Decrease Our Dependance

Obama Announces “All of the Above” Energy Policy for U.S.

Plan Will Include Traditional, New Energy Approaches

Finally! President Obama spent several days last week touting his new All of the Above energy strategy, which -- I don’t mind mentioning -- is very much what we’ve been recommending in this blog since day one. The new national energy strategy will involve tapping all of the traditional energy sources in the United States while also working hard to invest in ecologically friendly methods. That means more oil and coal as well as more wind, solar, and geothermal. In other words, everything the country has to offer.

As in the link above, the “All of the Above” strategy is intended to increase production of fossil fuels while providing subsidies to the emerging areas of energy. That is expected to bring America closer to energy independence and help the country to reduce its trade deficit at the same time. With a number of factors that neither the president nor U.S. industry can control driving up the cost of gasoline -- ongoing and perennial trouble in the Middle East among them -- it only makes sense to do what we can at home.

One of the reasons that the oil and gas industry in the United States is the most profitable in the world is the generous package of government subsidies offered to those companies. By providing similar incentives to new energy concerns, it becomes possible for those competing interests to invest. Although, in the short term, oil and gas companies may be able to crush “green” competition with unfair business practices, in the long term “dead dinosaur” energy is going to run out -- and we need to start preparing now.

Finally! U.S. and UK Tap the Reserves to Drive Down Oil Prices ... Maybe?

Background Talks Might Result in Temporary Relief

I have always been fascinated by people who believe that the president of the United States somehow controls the cost of crude oil and the price of the gasoline that proceeds from it. In this bizarre and, at times, quite deranged worldview, the inability of the U.S. president to influence the constellation of hundreds of thousands of factors that impact the price of gas is an offense worthy of being voted out.

This is an idea that increasingly drives the Republican presidential nomination contest. And it is an idea that seems to place force of personality over legitimate energy policy: That the president will somehow browbeat all of OPEC into serving the specific interests of the United States of America, for example. Of course, that isn’t how things work in the real world -- but now, both the United States and the United Kingdom will take steps toward a real policy shift.

It’s just been announced that the U.S. administration plans to tap its strategic reserve of 700 million barrels of gasoline controlled by the federal government. Early talks are underway to involve the United Kingdom in potentially releasing a portion of their own reserves as well. The alliance seems to be growing quickly, as the report above also discloses that Japan may become part of the effort.

No matter what political party you are from, admitting that the president does not have the unilateral power to control the price of gas is both good policy and good sense. Realizing this is the first step toward framing a policy that actually will affect prices. Although the release of strategic reserve resources is only a temporary fix for an acute problem, it is a move in the right direction. Let’s hope that more medium and long-term moves will also follow.

Image by chesapeake climate @ Wikipedia

Keystone XL Pipeline Vanquished -- Now a Source of Political Gain, Not Energy

Political Caste Taking Wrong Message From Keystone Pipeline Battle

Sound energy policy took a big blow this week as Democratic politicians, with the support and encouragement of President Obama, ensured that a bill fast tracking the Keystone XL Pipeline for construction would go down in defeat in the U.S. Senate.

As the Chicago Tribune article notes, the Republican coalition supporting the bill was beaten in a vote that showed unusual unity in the usually fractious Democratic camp. It seems that Republicans are acting much more like Democrats this year, and vice versa ... but this blog is about Decreasing Our Dependence, so let’s stick to the issues.

The weird thing about this vote isn’t that Democrats stuck together or that they solidly defeated the proposal. The weird thing is exactly what the Chicago Tribune article notes: That Republicans are using their inability to get this done as a wedge issue in the upcoming election.

Any port in a storm, I guess? The defeat of the Keystone XL Pipeline isn’t something to cynically celebrate. Instead of calculating and triangulating, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum need to figure out how we’re going to construct a real energy policy without initiatives like the Keystone Pipeline being approved.

It’s understandable some people might think the Pipeline is just an expedient -- that there are long-term problems in our energy consumption and policy that need to be addressed. Fair enough. But we don’t have the luxury of geologic time when it comes to fixing it. If the only options that get political support are long term, like renewable energy, what are we going to do in the here and now? Frankly, I wouldn’t mind seeing fewer SUVs on the road.

