An Open Letter to Our Next President about Energy Policy
Posted by Robert Rapier on April 30, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: barack obama, energy policy, gas prices, global warming, greenhouse gas, hillary clinton, John McCain, politics [list all tags]
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. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it.
Shouldn't we also consider what happens when our "non-negotiable" way of life impacts the way of life for others worldwide? What if the Saudis also consider their way of life non-negotiable? Is suing them supposed to force them to negotiate? What about the person in Kenya whose way of life is eased by the very small amount of oil they consume? Shall we negotiate with that person, or just not invite them to the table while we price them out of the market?
Let's first consider common ground that you and I may have. I presume we would agree that our dependence on oil is not healthy. It puts the economy in a very vulnerable position. It helps to enrich some countries that are hostile to us. It increases carbon dioxide emissions. I think this reflects the positions of all remaining candidates, and is consistent with my own position.
Now let's consider a position on which apparently differ sharply: Gas prices must come down. While I understand the position of the average American that we are paying too much for gasoline - what impact do you think price has on demand? Higher prices will eventually spur conservation and encourage alternatives - which helps achieve the objectives of lowering our dependence by lowering our usage. Isn't this what you want? Instead, all three candidates propose measures to bring down gasoline prices - thus encouraging consumption. Can't you see the inconsistency in your position?
This is the time to show political leadership. The pandering sickens me. So what if the average person thinks we are paying too much for gas? The average person also voted for your predecessor - so let's not presume that we must bow to the wishes of the average person. I offer the following unsolicited advice for dealing with this problem. This is how I would address Americans on this subject:
My Fellow Americans,
Spiraling gasoline prices are having a negative impact on the overall economy. Recent polls have shown that high energy prices are one of the biggest concerns of the American public. However, I have to be bluntly honest: There are no easy solutions. The situation we find ourselves in is a result of many years of policies that are short-sighted and have essentially ignored the long-term consequences of a dependence on fossil fuels - which in turn translates into a dependence on crude oil imports. One administration after another has paid lip service to energy independence, and yet our dependence has risen during each administration since Nixon. We are obviously doing something wrong. I believe I know what it is.
We have failed to truly understand why we have a problem. We have failed to understand why we are addicted to oil. We have failed to appreciate the nature of oil, and why it is so difficult to replace it with low energy density biomass. The truth of the matter is that we are addicted to oil because of the unparalleled conveniences it provides us. We sought painless solutions to our addiction. But if breaking an addiction was easy, we wouldn't be addicted.
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. Here again, we have sought the easy solution: Just increase CAFE standards. Most people view this as a relatively painless solution. They think that instead of their Ford Expedition getting 14 mpg, the automotive industry has tricks up their sleeves that can push it to 24 mpg. All that is required is a bit of legislation, which doesn't affect me, the consumer. But that's not the way it works. To achieve 24 mpg, we are going to require a fundamental change in the SUV mindset.
We have fuel efficient vehicles available now, we just need to convince people to buy them. I propose to offer rebates ranging from $500 to $2000 for vehicles that achieve high fuel efficiency. I propose to penalize vehicles that achieve low fuel efficiency. I propose to phase these changes in over the next 3 years.
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. The goal here is not to collect more taxes; it is to encourage behaviors that reduce fuel consumption. So here is the specific proposal.
The average American consumes 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year. I propose to increase the federal gasoline tax by $0.20/gallon this year, $0.30/gallon next year, and then $0.50/gallon in each of the three following years. The total tax increase I am proposing is $2.00/gallon. This would still put gasoline prices at less than they are in Europe, but by having a clear understanding that gasoline prices won't be going down, this will encourage conservation measures.
In order to offset the burden of these higher taxes, I propose a tax credit equivalent to the increased tax burden for the average American. This is equivalent to $200 in the first year of the tax. Those who use less gasoline than the average will actually see their overall tax burden go down. Those who consume more than 1,000 gallons per year will see an overall increase in their tax burden - and will therefore have a strong incentive to reduce their fuel consumption. For those whose fuel usage is for business use, the fuel taxes can be deducted against your business income.
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. Improved battery technology and energy storage technologies are the key enabling technologies required. Therefore, I am proposing to significantly increase the funding and resources devoted to these technologies. Cash awards will also be available to inventors meeting certain key milestones - as inspired by the Automotive X PRIZE.
