A Democrat Tells The Left To "Get Real About U.S. Energy Policy"

Obama's energy policy is a nightmare, beholden to a small coterie of special interests intent on destroying our existing energy infrastructure in favor of non-extant and cost ineffective "alternative" energy sources. Charles K. Ebinger, a self described lifelong Democrat and the director of the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative, recently penned an op-ed in the LA Times, Democrats Need To Get Real About U.S. Energy Policy. He is appalled at Obama's energy policy:

. . . Today, energy policy is one area where I think my party is wrong.

I wasn't always a disillusioned Democrat. For decades, the party's policies ensured that the United States had adequate supplies of domestic oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power and uranium to fuel our growing economy while providing good-paying jobs to the men and women who produced our energy and transported it. These policies helped create America's affluence of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s.

. . . How far we have fallen from those days. Today's Democratic leadership has reached a nadir in rational energy policymaking. In the last several years, congressional party leaders have squandered opportunities for a nuclear waste management storage program and have shown opposition to shale gas production. This month, the party reached a new low: The Obama administration's delay of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, in spite of its promise of an additional 750,000 barrels of oil per day and the thousands of new jobs it would create, was an inexcusable political decision unbecoming of a pragmatic leader.

The former generation of Democratic legislators would have embraced the energy opportunities before the United States today. Whoever is president in 2013, it will be the first time in 40 years that the United States has a serious chance to transform its energy landscape. The previously accepted inexorable decline in U.S. oil and gas production is being reversed: New "tight oil" — resources trapped in low-porosity formations such as shale rock — could provide the country with several million barrels of oil per day in the coming decades, and the country's abundant and accessible shale gas reserves may leave us gas independent for up to a century. There also are still conventional reserves to be tapped, most notably in Alaska, where the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and the North Slope hold an abundance of hydrocarbon reserves.

Exploitation of these resources would have a number of benefits. Increased domestic oil production, coupled with growing imports of Canadian oil sands, would result in a reduction of non-North American oil imports, leading to a significant improvement in the country's yawning trade deficit. Increased gas production would be valuable for cleaner electricity generation (when compared with coal) and could also signal a revival of the U.S. industrial and petrochemical sectors. Further, if natural gas can be deployed in the commercial heavy-duty vehicle fleet, we would be able to reduce our oil imports dramatically. We may even be able to export gas to our allies and trading partners.

This is neither a repetition nor a promotion of the Republican refrain to "drill baby, drill."

This is also not a denial or marginalization of the environmental challenges we face. In the wake of the disastrous 2010 Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is clear that any energy production must be done to the highest environmental standards. That means spending more money and acquiring additional regulatory staff resources, not less (as the Republicans champion).

But we must embrace these challenges pragmatically and economically. We must move aggressively on energy efficiency, spread smart-grid technologies and invest in our electricity grid. We must push curbs that encourage less oil consumption, such as a targeted (to limit the effect on the less fortunate) federal gasoline tax.

I know many of my friends — Democratic and Republican — may dismiss my ideas as too far-reaching or as pie in the sky. But we need a vision now that all Americans accept and one they are ready to help make a reality. The Democratic leadership must start facing the hard truths about energy and stop proselytizing that renewable sources of energy can replace the fossil fuels currently in use. This is not to argue that the reduction of fossil fuel emissions is not an urgent priority. However, the emphasis must be on job creation and on building the 21st century energy infrastructure that will reestablish America's primacy in the world. The size of our energy resources gives us the wherewithal to make this transition.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Give the American people the tools and they will finish the job.

I disagree with Mr. Ebinger on several of his points, such as a federal gasoline task and implementation of so-called smart grid technology, but such disagreements are on the margins of the much larger issue of the need for full exploitation of our domestic energy resources. I have immense respect for the Brookings Institute and its members. It is a left of center thinktank, and thus I am often at odds with its policy directions, but the work it produces is invariably intellectually honest.

(Hat Tip: No Oil For Pacifists)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Wages Of Green

Britain is about 5 to 10 years further on than the U.S. in the insane push for green energy. Besides putting their economy on the path to destruction with outrageous prices for inefficient, highly subsidized energy, the push is, according to British economists, costing 3.7 jobs for every one job it creates. This from the BBC:

Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed.

A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry.

It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in "honest debate" about the issue. . . .

The report, called Worth the Candle? The economic impact of renewable energy policy in Scotland and the UK, said the industry in Scotland benefited from an annual transfer of about £330m from taxpayers and consumers elsewhere in the UK.

