Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
U.S. economy’s fate in Saudi hands
Jim Jubak, MSN Money
Forget the Fed and Washington, D.C. Because of its swing position in the world’s oil market, Saudi Arabia wields the real power over our economic future.
—-
Saudi Arabia is running the U.S. economy.
I’m not sure the Saudis want the task, but they’ve got it. Because the United States still doesn’t have a national energy policy, we’ve thrown decisions about how fast our economy grows and whether our standard of living rises or falls into the hands of Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry.
That’s risky, since the economic self-interest of Saudi Arabia and the United States aren’t always aligned, and because keeping the fractious and often dysfunctional governments of the world’s oil producers on the same economic course is a whole lot harder than building consensus among the governors of the Federal Reserve.
(5 June 2007)
Iran: Another Puzzle Piece
Richard Heinberg, MuseLetter Update
MuseLetter for March this year, titled, “Iran: We Will Know Soon”, was a summary of the information available at that time regarding the likelihood of a US or Israeli air attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities-an attack that many informed commentators and analysts have considered very likely.
Some recent news on this score is very good. It appears that efforts to ramp up US military presence in the region in preparation for an attack-or at least to put hard pressure on Iran during upcoming negotiations over the fate of Iraq-have been undermined by none other than George Bush’s nominee to head Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral William Fallon. According to an article by Gareth Porter in Asia Times Online on May 17, (www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE17Ak03.html) Fallon “expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of aircraft-carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately that there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.”
At the same time, US policy and rhetoric toward Iran seem to have moderated. Porter suggests that this shift “away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement,” for which “no credible explanation has been offered by administration,” may have resulted from Fallon’s resistance to deploying the carrier task force.
(1 June 2007)
Trouble at The Pump
Katherine McIntire Peters, Government Executive
The Pentagon foresees a two-front threat to national security: global instability spurred by climate change and a crippling dependence on oil.
America’s economic dependence on foreign oil isn’t exactly news. Nor is the idea that such dependence undermines our national security. President Dwight D. Eisenhower worried in the 1950s that if the nation imported more than 20 percent of its oil, it would face an untenable risk. Five decades and three oil price-induced recessions later, with oil imports now at more than 60 percent, the risk is greater than ever. But it’s being viewed with a new level of urgency at the Pentagon – not because military planners are worried about the price of oil (in planning and acquisition, the Defense Department treats oil as if it were a free commodity), nor because of any high-minded concerns about the environmental consequences of fossil-fuel consumption.
The Pentagon is pursuing alternative fuels for the same reason it pioneered racial integration and developed the Internet – mission effectiveness is on the line. And just as the Defense Department led transformation of the racial and technological landscape of the United States in the last century, the decisions it makes regarding petroleum use unquestionably will shape the way other federal agencies and ultimately the country operate in this century.
It’s impossible to overstate the challenge facing Defense. It is the single-largest consumer of petroleum in the world. Oil fuels the world economy; specifically, it fuels every weapons system operated by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. If the Pentagon is serious about addressing oil dependency, virtually everything about Defense operations is at stake: from the way the services buy and use materiel and weapons to the way they evaluate and promote the personnel who make those decisions. All will have to change. But the imperative for change has become so compelling that Defense ultimately must succeed, says Terry J. Pudas, director of the Defense Department’s Office of Force Transformation.
“If we’re not at the tipping point, we’re close,” says Pudas. “I think that in the last year to year and a half, the amount of activity focused on this subject has grown enormously. My job is to be dissatisfied and impatient” with what’s being done. Two recent studies, including one commissioned by Pudas’ office, have galvanized support for developing a comprehensive Defense energy policy that moves the department away from oil dependency. Oil addiction is seen to undermine national security in a number of critical ways
…A leading proponent of transforming U.S. energy policy is Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a conservative Republican representing Maryland’s 6th District and a former federal research scientist who is sometimes at odds with his party on energy issues. He voted against the 2005 Energy Policy Act because, in his view, it fell short of seriously addressing dependence on foreign oil and promoting alternative energy sources. Bartlett has given more than 28 floor speeches in Congress aimed at raising awareness about the potentially debilitating nature of the country’s dependence on oil and related challenges such as climate change.
“You can’t turn on your television without seeing there’s an increase in the intensity of storms,” says Bartlett. “There’s nobody who denies we don’t have some climate change. There are fires in one place and floods in another. Ten years ago we didn’t have this kind of news.”
(1 June 2007)
Army Energy Security Considerations (6-page PDF)
Don Juhasz, U.S. Army
The first slide has a set of graphs (one looks like an ASPO graph). In the center, it says:
“U.S. Army is dependent on foreign oil!”
Another slide :
Army Energy and Water Campaign Plan for Installations:
* Eliminate energy waste in existing facilities;
* Increase energy efficiency in renovation and new construction;
* Reduce dependence on fossil fuels;
* Conserve water resources; and
* Improve energy security
(26 April 2007)
Don Juhasz is chief, utilities and energy team under the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. Other presentations on energy by Juhasz are available on the web. -BA
Dems’ energy-policy plans worry oil and gas industry
Bill Walsh, Newhouse News Service
While Congress was home during the Memorial Day recess, the oil and gas industry was digging in for a fierce battle on Capitol Hill over congressional Democrats’ plans to rewrite the nation’s energy policy.
Already in the pipeline are plans to punish price gouging at the gas pump, boost fuel-economy standards, tighten regulatory control over oil and gas drilling, roll back industry subsidies, and tack on new fees to finance conservation programs.
Long protected by a Republican-controlled Congress and a White House eager to boost domestic production, the industry is now on high alert as Democrats are moving to capitalize on consumer anger about high gas prices and address global warming.
The industry and its allies in Congress are warning that Democratic legislation will slow domestic production, heighten the nation’s reliance on foreign sources of fuel and force gas prices even higher.
“It really is a step backward for American energy production,” said Dan Naatz, a lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
But Democrats, sensing growing consumer angst over high gas prices and a winning political issue in tightening the screws on “Big Oil,” are moving ahead in the House and Senate to produce energy legislation – and to do it quickly
(5 June 2007)
Dems drafting bill that could derail state warming law
Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle
House Democrats, in their first draft of new energy legislation, would wipe out California’s landmark global warming law — despite their California speaker’s promises that her party would use the state as a model to combat climate change.
The legislation would pre-empt California and 11 other states from implementing laws requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets. The bill would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from granting the states waivers to put their climate change rules into effect.
California officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s top environmental aides, blasted the legislative proposal…
The move was an ironic twist on a familiar story for California. When Republicans ran the House, they regularly tried to pre-empt the state’s laws on food safety labeling, the minimum wage and consumer privacy — and Democrats often cried foul. But this new effort is being led by some of the Democratic majority’s most senior lawmakers.
However, the pre-emption plan might never see the light of day — if, as expected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and lawmakers from other affected states use their clout to quash the idea before it gets out of committee.
…The proposal was written by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia and chairs the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee charged with crafting climate change legislation. The full committee’s chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime ally of the auto industry, also played a key role in putting together the new legislation.
(5 June 2007)