These five proposals are merely a start. I understand that for some of you, these changes will be painful. But the pain is coming regardless; I am just proposing to manage it in a more effective and predictable manner. For too long, we have been too passive in managing our oil addiction. The time has come for more aggressive measures.
Such proposals would not be without harsh critics, and would require strong leadership to push them through. Special interests will line up to protect their pocketbooks. Short-sighted politicians will try to protect a few at the expense of many. Will you be the president who takes a stand, tells the hard truth about our energy predicament, and pushes through measures that secure a brighter future for our children? Or will you be like the long succession of presidents who have made hollow promises and offered false solutions - only to see our dependence worsen?
Addiction can be a difficult thing to beat. But make no mistake: The path we have been traveling down is unsustainable, and the bills are starting to come due. If we don't start paying them now, we will put an enormous burden on our children.
But you forgot the Kenyans. As Monbiot has repeatedly pointed out, if we are to reduce our energy consumption in the first world AND assume that we share energy equitably across the global population, the first world has to decrease its energy consumption by something on the order of 90%. Nothing you propose will achieve that.
I think you're on the right track but it does not have to be equitable on a per capita basis it has to be equitable initially at a resource level.
What I have proposed is that every time you build a windmill or pv panel or deploy any other alternative energy project a second version is made and sent to the third world. On a grander scale say at the small city level you effectively adopt a city in the third world thats the same size. Thus if a first world city paves a road it also paves a road in its adopted city.
Even better and more effective is the teach a man to fish approach. If you build a PV plant in the US you build one in and adopted country.
On a per capita basis your still heavily weighted to the first world but I'm pretty sure if you simply shared as I had outlined the third world would be beyond themselves with joy. Eventually they can do the same and adopt other cities and villages and share.
You can see that by excepting the real burden that a country with advanced technology and infrastructure should shoulder at first its tough but if you make it drives you to share the means of production which is critical to ensuring that everyone begins to have a livable base standard of living.
I'd say that its a extension to ELP. Economize Localize Produce Share. The last little bit is what makes the world a better place for future generations.
The American Lifestyle IS what is at issue. We not only have to radically change the auto fleet to one that is more fuel efficient, we need to drastically reduce the daily dependence on the automobile.
We need to set a goal of say, reducing VMT by 80% by 2050. To do this we will need to rebuild our neighborhoods to be walkable. We could use increased gas taxes, as proposed by President Rapier, to do this.
Of course, the automobile industry will be drastically reduced. They will argue that what is good for Toyota is good for the country. They will be wrong. Economic disruption could be offset by a massive reallocation/restructuring/rebuilding program in which relocalization and walkable neighborhoods (i.e. all necessities are available within walking distance for all, and a massive increase in telecommuting) are the main objective.
I don't think reaching your 2050 target will be difficult at all-what will be more challenging IMO is not reducing the VMT by 80% by 2050 (that is where all the energy will be spent).
In 1950 the global population was about 2.5 billion. Today it is over 6.6 billion. The US had a population of 151 million in 1950. We just about doubled and much of that was immigration from other countries where people have more babies. In 1950 Kenya was about 6.3 million. It is now about 6 times that amount. Kenyan women have more babies today (4.9) than they did in the 1990s (4.7).
No, I am not going to continually lower my living standard while other people keep making lots of babies.
Need
Greed
& Breed
are a disastrous combination.
Ralph Nader is running for President and is having no problem proposing carbon taxes, no problem calling the Republicans and Democrats on their inability to face the folly of corn ethanol policies and is starting to talk about aspects of Peak Oil no one else will touch.
I think it is time to accept his offer to be President and move as fast as possible towards energy equity on the planet.
The savings in leaving Iraq within 6 months of taking office will save some of the spiral into debt holes that are crippling any hope of our retrofitting for energy economy.
Single payer national health saves us all money as the GAO pointed out ages ago. Shifting to electric passenger rail and other transportation economies will save us from greenhouse gases our suicidal traffic messes and much ill health, psychological as well as physical.
Citizen Nader is about real democracy still and denying him a voice, the essence of what is wrong here.