It said politicians needed to recognise the economic and environmental costs of support for the sector and focus more on the scientific and technical issues that arose.

Richard Marsh, research director of Verso Economics and co-author of the report, said: "There's a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy.

"Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn't stack up."

Co-author Tom Miers added: "The Scottish renewables sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the UK.

"Without this UK-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tools used to promote this industry. . . ."

The Executive Summary of the report is here. The BBC, which has made an industry of global warming alarmism, actually reports this story in order to attack it, as noted at Biased BBC. Be that as it may, this report comports with reports from both Spain and Germany, showing that this insane push into green energy negatively impacts both jobs and the economy. Germany has recognized this and has resumed building coal fired power plants. Spain, upon whom Obama modeled his push into green energy, touting its employment benefits, is an economic basket case teetering on national bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Obama is pushing us down this same path at break-neck speed, between massive subsidies for green energy and his extra-constitutional assault on our energy infrastructure and domestic production of coal and oil. If he wins reelection in 2012, our nation will likely never recover, at least during our lifetime.

Read More...

Summary only...

Mr. President, About You're Energy Policy . . .?

It's not that Obama and his administration doesn't have an energy policy, its that what inchoate policy he does have is designed to drive us back to the days of horse and buggies for transport and campfires for heat. Obama's energy policy is concerned with making energy vastly more expensive for Americans and, indeed, to drive coal, our primary source of electricity generation, from the market.

Gas prices have skyrocketed 55% under the first two years of the Obama administration, yet that is nowhere near the goal of Obama's Energy Secretary, which is to:

. . . “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.

Such prices would destroy America, where people and commerce normally traverse far greater distances daily than their typical European counterpart. Indeed, such prices would have deep ramifications for all aspects of our economy since virtually everything we do is dependent on energy. Moreover, the rise in gas and energy prices falls hardest on the poorest in our country. But that is a left wing goal that the Obama administration seems determined to achieve, in part at least by destroying our domestic oil production. This from the Heritage Foundation, describing acts by the Obama administration:

•Immediately after taking office in 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah.

•The EPA announced new rules mandating the use of 36 billion gallons worth of renewable fuels (like ethanol) by 2020. [Note that ethanol actually increases green house gas emissions, increases food prices (which are now at world record highs, driving millions below the poverty line), and is a less efficient fuel than gasoline. In a word, it is the penultimate boondoggle.]

•This summer President Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.

•After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, President Obama has refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimates will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% this year.

•Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years;

•The Environmental Protection Agency has announced new global warming regulations for oil refineries;

•Interior Secretary Salazar announced new rules making it more difficult to develop energy resources on federal land.

Of course, that is not all for this administration. They are also conducting a war on coal. Coal provides nearly 50% of all the electricity generation in the U.S.:

The headline news for the coal industry in 2010 was what didn't happen: Construction did not begin on a single new coal-fired power plant in the United States for the second straight year.

This in a nation where a fleet of coal-fired plants generates nearly half the electricity used.

But a combination of low natural gas prices, shale gas discoveries, the economic slowdown and litigation by environmental groups has stopped - at least for now - groundbreaking on new ones.

"Coal is a dead man walkin'," says Kevin Parker, global head of asset management and a member of the executive committee at Deutsche Bank. "Banks won't finance them. Insurance companies won't insure them. The EPA is coming after them. . . . And the economics to make it clean don't work." . . .

Central to the left's war on coal and oil are the countless green organizations to whom we have turned over the keys to the courthouse, and with it, our energy and environmental policy. So at any rate, we aren't using our massive deposits of coal to provide affordable electricity for our citizens - ostensibly because doing so would contribute to greenhouse gasses. Instead, we are exporting ever increasing amounts of our coal to China so they can enjoy affordable electricity and contribute to greenhouse gasses. And then there is the EU, the entity that has done the most to promote the canard of global warming, is seeing a big increase in the building of new coal fired power plants, primarily in Germany.

The reality is that this destruction of our energy infrastructure will be felt for years to come, as energy prices continuously rise. It is insanity. The American Petroleum Institute recently pointed out, in an plea to alter Obama's destructive policies:

Increased access to domestic oil and natural gas—rather than increased taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry—is the best strategy for increasing government revenue, jobs and energy production, a new study by Wood Mackenzie concludes.

“U.S. oil and natural gas companies are a major force in our economy and, with the right policies in place, could drive even greater economic benefits,” said API President and CEO Jack Gerard, during a “State of American Energy” address in Washington today. “These companies produce most of the nation’s energy, put millions of people to work and deliver billions in taxes and royalties to our government. The study shows increased access to areas currently off-limits would create jobs, grow the economy and dramatically increase revenues to the Treasury, at a time when the U.S. deficit is of national concern.

