on conservation. What this means today isn't just turning the thermostat down to 62 like your parents did in the 1970s. To quote that guy from the Six Million Dollar Man (I love the '70s!), we have the technology -- we can save tremendous amounts of energy (and water) if we'll just follow standards that have been in place in Europe for a long time. One of the best aspects of President Obama's stimulus plan was to start retrofitting federal buildings for conservation.
It's probably a little known fact to a lot of folks, but you can get a 20% federal tax credit if you own a historic building that's income producing (like an apartment building or a factory) and if you rehabilitate it according to historic guidelines. Since the 1980s, billions of dollars have been invested in historic buildings across the country, which has created tens of thousands of jobs and made all kinds of places really cool - LoDo in Denver, the warehouse district in Minneapolis, etc.
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a 20% federal tax credit for everybody who would retrofit their property (house, business, whatever) to make it more energy efficient. That sounds like a great investment to me. Conserves energy and creates jobs, a great combo.
there's a 30% tax credit already for many of the types of improvements you mention, capped at $1,500...
in my opinion, what we need are LOANS so we can all ramp up efficiency and get solar/microwind on our own properties, and FEED IN TARIFFS so we can all get paid for producing more clean power than we use.
what we DO NOT NEED is to switch our dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on T. Boone Pickens. That money is not going to "america" to build roads, you fools, it's going into Pickens' pockets. And last i heard, he wasn't fixing our roads as a "thank you" for the billions we paid him over the last 20 years.
no more Big Energy mercenaries killing our planet, killing our ecosystems and killing our economy! we want DEMOCRATIC CLEAN POWER THAT WE OWN.
You are correct about reducing energy consumption.
But the price of energy independence is giving up the automobile as the transportation paradigm.
Mass transit - not substituting natural gas for gasoline - is the way to stop importing oil.
Let me make some more associations with these numbers:
$18 billion - can be used to build 4.5GW of solar power plants (a typical nuclear power plant is about 1GW) and 100% of it can be spent here in the USA for the purpose. The price of watt solar built is taken from the economies achieved in Europe because of the wider acceptance of solar:
http://sol
With the $475 number we can go to about 110GW - a hundred nuclear reactors.
Wind generated electricity is even cheaper about 2 - 4 times. So with a number like that all the oil used for electricity and big part or most of the coal used for electricity can be replaced.
We all know this is not going to happen overnight but it looks like it is in our favor to work in that direction. The money needed is not out of proportions. All the money to move in that direction can be spent right here in the US - creating jobs, inciting new technologies.
I couldn't agree more. Here, finally, is a true bipartsan patriot who understands that spending money on infrastructure is actually investing in the future, not just throwing $$ out the window as most conservatives imply spending to be.
Pickens is one conservative who actually gets it. We need to clean up the environment and stop using dirty oil or we will not have a planet to live on. Our economic problems are related but they take a distant second place in relation to cleaning up our energy consumption.
Read closer wagthedog. Read closer. This man is not a bipartisan patriot.
http://fir
Ya say Boon Pickens is not a bipartisan patriot ? Is that why he offers no suggestions to auto makers on conservati
To me, gear ratio is also GREEN.
wag the dog indeed. this whole pickens "plan" is the ultimate Big Energy greenwash. a total fabrication to cover up horrible misdeeds. just like the film "wag the dog." so i assume you are being sarcastic in your pathetic enthusiasm for this cretin?
conservatives around the world support point of use energy production that is fairly compensated. the Bavarians in Germany are the biggest proponents of their feed in tariff, which pays home and business owners who produce more clean power than they consume. Republicans in FLA are pushing for a similar program. Homeland security types are super in favor of distributed generation because it is far more stable and makes a nearly impossible hacking or terrorism target.
if Pickens cared at all about the environment, the economy or America, he would support feed in tariffs for point of use generation, increased efficiency and NO new entralized power plants.
I agree that simple feed-in-tariff has a huge potential.
It' simple to implement. It is an automatic incentive.
It actually costs very little because it will take a while to really build some big portion of the electricity generation on decentralized, point of use. As the portion becomes larger (potentially, and hopefully sooner actually) the cost of investing in solar systems will fall to a level where the feed-in-tariff will not need to be very high.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