Candidates Race to Stake Out Position on Energy Independence

Hearts in Right Place, But Where is Gingrich's Head?

With gas prices rising throughout the United States, presidential hopefuls are racing to stake out a position that shows them to be champions of energy independence. Sadly, the results so far have been mixed, with some candidates showing more ignorance than leadership on the challenges that await the U.S. in our energy independent future. Take, for example, the case of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has taken a laudable step by issuing a new ad, nearly thirty minutes long, outlining his policy approach.

But that’s precisely when the trouble starts. A fact check posted on The Boston Globe takes issue with several Gingrich positions, which the candidate claims will help lead America toward a future with $2.50 per gallon gas. AP reporter Dina Cappiello dissects many of Gingrich’s statements and compares them to the known facts, with unfortunate results for the American voter. Gingrich seems unclear on how the oil market actually works, and cites a U.S. dependence on Iranian oil that doesn’t exist, among other things.

While nobody would argue that foreign oil dependence is good or that foreign oil does not account for far too much of U.S. consumption, invoking Iran is obviously meant to scare voters rather than to focus on the facts of sound energy policy. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. does not, and has not, imported oil from Iran -- as Cappiello points out. Of course, the U.S. is one of the fortunate ones in this regard.

Regardless of what you think of Gingrich or the presidential field, we can only hope that the Obama energy policy in the coming year will be more thoughtful and, even more importantly, better acquainted with the facts -- so we can continue to eliminate foreign oil imports and take control of lifestyle factors like the price at the pump.

House and Senate Split on Florida Offshore Drilling Plan

President Obama Vows to Veto Plan, But What of Alternatives?

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a plan February 16th to allow oil companies to drill closer to the west coast of Florida. However, things don’t look good for the plan, which faces serious opposition and could be voted down by the Senate. Passing the House with a relatively strong majority of 237-187, including several Florida Republicans, the scheme would open parts of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and large sections of the Atlantic, Pacific, and even the Arctic coast to future oil development.

Florida proponents of the bill are excited about the prospect of collecting a third of the royalties oil companies must pay for the drilling. But President Obama has reportedly “vowed to veto” the bill if it should make it to his desk. Naturally, as told above, there has also been a lot of attention from alarmist environmental groups and lobbyists who want to see the plan shot down. Still, it seems like the general trend from both sides of the political aisle these days is to expand offshore drilling.

If you don’t think drilling is right for the U.S., just look what happens when you don’t exploit your domestic energy resources! Greek dependence on Iranian oil is the latest big problem to crop up in continuing, pan-European efforts to get the battered country back on its feet. Iran is one of the only suppliers of oil that is still trading with Greece on terms of credit, and the Middle Eastern country’s growing belligerence toward the Euro zone could see Greece cut off from its key energy supply in a matter of months or weeks.

New Nuclear Plant Construction in Georgia Will Be First in Thirty Years

Resurgent Nuclear Industry Could Mean Stronger Position in Oil Market

Earlier this week, a construction and operation permit was approved for the Vogtle nuclear facility, slated to be the first new nuclear generator constructed in the United States in more than three decades. Fact-finding surrounding the Vogtle plant has gone on for years, with understandable caution attending the project. But with the approval of the operating permit, the plant has effectively cleared the last procedural hurdle for construction. What could be the beginning of a new nuclear power era is officially "a-go."

Many Americans will be excited at the prospect of an “energy mix” that relies less on foreign oil and does not include the immediate pollution issues usually associated with coal. But there is another reason to support the new construction: The prospect of up to thousands of new high tech jobs if the nuclear industry positions itself to expand in the coming years. For each new plant, this will -- as stated in the article above -- include hundreds of “career long” jobs leading to up to fifty or sixty years of employment.

Nuclear power will never be an ideal solution, and it will never be free of its share of political and scientific baggage. But at a time when high tech industry is more vital than ever, the construction of more generators stands to have two major impacts: 1) The much-needed localization of our energy supply and 2) The development of further interest and investment in one of the most advanced sectors of our economy. In my view, we could do worse than to carefully pursue nuclear energy.