“We urge the Congress and the administration to promote energy policies that will aid our economic recovery and reduce our debt. This study shows increased taxes would take us backwards.”

Increased access could (by 2025) create 530,000 jobs, deliver $150 billion more in tax, royalty and other revenue to the government, and boost domestic production by four million barrels of oil equivalent a day, according to the Wood Mackenzie study, “Energy Policy at a Crossroads: An Assessment of the Impacts of Increased Access versus Higher Taxes on U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Production, Government Revenue and Employment.” Raising taxes on the industry with no increase in access could reduce domestic production by 700,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day (in 2020), sacrifice as many as 170,000 jobs (in 2014), and reduce revenue to the government by billions of dollars annually. An additional 1.7 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in potential production that is currently of marginal economic feasibility would be at greater risk of not being developed under the modeled tax increase. . . .

Obama's destruction of our economy is far from over, and indeed, his "energy policy" may, in the long run, may prove, in the near and mid-term, more destructive than Obamacare.

Read More...

Summary only...

Links For Sunday

Germany goes solar coal for cheap energy.

U.S. exports coal to China for their cheap energy - while at the same time Obama and the EPA conduct their own war on coal and our energy infrastructure. We do not have an energy policy in this country, and it is very shortly going to bite us in the ass - hard. As usual, those who suffer most will be those on the low end of the economic scale, the people the left supposedly represent.

At Nature, they are discussing what to expect in 2011. Among the hot topics:

. . . The North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) project reached bedrock in July 2010, at a depth of more than 2,500 metres. The fruits of that effort should soon be seen, now that researchers are analysing gas and particles trapped inside the ice core to reveal details of the climate of the Eemian interglacial period (130,000–115,000 years ago), when the average global temperature was about 5°C warmer than today.

That is a whopping 9 deg. Far. hotter then today. Nine degrees when there was no appreciable human contribution to carbon dioxide. And NASA's resident nut, Jim Hansen, is trying to convince us that 2010 is the "hottest year on record." Talk about requiring a willful suspension of disbelief.

Sage advice to the new Congress from Prof. Glen Reynolds:

. . . [R]emember that fortune favors the bold. It's true that ordinarily in politics, most progress occurs at the margins. But it's also true that these are not ordinary times. Big money-saving and government-shrinking proposals in the House, even if they're shot down by the Democrat-controlled Senate, will nonetheless establish a tone.

They're trying to hide it, but the Inside-the-Beltway permanent-government political class is currently scared. Keep them that way, while showing the public at large that you're serious. . . .

The NYT notes that the public is waking up to the toxic scam of public sector unions. Let us hope that the debacle in NYC, where lives were lost while the public union slow rolled clearing snow, becomes the icon for ending the pox of public sector unions on America. It is a fifty year old exercise in corrupt Dem. politics that needs to end before it buries us. As John at Powerline notes:

Enough is enough. Legalization of public employee unions has been a disaster. It is time to end the experiment and make them illegal once again, at both the federal and state levels. I expect that this will become one of the great political issues of the next decade.

And while we are waiting for that sea change, the next big step is to pass the legislation proposed by California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes (he's a lonely guy) that will require states to account for the degree to which their public sector pension funds are undercapitalized while also establishing a ban on federal bailouts of public pension programs.

The AP finally comes around to the position that the entitlement state is a disaster.

At the American, a fascinating article on how the government caused the Great Recession. In particular, they point to "a potent mix of six major government policies that together rewarded short-sighted collective risk-taking and penalized long-term business leadership." As an aside, it is worth noting that Obama's "bipartisan" Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is finally set to release its fictional report in January, 2011. The Commission refused to consider the role of Fannie and Freddie in the crisis. Indeed, so useless is the report that Obama felt no need to wait on it before passing new financial regulations ostensibly intended to fix the causes of or financial meltdown.

Commenting on the MSNBC interview with GOPROUD chairman, Chris Barron, shown below, John at Powerline remarks: "[L]iberalism is all about screwing certain people so that others can enjoy a windfall, and trying to cobble together an electoral majority out of that corruption. Conservatism, on the other hand, is all about building a better society for everyone." Amen. And that indeed is a point that needs to be hammered home to each of the victim constituencies that the far left relies on for their power base. We want them to emerge from victimhood, the left, to survive, needs to keep them there.



