Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Paying the Peak Oil Power Bill
Kelpie Wilson, t r u t h o u t
Sometime this week, the House will vote on a new “energy independence” bill designed by the Democrats. Even though Congress just passed an omnibus energy bill in 2005, there is growing agreement on both sides of the aisle that the need for “energy security” is growing and more must be done to ensure it.
But just like the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the 2007 Energy Independence Day bill lacks any sort of comprehensive vision about our energy future or any bold initiative to grapple with it. Part of the reason for the piecemeal approach to energy is the deliberate cloaking of the most vital fact about energy – that we are running out of it much faster than most people realize. Terms like “energy independence” and “energy security” function to displace concerns about the resource limits of the earth onto conventional concerns about national security and war.
The real issue is not whether “our oil is under their sand,” but the fact supplies of oil and gas worldwide are nearly at the point where they will no longer be able to easily meet demand. The shorthand term for this reality is “peak oil,” or “peak fossil fuels.”
At a press briefing last week, members of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus criticized a recent report from the National Petroleum Council (NPC) for obscuring the truth about peak oil. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) accused the NPC of fostering “a false sense of complacency” about oil supplies. He contrasted the NPC report with one from the International Energy Agency that was released at about the same time. That report, Udall said, sounded a “clarion call” and “said what needs to be said, that we’re probably going to peak in the next couple of years. This could cause some very severe economic consequences and the world needs to start organizing and dealing with this.”
Representative Bartlett (R-Maryland), another member of the Peak Oil Caucus, said the facts were buried in the NPC report if you knew where to look. He said graphs in the report showed world oil production has been flat for the last 30 months while, at the same time, the price has gone up from $40 to $75 a barrel.
But because the American public is not aware of the imminent peak, there is little pressure on Congress to take bold action on energy. That is why auto-industry champion Representative Dingell (D-Michigan) has gotten away with knocking auto fuel-efficiency standards clean off the table. House leaders won’t even consider proposals to raise mileage standards in this bill – the debates would eat up all the time they have left before the August recess. Instead, they may try to bring the issue back up in global-warming legislation this fall.
One significant policy initiative that might get considered this week is a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires utilities to generate at least 20 percent of their electricity using renewable energy by 2020. It is not part of the bill currently, but may be added as an amendment.
Renewable portfolio standards already exist in 23 states, and the Senate has passed versions of a national RPS several times in recent years, but heavy lobbying pressure by some utilities kept it out of the Senate version of this energy legislation. So, if the idea is going to get any traction this year, it will have to start in the House.
(2 August 2007)
An Incomplete Energy Bill
Editorial, New York Times
The House will begin debating Friday on a generally useful energy bill that would increase energy efficiency, encourage more responsible oil and gas development on public lands and stimulate investment in cleaner fuels. Yet the bill is incomplete. If it truly hopes to address the problems of global warming and energy independence, three vital issues need to be addressed.
The first is fuel economy. The House bill does not now require stronger fuel economy standards – a critical part of any energy policy that seeks to reduce oil imports and greenhouse gases. An amendment floated earlier by Representative Ed Markey would raise fleetwide averages – untouched by Congress since the Ford administration – from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon. The Senate has already approved a comparable provision.
…Also missing is a national renewable electricity standard that would require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from wind power and other renewable sources.
…Finally, somebody has to make sure that the rush to develop ethanol from corn and other sources is done in an environmentally responsible manner. Biofuels could save oil and reduce global warming. But unless the cultivation of crops for biofuels is carefully managed, we could end up destroying valuable lands, polluting water supplies and causing other problems. The Senate energy bill mandates a huge increase in ethanol production but offers only minimal environmental safeguards.
(2 August 2007)
America’s Energy Security Policy: Goals for 2025 (PDF)
Lt. Col. Gary D. Chesley, U.S. Army War College
President Bush declared in his 2006 State of the Union address that “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” He set a goal “to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”
This ambitious energy security goal follows those of nearly every administration since President Nixon. However, few of those goals have ever been met. This failed policy pattern seems rooted in a tendency to conserve energy with only existing oil and gasoline systems-the same oil addicted systems that have created foreign oil dependence.
Radically new policies and technologies should be implemented using a different “consciousness” to solve national energy security challenges.
This paper (1) assesses the failure to meet past energy goals, (2) analyzes energy trends,
and (3) recommends actions to meet the goal of replacing 75 percent of Middle East imported oil by 2025.
…Considerable debate continues about when energy supplies will peak and the world will run out of oil. Oil salesmen, like Abdallah S. Jum’ah, chief executive of the Saudi Arabian state-owned Saudi Aramco, claim that world oil supply is plentiful. …. The Saudi position is understandable, because a quarter of the world’s proven crude reserves, they have an interest in avoiding development of oil alternatives.
Likewise, the International Energy Agency estimates that world oil reserves are adequate to supply considerable demand growth until 2030. Part of this confidence in plentiful oil stems from selective application of definitions.
…The U.S. government should pursue a three-pronged approach to energy security policy for 2025. The U.S. should:
1. Mandate conservation wherever possible
2. Develop advanced energy concepts that implement technologies from sustainable resources
3. Legislate tax incentives, loan guarantees, and subsidies for those who utilize renewable energy
…The more energy the U.S. uses, the less there remains for others. With only 6 percent of world population, but 30 percent of world oil consumption,96 the voracious U.S. demand for oil will only continue to marginalize America from the world community.
Launching periodic U.S. military interventions to satisfy an oil appetite may become the accepted, but very dangerous norm. Stability in the world’s largest oil producing region, the Middle East is questionable. More than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died violently last year 97 and 400,000 have been forced to relocate from the instability of violence.98
The more oil Americans use, the less time remains to survive on an oil based economy and the less time available to transition to radically new energy systems. Lengthy research efforts alone will not achieve energy security.
(30 March 2007)
Oil price ‘threatens US economy’
BBC News
Sustained oil prices close to $80 a barrel could hit US economic growth, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman has said. The US economy has never faced such high prices for “an extended period,” Mr Bodman warned.
There is concern about whether oil supplies can meet global demand and Mr Bodman urged oil producing nations to increase output to avoid shortages. Oil prices have fallen back slightly after hitting a record intraday high of $78.77 a barrel on Wednesday.
Analysts say that a price rise above $80 is inevitable, raising concerns about the effect of energy costs on inflation.
Higher oil prices drive up the costs for businesses who pass those increases on to customers. And with the price of petrol at the pump close to $3 a gallon, it is feared that higher fuel bills will begin to dent consumer spending.
Mr Bodman said that the high oil prices had inflicted only a “modest” impact on the economy but he was unsure that this was sustainable.
“I am concerned that where we are operating, in the ranges that we’re talking about now,” Mr Bodman said. I am concerned for each uptick (in price).”
(2 August 2007)
