Our New Energy Policy: Loyal to Oil

George W. Bush is forever loyal to oil. His solution to every energy supply problem is more oil. For him, this energy crisis is a unprecedented opportunity to allow oil companies to drill in previously off-limit areas. (And our addiction to oil can be swept under the rug — again.)

I fear that the American people may buy into this short-sighted plan to avoid having to change their energy consumption habits (thus continuing to fund terrorist-supporting governments around the world).

Thomas L. Friedman at NYTimes.com describes the Bush energy policy. Excepts below.

Link: Op-Ed Columnist – Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com.

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal….

This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president who’s done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there aren’t 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.

But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasn’t lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact America’s energy profile right now — unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow — and create good tech jobs to boot.

That bill is H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. “Already clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines — because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans — sorry to say, with the help of John McCain — have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times.

Of course, we’re going to need oil for years to come. That being the case, I’d prefer — for geopolitical reasons — that we get as much as possible from domestic wells. But our future is not in oil, and a real president wouldn’t be hectoring Congress about offshore drilling today. He’d be telling the country a much larger truth:

“Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

That’s what a real president would do. He’d give us a big strategic plan to end our addiction to oil and build a bipartisan coalition to deliver it. He certainly wouldn’t be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don’t approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas. That is so lame. That is an energy policy so unworthy of our Independence Day.

Oil and Empire

John Michael Greer describes the relationship between oil supplies and international power. This is not fun reading if you are an American who believes that we can prosper with the same thinking about energy that dominated the 1900’s. Excerpts below.

Link: The Archdruid Report: The Future that Wasn’t, Part Two:

The basis of American power was geological, rooted in the accidents of paleoecology that left immense deposits of crude oil in half a dozen American states, and can be measured by the fact that in 1950 the United States produced more crude oil than the rest of the world put together. Winston Churchill famously remarked that the Allies had floated to victory in the First World War on an ocean of American oil, and the Second depended even more dramatically on oil production, with oil-poor Germany and Japan overwhelmed by the tanks, ships, and planes of oil-rich America and Russia.

By the first wave of energy crises in the 1970s, however, the geological basis for American ascendancy no longer existed, because most of it had been pumped out of the ground and burnt. I’ve argued elsewhere that the American political class in the Seventies faced a difficult choice between a transition to sustainability and a high-tech, high risk nuclear society, and ended up choosing neither because the costs on both sides were too high. Since then, political and economic gimmicks and a willingness to burn through our remaining resources with reckless abandon have papered over the hard reality of American decline.

It’s in this context, I’ve suggested, that the neoconservative adventures of the last decade needs to be interpreted. By the end of the 1990s, it was very likely clear even to the most recalcitrant members of America’s political class that trusting the free market to find a long-term solution to America’s energy dependence had failed. It’s a matter of public knowledge that investment banker Matthew Simmons, one of the first voices to raise an alarm over peak oil in the 1990s, was brought in as a consultant to Vice President Cheney immediately after the 2000 election. The march to war that followed can best be understood as a desperate attempt to keep the dream of empire from collapsing completely by giving America control over Iraqi oil reserves.

It was a bad plan, pragmatically as well as ethically, and the incompetence with which it was put into effect has not exactly helped the situation. Still, I’m far from sure that those Americans who talk about their eagerness to see the troops come home from the Middle East have quite grasped what they are asking for. For the last sixty years the American way of life has depended on wildly unequal international relationships that guarantee the 5% of the human race that lives in the United States access to more than 30% of the world’s energy and other resources.

Who Will Pay to Save the Rain Forests?

Fred First highlights a dilemma that every affluent country will face. How do we save the remaining wild places from destruction — if we decide it is worth doing? Excerpts below.

Link: Fragments from Floyd

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and his government say that if the international community can compensate the country with half of the forecasted lost revenues, Ecuador will leave the oil in Yasuni National Park undisturbed to protect the park’s biodiversity and indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

Here’s what’s at risk:

Yasuni National Park protects one of the most biologically rich regions in the world, including a large stretch of the world’s most diverse tree community and the highest known insect diversity in the world. It is one of the most diverse places in the world for birds and amphibians.

And here’s the conundrum:

Now: how much is it worth to the commons of the planet to pay Ecuador to not develop Yasuni? How is that decision made across cultures and world political divides, and who will pay and how might that be prorated for each contributor? Can we expect energy-hungry nations (very like our own) to volunteer to pay higher oil and gas prices so that unseen indigenous people and rare salamanders can continue to survive?

US formulating Energy Policy

The Bush administration has appointed former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond and the National Petroleum Council to chart America’s energy future.

Lee Raymond, chair of the National Petroleum Council, is to provide the administration with policy recommendations for the long-term direction of the nation’s energy policy. As chair, Mr. Raymond was granted the power to handpick the study’s leadership.

Why should we care? In the 1990s, Exxon Mobil began a multi-million dollar subversive disinformation campaign to undermine the science on global warming and delay action. The company vocally opposes U.S. energy independence and presses for deeper reliance on oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia where the company has sunk heavy investments. Raymond denies that oil dependence is a problem, and he considers renewable energy an uneconomical investment.

Americans Understand: Oil Money Funds Terrorism

Thomas Friedman, in an opinion column in The New York Times on Oct 13, 2006 entitled The Energy Mandate, cited an Aug. 27 survey of likely voters that asked the following question:

“Which of the following would you say should be the two most important national security priorities for the administration and Congress over the next few years?”

Here are the results:

42 percent – reducing dependence on foreign oil

26 percent – combating terrorism

25 percent – the war in Iraq

21 percent – securing our ports, nuclear plants and chemical factories

21 percent – addressing dangerous countries like Iran and North Korea

12 percent – strengthening America’s military

Does this suggest that the American public understands that as long as we continue to spend billions of dollars on oil in terror-supporting countires like Saudi Arabia (the origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers), Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela, well-funded terrorists can continue their destruction of peaceful societies?