New Energy Boom Could Spell the End of Oil Price Roller Coaster

Business Moguls See Opportunities on Horizon

Many people don’t really understand what causes the price of oil to spike and dip constantly the way it does. A lot of factors are cited, like the trouble in the Middle East, and these definitely have their place. But the true picture is complicated, and to really get a sense of it, you need an expert view. Virtually nobody has the insight to make any kind of lasting estimate of oil prices -- even the best sources are full of speculation.

Naturally, this is the cause of a lot of uncertainty among consumers in advanced economies that depend on oil for so much. One of the real benefits of decreasing foreign oil dependence will be a greater sense of stability and security throughout the U.S.: That’s right, it’s my opinion that the price of oil is a national security matter. Thinking so, I wanted to draw attention to some of the bright spots on the horizon.

The Wall Street Journal just printed a piece called How to Strike it Big in the New Energy Boom. This is a great sign, since it shows that investors are taking the problems of surging energy costs seriously -- even if they’re calling it a serious opportunity. “America stands on the verge of a major change that puts it on a course to near self-sufficiency” in terms of energy, said a top Citigroup equity strategist. How are we going to get there? A combo of oil drilling innovation, natural gas, and shale extraction.

Some might be concerned that there’s little attention paid to “green” energy in the piece. But it’s one step in the right direction. Let’s hope investors will STAY invested in the prospect of a largely self-sufficient America.

Foreign Oil Dependence Makes U.S. Subject to OPEC Whims

Iran Standoff Shows Policy Dangers of Relying on Oil Producers

One of the major problems with foreign oil dependence is that it obligates the United States to model foreign policy around the desires of adversarial Middle Eastern nations. The U.S. and nations like Saudi Arabia aren’t exactly natural allies: the importation of foreign oil is the factor that links us with the region. That’s one of the reasons that foreign policy there hasn’t always seemed to make sense.

OPEC is saying it wants to stay out of the conflict between Iran and the west. If taken at face value, the OPEC statement is a good sign that the organization will try to keep oil production and movement normalized as much as possible if Iran aims to close the Strait of Hormuz, as it’s been threatening to do over the EU oil embargo. Iran, like many other countries in the region, depends on oil exports for its operating capital. The balance of oil exports is arguably one of the reasons it’s been able to keep its nuclear program afloat.

The situation for OPEC is going to become more complicated if tensions worsen or if Israel decides to strike at Iran’s nuclear capabilities, a possibility it says is growing more urgent by the day. U.S. military operations can consume millions of gallons of oil a day, so while nobody is saying OPEC could limit U.S. options in the short term, in the long term it makes sense to loosen our dependence on other power blocs. No matter what you think of Israel, Iran, or U.S. policy, our options should be unhindered -- and that calls for less dependence on foreign imports, especially among the U.S. military.

Should Coal and Tar Sands Be Part of Energy Freedom?

Which Energy Path Balances Risk with Reward?

No matter how you feel about the environment, most people in America agree that we should not be beholden to foreign interests for our energy needs. The question is one of short-term versus long-term. Do we need to invest in experimental green technologies to reduce the environmental impact of our energy needs? Or does the security interest involved in energy independence mean we need to include fast solutions -- even if they aren’t ideal from the ecological perspective? Energy independence is something that we can all unite behind, and it’s obvious to everyone, pro or con, that oil alone will not meet our needs in the twenty-first century. So what is the answer?

Experts estimate that the United States may have as much as 250 years worth of coal, but as the coal supply analysis at Energy Bulletin reveals, some of that supply will be hard to activate or might not be attainable for scientific or environmental reasons. Tar sands have been touted as another potential source of oil. In the U.S. tar sands are concentrated in the east coast, and the supply of Utah alone may reach 19 billion barrels. However, as stated in the link above, tar sands extraction will usually require open pit mining. Open pit mining can have profound environmental effects that destroy and ruin the land for public use. This makes the immediate costs of tar sands pretty high.

What do you think? What kind of energy balance should the U.S. pursue to ensure we decrease our dependence for coming generations? Tell the community with a comment.