Behind those dread corporations running things are bunches of us consumers shopping Walmart and Costco for the globalization margin destroying local work and individual investors shifting our funds online for that marginal gain giving corporate lobbyists the power to undermine Clean Air and Water Acts first brought into creation by Naders earlier works...
Nader only has a problem winning elections
I saw Nader speak at the PowerShift 2007 conference and he seems to get energy pretty well.
Chris
I've always felt Nader was saying what needed to be said.
I don't think we can look to the Presidency to deal with this issue. It's going to have to develop elsewhere. The oval office seems to have no elbow room to usefully engage the issue as it stands now.
Turn off your TV and just vote for Nader. It won't hurt, really! My George Bush "stimulus" check is going to his campaign.
This letter is a great report on what's to come, the potential hazards that lie ahead of us, the harsh reality that will challenge everyone, and you are right, the president ought to understand the fundamentals of this crisis.
What strikes me as ridiculous is this notion that the current administration and as well the presidential candidates are completely unaware of the situation, and thus the letter goes on to try to "teach" these media and political mammoths of the "harsh truth". The naiveté strikes me as plain stupid. It is very easy to understand that yes, the politicians do understand these fundamentals, as they have spoken between them and with big oil very frequently. The mere fact that these politicians do not "acknowledge" it, is simply and better explained by the fear of getting such message into the public. To say that the oil is "peaking" is publicly forbidden, you would immediately be labeled as a doomer and fetishist, sparking fears of socialism, just as Global Warming is. Where's the gain of votes in saying such a thing? If the net vote result is negative, they will never say it. When democrats have criticized GOP so much about its fear tactics, offering a paranoia about the "terrorists", you are just adding to GW another democrat fear tool: Peak Oil. And GOP will strike back at it. So no, they won't admit it.
So the question for politicians is not if PO is true, or it isn't. If they become president, there is little they can do to alter the fact of this crisis. They also know this. Market forces will prevail above any state action, with the most cruel of outcomes. Any presidential action will be minimal, and worse, they will pander to populist measures, as the tax break, not because it is a better move, it obviously isn't, but because their power depends on proposing such stupid irrelevant things. Only Obama so far hasn't proposed tax breaks on gasoline, but I doubt that he will resist the temptation of that kind of stupid measures.
Given this scenario, it is completely dubious the relevance and usefulness of this letter. Don't get me wrong, I support it. In the worst case, it will give these politicians the notion that a little percentage of this country does get it. It is the audience for which these politicians pander that the message should be spread. As Al Gore put it, politics are renewable resources. And they only change when the audience changes. Never before it.
The naiveté strikes me as plain stupid. It is very easy to understand that yes, the politicians do understand these fundamentals...
Personally, I think that's naive. I don't believe they do understand. The EIA and USGS are both saying that oil production is going to keep growing. Both sides believe we can maintain the status quo. The Republicans think we need more drilling; the Democrats think we need to mandate more biofuels. Neither side actually understands the seriousness of the situation, or they would be more willing to confront it.
If either party believed the threat was serious and imminent, there would be no fear in discussing serious mitigation efforts.
I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. They understand somewhat, but other voices are telling them: nothing to worry about BAU. A quote (I can't remember whose -so my apologies in advance) that it appropriate is:
"Don't expect a man to understand something on which his job requires that he doesn't". And the political application process is such that they can't afford to understand PO.
A small suggestion on bullet (2): It would be better, not to compute the expected revenues from the gas tax and set this amount into law. Much better would be to earmark the revenues to the people. That way the amount adjusts with the revenue, and corrective political action is not required when assumptions are proven wrong. It is all too easy to game a revenue neutral proposal such as your, by say overestimating revenue -and turning it into a tax cut.
Agreed. I don't think there's some big conspiracy where they all know about peak oil, but won't talk about it in public. OTOH, at least some politicians clearly do understand the problem. Republican Roscoe Barlett, for example. He may give his peak oil speeches to the cleaning staff, but they're on the record. Democrat Bill Clinton has given talks about peak oil, and Al Gore has mentioned it, too.
I think they know about it. Some of them, anyway. After all, most of them are old enough to remember the '70s energy crises. But they think we'll innovate our way out of it, as we always have in the past.
