It is even more sad that these are the people the EIA (and apparently the Obama administration) consider important to put in front of all the attendees at the opening plenary session.

Nordhaus went on to explain a lot of other things--how little oil imports were compared to our total imports; how comparative advantage made it important that we import all this oil; and how the audience was just not properly trained in economics. If we were, we would understand that people talking about our dependence on foreign oil are just mistaken.

>Really sad that economist professors are not
>trained in science or politics.

Not trained in politics? What do you think Nordhaus was doing there? Baking cakes? That's all economists do is politics.

I talked to someone from Pemex and found out why they are importing so much gasoline and diesel now. (Apparently the gasoline is not particularly from the US.) Part of the problem is that they don't have enough refinery capacity, so some oil goes to the US, gets refined, and sent back.

Another problem is that the government has had a program to encourage auto ownership, so now they need a lot more fuel for the autos.

The third problem is on the diesel side, the country now has the same ultra low sulfur requirements that the US has, because trucks from the US need to refuel in Mexico and then go back. There were also some local laws passed requiring the ultra low sulfur diesel. Mexican refineries are not capable of producing the ultra low sulfur diesel, so it has to be imported.

To look at Mexico's oil use now days, one really has to net petroleum products imported into Mexico against crude oil exported.

There is no doubt that the Administration has changed, from the presence of “the hockey stick” curve in Dr Chu’s Keynote Address through all three of the Plenary Papers, we, as an audience, were left in no doubt that Climate Change and the problems of carbon, are now a major part of the new agenda.

The Bush administration refused to talk about the problem then did the wrong things to solve them. The current administration talks about the problems then ... talks some more about the problems.

(Beats head against wall ...)

At least with Bush and Cheney, it was very likely they knew what the problem was, even if they didn't do anything about it (other than attack Iraq). With Obama and with Chu, it is not as clear. I am afraid they are just confused. I met more peak-oil aware folks in the audience than I saw on the podium.

Explaining Obama's stated policies as political cover to avoid doom and gloom fails because his actual policies are insufficient. If the Obama administration understands that peak oil has past, then it would have set higher goals. One million PHEV's on the road by 2015 and using 4 years to double the amount of wind power, set the bar low. In the Obama stimulus bill he inadequately funded expensive high speed rail while ignoring the electrification of low and medium speed freight rail. Nordhaus's presentation suggests the Obama administration either does not understand the Export Land Model or assumes Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Canada will export to the U.S. while shortchanging others. Obama supports ethanol while advocating that feedstock more productive than corn must be used. The intended purpose of the stimulus bill is to restore growth to the U.S. economy using the current energy sources, mainly fossil fuels.

From what I have seen of Obama's policies I have a difficult time believing he has an underlying plan that is different from the visible one. Obama's vision of the future is as he states: conservation, biofuels, renewable electricity, electricity from nuclear fission and fusion, electric cars, high speed rail, reduced fossil carbon emissions and massive deficit spending. His lax schedule suggests that he thinks we have 20 years before the world reaches peak oil.