Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
An Open Letter to Our Next President about Energy Policy
Robert Rapier, The Oil Drum
Mr. or Madam President,
Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn’t negotiate. It doesn’t appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource – albeit one crucial for the “American way of life.”
Because this resource is so crucial – and obviously not just for Americans – depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn’t going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn’t going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn’t going to change that.
… This is how I would address Americans on this subject:
My Fellow Americans,
… I don’t believe it serves a useful purpose to continue promising easy solutions. On the other hand, a big part of the reason that you find yourselves in this vulnerable position is because of the previous hollow promises that were made. So I propose the following measures to begin the process of breaking our oil addiction:
1. We must improve the fuel efficiency of our automotive fleet. It is an embarrassment. …
2. Continuing with theme of the first proposal, we need to find other ways to reduce our fuel consumption. Europe provides a useful guide here, as the average per capita energy consumption in Europe is half that of the U.S. How do they achieve this?
Primarily, they have achieved this by making fuel very expensive. Because I don’t think it would be fair to penalize you as a result of the decisions made by previous administrations, I propose to make this proposal revenue neutral. …
3. Solutions will be required on the supply side as well. However, too many “solutions” to date rely heavily on fossil fuels, which is the very problem we are trying to mitigate. Therefore, I am appointing an independent panel of experts across multiple disciplines – environmental, energy, agriculture – to evaluate various sources for 1). Reliance on fossil fuels; and 2). Negative side effects. There will be specifically defined criteria that alternative sources must meet in order to qualify for tax breaks. For example, energy “producers” – fossil and alternative – will pay a surcharge on the fossil fuel inputs they use to run their operations. This will encourage a move away from the use of fossil fuels to produce “renewable” energy.
4. In order to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels for heating and electricity, I propose to extend tax credits for installation of solar systems, especially those for solar water heating. Tax credits for installation of wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and various other qualifying energy sources will be extended for 10 years.
5. From my viewpoint, we need to move to a future in which electricity drives our transport systems. The electricity would be derived initially from existing sources like coal and nuclear power, but increasingly from solar, wind, and various other renewable sources.
(30 April 2008)
The Candidates Pump Gas
Nicholas von Hoffman, The Nation
At the rate gas prices are going up these days, it won’t be long before rent-a-cops will be standing beside gas station pumps. There will be stories about people getting into their cars only to find they won’t start because someone has siphoned off fuel from their gas tank. Yes, it’s coming to that.
As gas hops, skips and jumps toward four dollars a gallon and beyond, anger at the oil companies and their profits grows apace. Huge as its profits are, Big Oil is not the main cause for our gas pump pain. If oil companies had the power to raise the prices as high as they are now, they would have already done it years ago.
Since oil moguls are making money on a scale never seen before in modern history, they make a good target. The sight of those horrid men testifying before Congress would make anybody scream for the heads.
The Democratic presidential candidates have been traveling around primary states essentially saying, “If you elect me, I will abolish tax loopholes for oil companies,” the implication being that this will make a difference in the price we pay at the pump. It won’t. Retail gas prices are not set by tax loopholes. Yet there is no reason whatsoever that oil companies should be getting those tax breaks. Repeal ’em, already!
Republicans like to say repealing oil company tax breaks is class warfare, which makes sense. Suspending the federal 18.4-cents-a-gallon excise tax for the summer driving season makes absolutely none
(30 April 2008 ? )
Articles on the Nation’s redesigned site don’t seem to have dates. -BA
The Gas-Guzzler Gambit
Editorial, New York Times
Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton have hit on a new way to pander to American voters: a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The proposal may draw applause and votes from Americans feeling the pain of nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline. But it is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers.
… Certain realities need to be faced, even in an election year. First, oil prices are likely to remain high for some time as demand for energy continues to grow at a fast pace in China, India and other developing countries. Second, there is an urgent need to curb the world’s carbon emissions to address the threat of global warming.
Americans – like the rest of the world – must find ways to curb their use of fossil fuels. Higher, not lower, prices are an important way to spur the needed technological innovation and curb demand.
(1 May 2008)
Nice line: “Certain realities need to be faced, even in an election year.” -BA
Clinton Gas-Tax Proposal Criticized
Alec MacGillis and Steven Mufson, Washington Post
A growing chorus — including a top congressional Democrat — labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s proposal for suspending the federal gasoline tax ineffective and shortsighted yesterday, even as she continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as insensitive to drivers’ woes for not endorsing the plan.
… Backing up Obama’s position against Clinton’s proposal to suspend the 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax for the summer is a slew of economists who argue that the proposal, first offered by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, would be counterproductive. They argue that cutting the tax would drive up demand for gas at a time when the supply is tight, which would mean that the price at the pump would drop by much less than 18 cents per gallon.
… Obama is proposing to reduce the cost of driving by suspending purchases for the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Over the long term he would also tax windfall oil profits and cap carbon emissions to provide rebates for low-income Americans and money to invest in renewable-energy research.
He supports ethanol, which is a boon to his state’s corn growers but has driven up food prices.
(1 May 2008)