And on this day in history, in 1492, the Reconquista of Spain was complete when the last Muslim ruler of Granada, Muhammad XII, surrendered his kingdom to Isabella I of Castile.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems, Democracy & Oil

Energy is at the top of issues facting America today. There are two competing visions of how to approach this problem. As the Washington Post asks today, why not debate the issue and have a vote on it? Wouldn't that be both the democratic and ethical way to handle this problem in a democracy? But then again, who ever accused our current crop of far left Democrats holding the reigns of power of either embracing democracy or placing ethical concerns over partisan ones.
____________________________________________________

This from the Washington Post:

WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "

If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

. . . If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senator Cornyn On Nancy Pelosi & Dem Energy Policy

Senator Cornyn is certainly right that we need to attack our energy woes across a spectrum of alternatives, but that one of those alternatives must include drilling. As the above cartoon from The Ryskind Sketchbook amply demonstrates however, Cornyn's accusation that Speaker Pelosi has failed to keep her promise to America on energy is demonstrably false.
_______________________________________________________________

This from Senator Cornyn, writing at Power Line:

. . . Nancy Pelosi promised an effective new energy plan before the 2006 election – that’s about 809 days ago – and we’re still waiting. They’re now postponing votes because some Democrats fear reality has finally set in – and Congress may actually approve more domestic exploration for new energy.

We’ve put ourselves in an irrational box. We’ve put 85 percent of our prime energy exploration lands off-limits. The U.S. is the only country in the world that refuses to develop its own natural resources. With a growing worldwide demand for energy, we’re willing to enrich foreign governments – some of which wish us harm – instead of helping ourselves.

The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I’m for pursuing every source of energy out there – solar, nuclear, clean coal, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, shale. We need it all. But we’ve built up an infrastructure over 100 years that must be relied upon as we make the change to renewable sources. Congress has to get out of the way and allow the U.S. to develop its resources for that infrastructure – or we’re headed towards economic catastrophe.

As John notes, a number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they want to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot. You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.

I’m staging an "Energy Independence Days" discussion this week on my Web site. I will be joined by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and others who see clearly the need to produce more domestic energy and reduce our reliance on foreign sources. . . .

Read the entire post. As Ed Morrisey at Hot Air notes, the problems we face internally go beyond our current Democrats. The environmental lobby have made an industry of bringing law suits under environmental laws before carefully chosen courts to stop any exploitation of our resources.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 3 January 2008

California Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos has announced that he has cancer and will not be seeking reelection. Lantos, first elected in 1981, is the only holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress. He has been a very colorful wild card at times, and he is one of the few Democrats I can honestly say will be missed.

"The greatest media story of 2007 was the one you never read: The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists - and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates."

U.S. deaths in Iraq are at their lowest three month total ever.

Amir Taheri is optimistic about Pakistan, despite Bhutto’s assassination. And he has some interesting thoughts on how to approach the problems in Waziristan.

Tribal politics in Pakistan and more in a round-up at Fausta’s blog.

Lebanese MP Walid Jumblat says that Hezbollah are paid agents of Iran and Syria now operating with the intent of eliminating the state of Lebanon.

Another special prosecutor is being appointed, this one on the issue of the destruction of the CIA tapes. Didn’t we learn any lessons from the last travesty?

Rick Moran ponders the fight for the soul of the Republican Party between social conservatives and other ideologies currently cobbled together under the GOP tent.

From across the pond, the EU looks to a one size fits all common energy policy, while Richard North both argues for nuclear power in the UK: "[W]e have a nation that is in thrall to the Greens who, bessotted with the idea of anthropogenic global warming, are at one demanding absurdly expensive measure – such as wind farms – to reduce CO2 emissions, yet are standing in the way of the most obvious and effective long-term solution to both energy security and emissions reductions – nuclear power.

Aggressive buying by speculators, cold weather in the northern hemisphere and the falling US dollar helped to propel the price of oil to a record $100 a barrel.

When I see someone advocating the race baiting, wildly leftist 9-11 truther Cynthia McKinney for President, I question in what possible alternate world they exist. The answer in this case is British academia and the credentials of this McKinney supporter goes far in explanation. "Dr Derek Wall . . . teaches economics at Goldsmiths College, University of London. His most recent book Babylon and Beyond looks at alternatives to capitalism and corporate globalisation."

The left is reacting to treacherous decision by the NYT to hire Bill Kritsol as a columnist. Do enjoy the wailing and lamentations.

A model’s lawsuit. I love this quote: "I think she's going to need to prove she's actually legally retarded if she even wants to survive a motion to dismiss."

Read More...

Summary only...