Like Tom Whipple said...politicians have so much on their plates already. Unless you can give them a solid and imminent date ("the gas stations will go dry July 3, 2008"), it won't be a priority for them.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
Sorry , Robert, your proposals are totally inadequate. A 50% increase in prices spread over 5 years will reduce car mileage by about 10%. In France taxes are 70% of the pump price. You need to aim for at least $11.50 in the US just for starters. Then increase substantially each year.
By so understating the size of change really needed you are just breeding more complacency.
I disagree. The problem is defining the problem your trying to solve.
Now with that lets talk about the solution.
I'd say its Equitable ELP or shared ELP in other words the goal is sustainable economies that are energy neutral with a decent living standard for all. Obviously somehow population levels have to be brought into the issue but maybe this can be done by determining carrying capacity and developing target population levels.
A important detail but to move on.
Next you have to determine the time period in which to reach these goals. Communist style 5-10-20 year plans are a good way to at least talk about when to do things.
Then you talk about what to do.
From this approach it becomes obvious that one of the biggest problems is why are people driving all over the place in the beginning ? We need to focus on our work habits first and foremost since most of our energy expense is related to work not leisure. Can companies get satellite offices subsidized so workers can shorten their commutes ?
Can we get a national law to support commuters that take public transport ?
So instead of increasing taxes for roads. You decrease taxes for those that use public transport and redirect current taxes to fund public transport.
So say 50% of current taxes used for roads gets redirected to public transport.
Lightly traveled roads are privatized and taken out of the public domain. Same with the interstate system. We have good ways to collect tolls electronically and these can readily be made better. So toll collection should not interfere with traffic flow. This can be tied into GPS and if you put your route in you can calculate the tolls.
If you allow credit then people that don't pay their toll bill can have their cars confiscated.
By privatizing the roads we force the costs off the cities and onto the users.
You do the same for all the old infrastructure electric/sewage etc for suburbia. If you can really afford it then you get to use it.
Robert - Thank-you for taking the initiative and writing a letter that is commendable and prescient. For historical reference it will be interesting to review that letter say five years from now.
However I think you are sophisticated enough to know that the Federal Govt. is dysfunctional and deaf. National Politics is now truly a mockery of a travesty of a sham. I don't have any specific staticstics to back that up however. I read this blog regularly and I am impressed on a daily basis on the thoroughness of statistical information. I did however work for the Federal Govt for almost twenty years. Inertia overwhelms every department. Each year governmental management grows exponentially. Elected represenatives hardly mattered then and I wouldn't imagine that it has become more responsive.
The best thing that we can do is secure lifeboats for ourselves and not look to the govt. for help. Imagine Katrina...now multiply that by a factor of ?
However I think you are sophisticated enough to know that the Federal Govt. is dysfunctional and deaf.
Yes, this letter was written more out of frustration than anything. That's why I have to roll my eyes when people suggest that I am naive for thinking anything will happen as a result. Of course I don't expect anything to happen as a result. I didn't write it with the expectation that anything would change. But I do want to point out that I think there are ways to ease a rough road ahead. And someday - and it's already pretty late in the game - politicians are going to ask "What do we do now?"
Robert - Had to laugh when I read this. We were apparently writing nearly the same article--most of the same points, with a different focus--at the same time yesterday. Nicely done. Here's mine: Peak Oil: Living on the Banks of Denial.
I think all of your proposals are very sensible...which probably dooms them to never seeing the light of day.
As Leanan pointed out downthread, the fear of political suicide still seems to rule the day. Which suggests that we'll continue in our denial until we are forced to do otherwise. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
The fault for that is another question: Is it the clueless voter who won't support a candidate who tells them the ugly truth? Is it the media who favor business' vested interests above all else? Is it a lack of courage or knowledge on the part of the candidates?
As I suggested in my article, I think it's all of the above and more. If you look at society as a whole as if it were a person in the process of grieving, I think it brings the big picture into better focus.
Robert - "And someday - and it's already pretty late in the game - politicians are going to ask 'What do we do now?'"
You're exactly right about that. I'm into metaphors lately, and I think the comparison to Bradburry's "Farenheit 451" and the "Book People" is apt. In the story the Book People were attacked and persecuted for the illegal actions of reading books. They adapted by memorizing the books and waiting for the time when society would once again need books.
