United States – Oct 17

Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

No long-term global oil shortage: US official
Nigel Wilson, The Australian
THERE is no long-term global oil shortage, a senior US official said in Australia yesterday, on a day when the oil price went almost to $US87 a barrel because of the Turkey-PKK situation.

James A. Slutz, deputy assistant secretary for oil and natural gas, made it clear yesterday that the US position is that any worries about oil supply are caused more by slow technological take-up by oil explorers than by any specific oil shortage.

Or, as the industry puts it, a low rate of change in the approach to non-conventional oil.

“Globally, oil prices are not the thing that is going to cause us problems,” he said. “The key thing is that hydrocarbons are becoming more difficult to develop, taking more time, and the cumulative effect of this is a more challenging supply situation,” he said.

His other message was that Australia needs to be part of global moves towards energy security rather than trying to pursue independent goals.

“It is not practical, with the globalised nature of the world economy, both on supply and demand, that individual nations can pursue independent energy security strategies,” he said.

Globalisation of energy supply and demand meant that individual nations would not be successful in determining policies that were independent of either supplier or consumers, he said.

There was also a long time frame between deciding to invest in new producing projects and them delivering, he added.

Mr Slutz, who was in Canberra, is in Australia to explain a report from the US’s independent advisory group the National Petroleum Council.

The NPC report, Hard Truths – Facing the Hard Truths About Energy, says the US must moderate its growing demand for energy by increasing the efficiency of transport, residential, commercial and industrial uses. It recommends also expanding and diversifying production from clean coal, nuclear biomass, and other renewables while moderating the decline in conventional domestic oil and gas production.
(17 October 2007)
One wonders whether Mr. Slutz actually has read the NPC report. In light of the rising oil prices, this may become a memorable gaffe. -BA

The Green-Collar Solution
Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
Van Jones is a rare bird. He’s a black social activist in Oakland, Calif., and as green an environmentalist as they come. He really gets passionate, and funny, when he talks about what it’s like to be black and green:

“Try this experiment. Go knock on someone’s door in West Oakland, Watts or Newark and say: ‘We gotta really big problem!’ They say: ‘We do? We do?’ ‘Yeah, we gotta really big problem!’ ‘We do? We do?’ ‘Yeah, we gotta save the polar bears! You may not make it out of this neighborhood alive, but we gotta save the polar bears!’ ”

Mr. Jones then just shakes his head. You try that approach on people without jobs who live in neighborhoods where they’ve got a lot better chance of getting killed by a passing shooter than a melting glacier, you’re going to get nowhere – and without bringing America’s underclass into the green movement, it’s going to get nowhere, too.

“We need a different on-ramp” for people from disadvantaged communities, says Mr. Jones. “The leaders of the climate establishment came in through one door and now they want to squeeze everyone through that same door. It’s not going to work. If we want to have a broad-based environmental movement, we need more entry points.”
(17 October 2007)

Bush, Climate and the Technology Illusion
Hervé Kempf, Le Monde (English version at truthout)
The speech that the president of the United States gave during the conference on “Energy Security and the Climate” that he organized in Washington deserves particular attention. It’s the first time since his election in 2000 that Mr. Bush has devoted an intervention exclusively to the theme of climate change and has exposed his own doctrine on the subject there. Until now, the positions he has taken on the subject were only rather briefly mentioned, integrated into more general speeches.

In that allocution September 28, the present White House occupant acknowledged the reality of climate change by referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and asserted the necessity of “producing fewer greenhouse gases.” Mr. Bush then proposed that each nation find the means for itself to reduce emissions, outside the constraints of any international commitment.

But most interesting of all is the way he envisages controlling the level of greenhouse gas emissions. Not by reducing energy consumption, the increase of which was, on the contrary, put forward as inescapable – “In this new century, the need for energy will only grow” – including in the most developed countries. Climate change is therefore only one of the two challenges that will confront humanity according to him – the other being “energy security.” Mr. Bush continued, “For many years, those who worried about climate change and those who worried about energy security were on opposite ends of the debate. It was said that we faced a choice between protecting the environment and producing enough energy. Today we know better. These challenges share a common solution: technology. By developing new low-emission technologies, we can meet the growing demand for energy and at the same time reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” And the American president enumerated various techniques under study that would allow us to “be responsible stewards of the earth the Almighty trusted to our care.”

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this vision, very representative not only of what Mr. Bush thinks, but also of the doctrine that has developed among a broad swathe of the defenders of an economic system basically unchanged in the face of the climate change challenge.

The problem, of course, is that its relevance is not assured.
(original 10 October 2007, translation 12 October)
Original French version at Le Monde

Energy package is hung up on taxes
David Ivanovich, Houston Chronicle
WASHINGTON – The White House is threatening to veto any energy bill that seeks to raise taxes on oil companies, prompting Democratic lawmakers Tuesday to accuse the administration of being too cozy with the industry.

President Bush’s senior advisers will recommend he veto any energy legislation Democratic leaders may produce that raises taxes or uses the tax code to “single out specific industries,” Allan Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council, said in a letter sent late Monday to congressional leaders.

Weighing in on the energy debate as House and Senate leaders are trying to craft a compromise energy package, the Bush administration called for tougher fuel mileage requirements for cars and trucks and an “ambitious” alternative fuel standard.

But the White House made clear it would try to kill any legislation it deems an assault on the oil industry – including a House plan that would rescind $16 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.
(16 October 2007)

Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders
Marc Santora, New York Times
While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming.

Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources.

All agree that nuclear power should be greatly expanded.

The debate has taken an intriguing twist. Two candidates appealing to religious conservatives, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, call for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate, at times casting the effort in spiritual terms just as some evangelical groups have taken up the cause.

The emergence of climate change as an issue dividing Republicans shows just how far the discussion has shifted since 1997, when the Senate voted, 95 to 0, to oppose any international climate treaty that could hurt the American economy or excused China from responsibilities.
(17 October 2007)

Candidate Ron Paul on energy and the environment
Amanda Griscom Little, Grist
Enviros may roll their eyes at a candidate who dismisses the U.S. EPA as feckless and disposable, who believes all public lands should be privately owned, and whose remedy for an ailing planet is “a free-market system and a lot less government.” But Ron Paul, the quixotic libertarian U.S. rep from Texas, has a bigger cult following online than any other presidential candidate*, and has won unexpected attention in the GOP debates with his provocative ideas.

Some of those ideas arguably have environmental merit. Paul is known for his zealous opposition to the Iraq war, which he duly notes causes pollution and the “burning of fuel for no good purpose.” He wants to yank all subsidies and R&D funding from the energy sector, which many believe would benefit the growth of renewables. A cyclist himself, he has cosponsored bills that would offer tax breaks to Americans who commute by bicycle and use public transportation. Still, his libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn’t do diddly about global warming because, Paul reasons, “we’re not going to be very good at regulating the weather.”

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.
(16 October 2007)