Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson, Sunday Times (UK)
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
(16 September 2007)
More on Greenspan’s views on energy and the future from the Wall Street Journal:
He devotes chapters to each of the major economic challenges facing the U.S. and the world. On energy, he recommends more use of nuclear power, and he predicts efforts to reduce global warming with carbon caps or taxes will fail. Rising income inequality could undo “the cultural ties that bind our society” and even lead to “large-scale violence.” The remedy, he says, is not higher taxes on the rich but improved education, which can be helped by paying math teachers more.
…In coming years, as the globalization process winds down, he predicts inflation will become harder to contain. Recent increases in the price of imports from China and a rise in long-term interest rates suggest “the turn may be upon us sooner rather than later.”
.
U.S. Court Backs States’ Measures to Cut Emissions
Felicity Barringer, New York Times
A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement yesterday to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states, that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles and light trucks.
Ruling in a lawsuit against Vermont’s standards on those heat-trapping gases, the judge, William K. Sessions III, rejected a variety of challenges from auto manufacturers, including their contention that the states were usurping federal authority.
The ruling follows a decision by the United States Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. The ruling in Vermont explicitly endorses the idea that California has the right to set its own regulations on the gases, and that other states, like Vermont, have the right to follow its lead.
Judge Sessions ruled that the auto manufacturers had not proved their claims that compliance with the rules in Vermont – clones of the groundbreaking standards adopted in California – was not feasible.
(13 September 2007)
Hopes Dim for Measures to Conserve Energy
John M. Broder, New York Times
WASHINGTON – The prospect of a comprehensive energy package’s emerging from Congress this fall is rapidly receding, held up by technical hurdles and policy disputes between the House and the Senate and within the parties.
This summer, both houses passed major bills meant to promote energy efficiency and wean industry from fossil fuels. The bills have gaping differences that are supposed to be resolved in a conference committee.
Democratic leaders in both chambers have signaled that conference committee members are unlikely to be named until late October, at the earliest. Others suggested that leaders may try to resolve the differences in the bills without convening a conference, which would create other problems, including the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Although Democratic leaders proclaimed energy a top legislative priority last January, the issue competes with Iraq, appropriations, financial market turmoil and product safety for room on Congress’s fall calendar.
(12 September 2007)
It’s a myth the US can be energy independent within the next several decades
Margot Gerritsen, Smart Energy Internet Video Show
In this 20 minute video talk, Margot Gerritsen a professor in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University, explains why the US will be dependent on imported oil for many decades to come.
—
The US imports 10 million barrels of oil per day. This is more than it is producing itself, and over half of its oil consumption. If the US keeps consuming oil as it is now, imports will make up an estimated 70% of consumption in 2025.
It has been suggested by various policy makers that the US can be made energy independent within the next decade or two by growing biomass crops and replacing oil with ethanol/oil mixtures, combined with higher mpg standards. This is a myth. The volumes are simply too high.
What may also surprise you is that the countries the US imports most from are Canada and Mexico, only then followed by Saudi Arabia.
Other facts and figures and thoughts are offered in this first podcast on oil, gas and coal.
(7 September 2007)
Contributor Wag the Dog writes:
The SmartEnergy blog (www.smartenergyshow.com/) has many interesting videos on alternative energy technologies and on energy issue in general. Many can be downloaded for playing on a video iPod or transcoded for other media players. However, no specific mention about peak oil.
Pioneers Can Secure Our Future
Michael Shank and Roscoe Bartlett, Richmond Times-Dispatch
WASHINGTON Russia, Canada, and the United States are rushing to the North Pole in a pioneer-like land grab for an estimated 25 percent of the world’s unknown oil and gas reserves. One wonders when we will learn. Oil and gas are not forever. We need to change course and save some to ensure a secure energy future.
The National Petroleum Council recently warned, in “Facing the Hard Truths About Energy,” that oil and gas supplies are unlikely to meet projected world demand in 2030. Rather than depleting finite fossil fuels upon which future generations will depend, and considering their effects upon our planet’s environment, we must invest in efficiency and renewable alternatives.
This month, Congress has an opportunity to show real teeth on this matter as it reconciles Senate and House omnibus energy bills in conference. Since electricity and transportation are the top two sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., at 34 and 26 percent, we think the final bill should contain the following two components:
First, the Conference Report should include a flexible, affordable, achievable national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for electricity generation. The Senate version failed to include Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s proposal for a 15 percent RPS or Sen. Pete Domenici’s 20 percent RPS, but has three times previously approved a 10 percent RPS. The House bill was able to eke in a bipartisan15 percent RPS. It requires only investor-owned utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, biomass, and certain other sources by the year 2020 — with 4 percent achievable through energy efficiency.
REQUIRING SOME but not all utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from certain sources and limiting energy efficiency is controversial. Some regions will have an easier time extracting sun, wind, or biomass than others. For many utilities and states, the renewable infrastructure does not exist, or if it does, it is negligible. So how to reduce the transition cost and gain the support of renewable-light states, utilities, and their customers and the members of Congress who represent them?
Since we depend upon energy and global warming impacts all of us, teamwork is critical. To capture support for a national RPS, changes may be necessary. It should be affordable for low-renewable utilities to purchase energy credits from high-renewable states to meet the 15-percent mark by 2020. We need to prevent driving energy-intensive, high-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. Low-renewable states could be afforded a higher ceiling on energy efficiency, perhaps double or triple the 4-percent limit. Some argue all utilities should be included to level the playing field. Others advocate reducing the goal to 10 percent.
Second, the Conference Report should include stronger vehicle efficiency standards, better known as CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Since 1975, Congress has not significantly adjusted CAFE standards. At present, passenger cars are required to get 27.5 miles per gallon while SUVs and light trucks are set at 22.2 mpg. Compare these numbers with the European Union’s 2008 standard of 44.2 mpg, Japan’s current average vehicle fuel economy of 45 mpg, and China’s levels at mid-30s and rising. The Senate bill requires cars, trucks, and sport-utility vehicles to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The House, however, did not include a CAFE overhaul.
AMERICANS want a cleaner environment and are tired of paying more to drive to work. Lower-emission, higher-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, are gaining in popularity. That is a key reason Toyota surpassed the U.S. Big Three as the world’s top manufacturer. Foreign manufacturers now outsell American makers in the U.S. Incentivizing Detroit to go green will allow Americans to do our wallets and our pride good and make our domestic auto industry more competitive in world markets.
North Pole scavenging will get us little but a brief reprieve in the world’s current race to the bottom of the oil barrel. More efficient and cleaner electricity and vehicles, given their combined 60-percent responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, would help the environment and Americans’ pocketbooks. Americans need political pioneers, not the glacier flag-planting types, to ensure a secure energy future.
Michael Shank is an analyst with George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Roscoe Bartlett is a Republican who represents Maryland’s 6th District and is the co-founder and co-chair of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus.
(13 September 2007)