People in the MSM derisively refer to people who listen to blogs like the Oil Drum as "doomsayers". The truth is individuals who post, blog and follow sites like this are in fact societies best hope in the long run. For me I am grateful that places like this exist...
The politicians I know are basically confused, not diabolical. (This is not to claim that diabolical ones don't exist!) I think Al Bartlet said it right:
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."
In general, politicians (and most people) don't seem to have a science-based epistemology. Thus, they rely on inputs to make decisions. If the dominant input is based on special interests via media and well-funded lobbying, then the recency bias will kick in and politicians will gravitate towards an absurd point of view.
On other other hand, I have witnessed private citizens showing up to local government meetings make coherent cases that have swung the vote.
My brother is a politician, a smart and honorable man who wants to do the right thing for people. However, he always told me that money, while not buying his vote, will buy access. Clearly, the well funded special interests have the advantage in this regard. But we have to persevere anyway.
I agree that most politicians are not diabolical, but I do not think they are confused. They understand quite clearly that their primary mission in life is to make the world a safe place for private finance capital. They do not hold this position because they are Machiavellian bastards who are willing to plunder the present at the expense of the misery and degradation of the future; They do so because they are not capable of conceiving of the social, political, and economic universe in any other terms. If they could figure out how to carry out their primary mission and, at the same time, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our dependence on oil, etc. they would do so.
The problem is that any realistic response to peak oil, global warming and other resource and environmental crises must include economic contraction by the OECD countries. It is clear that we will have to drop through a wormhole into another universe (I am, of course, speaking in a psychological, metaphorical sense) before this truth can become an acknowledged political reality in our society.
I keep seeing this assertion. I believe it's false. Why can't the OECD go entirely fossil-free, and drag the rest of the world along by example?
One of the major drains on the US economy is the failure of government policy to promote exactly this end. The bulk of US production is tied to old and depleting forms of energy. Had the US made a major push to get PV manufacturing costs down and get economies of scale for traction batteries, we'd be set to sell solar panels and electric cars to the world. We'd live high on the hog on export earnings while squeezing the oil producers' margins. If you think this is physically impossible, I'd like to see you cite the facts which prove it.
Of course the full economic effect of fossil fuel depletion cannot be known with certainty in advance since technological progress cannot known be know with certainty in advance. I will give my reasons for doubting that business as usual economic growth can continue over the next several decades below, but let me say first that the strategy “”Let’s pursue BAU economic growth until definitive proof is given that such growth is no longer possible” does not strike me as being very intelligent. Since the ‘proof’ that we have reached the limits is likely to be financial and/or ecological collapse I do not understand why an intelligent person would want to follow this course of action. We have been following a similar course of action with respect to fossil fuel depletion for a long time; “Until the market gives us a clear indication that there is a supply problem let’s burn the stuff like there is no tomorrow.” In hindsight this does appear to have been a very intelligent strategy.
I should point out, by the way, that I do not regard green house gas emissions and global warning as the only human impact on the ecosystem that we need to worry about. Soil loss, habitat destruction and mass extinctions, pollution due to agricultural runoff, and so forth will continue to become worse if the whole world aspires to OECD standards of living, which standards of living, by the way, will be increasing all of the time unless major reforms occur to our economic system. Even if, within the next two decades, the global economy becomes completely decarbonized (or even carbon negative) and the human population stabilizes, I think that there are serious concerns about pursuing constantly increasing standards of living for many decades into the future.
Perhaps you will say that you do not want to pursue constantly increasing standards of living. You just want to maintain the goods and services we enjoy today while decreasing our environmental impact through cleaner energy sources and more efficient modes of manufacturing. I am skeptical that such maintenance can be achieved. Nevertheless, I would be overjoyed to see society adopt such a goal since it would be a major step towards economic sanity. My feeling is that if we could create economic institutions which can function well without growth, then they could be easily adapted to economic contraction if it was truly necessary to do so.
