Running on Empty
The United States’ real problem with oil and energy policy goes beyond rising prices
David Moberg, In These Times
With gas prices pushing $3 a gallon, drivers aren’t just digging deep into their pockets. They’re getting angry—not just with oil companies and President Bush—and they think Democrats can do better. Yet converting those sentiments into electoral victories, let alone effective legislation, may not be so easy.
According to several polls taken in late spring, Americans rank gasoline prices slightly ahead of the Iraq war as a major issue, believe Bush has no clear plan for lower prices, and regard Republicans as far more influenced by big oil companies than Democrats. They think government can—and should—do something about the price at the pump.
...Democrats face a political dilemma in dealing with gas prices. If they promise much lower gas prices, they will be both politically dishonest and promote bad policy. But they can realistically promise that Americans can travel where they want for less money and less environmental damage—if the country pursues more efficient energy technologies and alternative energy supplies.
...The United States needs to reduce, even eliminate, the need for all oil as a fuel, not just foreign oil. As long as the U.S. economy depends on oil, it will be subject to the prices set by a world market vulnerable to disruptions.
...An alternative strategy, which has backing in principle from the United Auto Workers, would provide U.S. automakers with incentives for domestic production of new, more efficient vehicles. Despite the appeal of hydrogen fuel cells, electric vehicles or even diesels, the main transition engines will likely be hybrids that combine gasoline and electric engines (or plug-in hybrids that can also recharge batteries from the main power grid while parked). They’re already available and can more easily use existing gas stations to deliver fuel.
In one leading proposal for transition financing, introduced by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), auto companies that volunteered to invest in new hybrids and other fuel-efficient technologies would have a portion of their health care costs for retirees (roughly $1,500 per car for General Motors) paid for.
...So Democrats could promise that they will help create a new domestic auto industry that can deliver better, safer, more efficient vehicles that cost less to operate, rely more on home-grown sources of energy, minimize harm to the environment and create good jobs. The Apollo Alliance—a coalition of unions, environmental groups, social justice advocates and businesses—has long advocated such an inspirational project. Now the Democrats simply need the courage to assert that government can and should take on the task for the common good.
David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.
(3 July 2006)
"In These Times" is a news publication in the tradition of the New Deal. Author Moberg probably is a good representative of U.S. liberal-labor-left thinking about energy; for him, the question is how to make the transition to a more efficient auto fleet, using substitutes for oil. He quotes Amory Lovins and recommends the Apollo Alliance. Interestingly, the position is not that far from Thomas Friedman and the "geo-greens" who promote energy independence for national security.
A more comprehensive approach is Energize America program, coming out of the Daily Kos community. -BA
Serious About Energy Security?
Ethan Heitner, TomPaine.com
Next week's meeting of the world's most powerful nations, the annual G-8 conference, will take place in St. Petersburgh, Russia. The theme of the meeting will be "energy security." Last year's meeting, at Gleneagles, as you recall, was all about debt relief and helping poor nations. (You remember how well that worked, and how the G-8 subsequently ended poverty in Africa, right?) In any case this year the big eight are looking out for themselves.
After all, as oil keeps hitting historic high after historic high, and no sign that it will come down soon, everybody's a little worried. The U.S. military is already preparing for "oil nationalism."
So I was looking forward to some insightful and sobering talk from The Financial Times when I saw that they were planning a series of articles on energy security. I admit, being the liberal-arts-major humanitarian softy that I am, sometimes I get great pleasure out of seeing my views echoed by "grown-ups" over at The Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal. Surely, I think, these masters of the universe know what the game is.
The series has been disappointing so far, though. It started Tuesday with the startling analysis that people are worried about global fuel disruptions—and then dismisses the analysis of Colin Cambell, the head of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
"Globally, discoveries peaked in 1964," he says. "We are not replacing what we use, and that has been the case since the early 1980s."
FT refuses to make the argument that moving off of oil would be the logical conclusion. Instead, it uses the language of the industry:
That should be the conclusion of the St Petersburg summit: both sides need a huge investment programme to tap new energy resources more efficiently.
In other words, find new places to drill and build more refineries.
The second piece, running yesterday, was a perfunctory analysis of the fragiliy of energy networks and their vulnerability to political instability.
However, the story becomes a little more interesting in today's installment, which looks at the hollowness of Bush's "energy independence" talk.
But like several other initiatives since the January speech, the tightening of the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in March was more smoke than fire. The slight increase in the average fuel economy required for popular sport utility vehicles and light trucks—to 24 miles per gallon beginning in 2011, up from 21.6 mpg—was largely offset by the continuation of loopholes aimed at keeping Detroit carmakers happy.
The pattern is one that has repeated itself even as rising petrol prices and the possibility of confrontation with Iran have pushed energy security to the top of the administration’s agenda.
The White House has promised aggressive initiatives in alternative fuels, more efficient technologies and fresh exploration for conventional energy. But it has shied away from any measures that might significantly reduce energy consumption in the short term
Still, it is distressing to see that The Financial Times, which generally has a well-earned reputation for seeing through the conventional wisdom and facing the hard truths, won't explore the alternatives to a growing energy crisis.
Like perhaps a more radical push towards meaningful energy independence?
(6 July 2006)
energybulletin.net |