As for the source my doubts about maintaining economic growth in the face of fossil fuel depletion they are as follows:
The fact that the solar resource (I include wind as part of the solar resource) is large compared to today’s energy use does not matter if the cost of delivering 1 net unit of energy to the economy (including the cost of compensating for intermittency on short and long time scales) is much higher than the historical costs of fossil fuel. It is clear that the costs are significantly higher today or China would not still be building coal fired power plants like crazy. How low these costs will go in the future depends on the cost of load balancing as well as on the costs of primary generation. I have only seen hand waving arguments with respect to the solutions to intermittency. Point me to a detailed study showing how we are going to balance the load over a wide geographic area over a year long time frame with some real numbers for the amount and variety of storage required, the amount of long distance transmission required, and the amount of biomass backup required, with estimated costs. The statement that these problems will be solved at sufficiently low cost to keep global economic growth going for the rest of the century just because you believe that they will is not hard evidence.
The basis for claiming that nuclear energy costs are reasonable is more solid than for renewables, since France get 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and they have not become an economic basket case. However, unless we develop peaking nukes then costs of nuclear will go up as fossil fuels fired generation declines.
Secondly there is the problem of replacing the liquid fuel powered infrastructure (freight and passenger transportation, farming, construction, mining, etc.) with electrical alternatives. Airplanes and ocean going vessels are not going run off the grid. The daily commute to work is not the only problem which has to be solved in this regard. I would feel a lot more comfortable about such a transition taking place smoothly if we had started twenty years ago as recommended by the Hirsch Report. Peak oil is upon us and even expensive first generation PHEVs and EVs are years away from high volume manufacturing.
"What strikes me as ridiculous is this notion that the current administration and as well the presidential candidates are completely unaware of the situation . . .The mere fact that these politicians do not 'acknowledge' it, is simply and better explained by the fear of getting such message into the public."
There are likely significant gaps both in the knowledge and beliefs of elected officials and candidates for office, and also, as luisdias points out, gaps between what they know and what they feel they can say publicly without substantial risk.
But wait - did anybody happen to catch this tidbit, from an AP story picked up in the Salt Lake Tribune today? It appears that the Current Occupant himself has acknowledged Peak Oil:
"President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.
Bush renewed his call for drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, but his own Energy Department says that would have little impact on gas prices.
Asked what he is doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to pump more oil, Bush didn't answer directly. 'We've got to understand there's not a lot of excess capacity,' he said. Blaming "the lack of refinery capacity" for high energy prices, he said Congress has rejected his proposal to use shuttered military bases for refinery sites.
Global oil supplies are tight, in part because OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia are refusing to open their spigots. The Saudis are pumping 8.5 million barrels a day, compared with 9.5 million barrels a day two years ago and have acknowledged the ability to produce as much as 11 million barrels a day." http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9101549
There's not a lot of excess capacity, indeed.
As an aside, this is actually a curious story, as the author quotes the President, then adds an analysis that ANWR drilling won't have an impact on prices (correct), but then adds the last paragraph of commentary about putative Saudi production ability as a critique of the President not putting enough pressure on them to "open their spigots," apparently - with the 11 m barrel-per-day assertion being completely unsupported. If Bush and family can't do it, if record high prices can't do it, then . . . what conclusion do you draw? In this case, this reporter's criticism of the Current Occupant appears wildly off target.
Given the close ties between the House of Saud and the Bush dynasty, the Current Occupant should indeed have a better picture of the situation that most recognize. That said, if you look at the policy positions being pushed by the administration, looming crisis will be used to justify non-solutions that benefit a few powerful players in the short term rather than the good of society in general.
Can a new president be brave enough to offer real solutions? You must remember that Jimmy Carter was pilloried and roundly mocked for his "sweater message" to the American public about energy conservation. Politicians also have long memories, and are often replaying "fighting the last war" rather than clearly understanding the next one. The fact that Carter lost to Reagan in part because Reagan sold the "new day," no resource limits story line to the public still resonates as a cautionary tale about asking the American public to re-negotiate its manifest destiny-driven way of life. Of course, it was easier for Reagan to emerge from the crisis and for the US and globe to eventually end up awash in an oil glut, because while the US had just reached peak, the world had decades to go.
Of the 3 major party candidates, only Obama has now rejected the notion of a gas tax holiday. This gives me a glimmer of hope that, with the right groundswell of public support, as president he could indeed have the courage to offer a new direction. That said, his support for ethanol and ties to the nuclear industry give one pause. Clinton's pandering to the so-called working class by joining McCain in calling for the gas tax holiday I find a distressing signal of weakness in the face of this crisis. McCain is not even worth talking about, I'm afraid, in terms of real leadership on this front. As many of us recognize, we needed a 10-fold increase in the gas tax starting in the 1970s, not a 3-month tax holiday in 2008. Nader is looking better and better all the time (easy for me to say in this deeply red state).
Good stuff, I like most of it, now we just need some leaders with some courage, but the public wants promises of limitless futures (like John McCain's stuff), and politicians will try to deliver, and fail of course. About the electricity powering our transportation. First, we need to see a real plan here. Second, you have to demonstrate, using ALL inputs in EROEI, how the plan will be better that what we have now and not the phony EROEI stuff I see on this site (the burden of proof is on you). Three, you have to explain how your Rube Goldberg notions of electric 18 wheelers (including all of the infrastructure, not just the trucks); train transport (including all of the infrastructure, not just engines); and tractors/combines (including all of the infrastructure, not just tractors/combines). Four, how much oil, natural gas and coal will be used to construct this? Finally, where is the capital to do this in an era of Peak Oil, when the piggie bank is empty and when capital will disappear as oil depletion progresses?
"...not the phony EROEI stuff I see on this site (the burden of proof is on you)"
No CJ, you don't get off that easy.
When You make a claim, YOU have to back it up. Take some responsibility. Show some of your preferred EROEI numbers, show whatever it is that you are insisting on adding to the formula. There's an active EROEI thread, as you surely know. If you have some substance to add, please do.
You're USING electricity right now, so calling it 'Useless' is clearly an inadequate choice of words. (For new readers, this is a recurring contention of his.) Electricity is mixing bread, driving nails, and pulling trains as we speak. BIG trains, which says to me that it could also be pulling BIG Combines, if it had to.. or just saving enough diesel by pulling the Big freight and commuter trains- that the available diesel is then still available for Combines for now.
We're NOT out of Money. Money is an Idea, and we're not out of ideas.. not yet.
Tag, you're it!
Bob
People on this site enamored with Excel will hate on you for saying this. Such has been my experience, anyway.
You and CJ have both insisted on other factors being included in a 'complete' EROEI. My constant objection to this argument, is the vagueness of that demand. I don't care if it's in a chart or not. I've never posted a chart at this site.
If you're talking about intangibles or unmeasurable effects that won't have 'numeric' terms that can fit on an excel chart, then they might be necessary aspects of the discussion, but are not necessarily part of EROEI. By this, I might use the 'Enery Return on Water Invested' argument for Biofuels, which largely makes Ethanol a non-starter for me.. but it is not an EROIE argument. It is another factor which must ALSO be seriously considered.
EROEI is simply, "If my body uses more energy to digest a piece of Celery than the Celery contains, then that represents an EROEI of less than 1:1, and I shouldn't count on Celery as my major foodstuff." It doesn't mean that celery doesn't have benefits to my health, just that it COSTS me energy instead of YIELDING a NET in energy for my nourishment. I do not see that the energy spent in putting on my shirt this morning, or even the energy involved in washing dishes has to carry any weight in this analysis. In the case of growing food, of course, it also becomes clear that you wouldn't count the Solar Energy as an input in 'EROEI' calculation, since I didn't have to Provide that energy, I merely took advantage of energy that is Available from the world around me. If there are externalities to my system of agriculture, or if, say I have to spend more energy GETTING TO my garden in miles traveled than this food provides, then it is an energy losing proposition.
Please just make a complete case. That's all I'm insisting on. It's not about 'hating you' or Clif, I just find that both you and Clif seem to be insisting that others provide the details that prove YOUR points, while your points seem to demand factors that you won't define.
Bob
Fair enough that you ask for some kung fu to go along with the commentary. But the question is a valid one - how do you get from 'a' to 'b' and all the infrastructure to support it? For a simple example - how much diesel and equipment run by diesel is used to build the average power station, or hydro plant, or wind farm?
I do have to challenge the money comment though. Money is a tool to facilitate trade and has to be based on something and that something is for us right now, availability of cheap energy. The British Empire was built on cheap coal, the US empire built on cheap oil. I'm straw manning a bit here, but I would like to see the correlation between wealth creation over time (and wealth destruction) and the availability of cheap energy. Is it a coincidence that US peak oil coincides with roughly with the rise in long-term (permanent) US debt?