We Can't Drill our Way out of the Energy Crisis
In 1990, the first Bush Administration banned off shore oil exploration and yesterday the current President Bush decided to ask Congress to end the ban. This is the same policy now being pushed by Senator John McCain in his effort to show he cares about rising gasoline prices. According to Sheryl Stolberg in The New York Times on June 18:
The Congressional moratorium was first enacted in 1982, and has been renewed every year since. It prohibits oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf, 3 miles to 200 miles offshore. Since 1990, it has been supplemented by the first President Bush’s executive order, which directed the Interior Department not to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in areas covered by the legislative ban until 2000. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the offshore leasing prohibition until 2012. One person familiar with the deliberations inside the White House said that Mr. Bush was briefed on Tuesday by his top aides, including Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, and that the aides recommended lifting the executive order.
This is more of the same short-sighted energy industry dominated nonsense that we have come to know and love from the crowd that’s been running the nation’s capital for the last seven plus years. It’s true that there is a lot of oil under the coasts—maybe 16 billion barrels. But it’s also true that there are a lot of new drivers in China and India and more to come in the rest of the developing world. A little more oil may moderate the price of gasoline for a while, but the only real public policy that will cut fuel prices is to develop a car that uses a renewable and non-fossil fuel. Fuel prices would also be moderated if we could reduce our federal deficit a bit and improve the value of the dollar.
While I’ve come to expect this kind of nonsense from President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I am disappointed to see it coming from Senator McCain, who really should know better. Bush and Cheney have already demonstrated that they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry. That industry is convinced that we can drill our way out of this energy crisis. We can’t. The royal families in the Middle East’s oil countries get the idea that while modern economies require more and more energy, the combination of climate change and finite fossil fuels means that we have an urgent need to develop energy alternatives. They are investing heavily in solar research. It’s not as if we will ever stop pumping and burning oil. The market for petroleum will not disappear when we come up with alternatives. Even if oil is used less as a fuel, it’s value as a feedstock for plastic will continue.
I’ve often thought that the generations to come will wonder why we were so stupid that we burned all of that petroleum instead of using it as a material in consumer products and construction. While no one should be concerned about the future of the petroleum producers, if these companies want to stay in the energy industry they should be thinking about taking some of their huge profits and investing it in developing better solar power collectors and batteries.
Given the stock-market driven pressure to increase profits in the present, I am not surprised that the oil industry is looking for the short-run pay off of increased drilling in fragile environments. However our government’s leaders should know better. It’s their job to protect us and that includes keeping our coastlines clean and our planet from overheating. It’s true that gasoline prices have risen dramatically and people are suffering. Political candidates are under pressure to “do something”. The something to be done is to provide a tax rebate or credit to low income people who rely on their automobile to get to work or school. Let’s help the people who need the help instead of pandering to wealthy people who can afford market rates for gasoline. Drilling for coastal oil and ending gasoline taxes are short-sighted and foolish public policies. They do little to solve our energy problem and will make the climate crisis worse. John Mc Cain’s political prospects are not enhanced by his support of these short-run, anti-environmental fixes. The American people know the fundamental facts about energy and climate and don’t trust politicians that pander to them. It’s time for a little straight talk from the Senator from Arizona.
you a dumbass
McCain will win the presidency on this issue, you can't ignore the American people and how big this issue is. The majority wants to drill and have the US be self sufficient.
Very simple you are in the extreme minority on this issue.
You're wrong, yes it is true that we as Americans need to start exploring more into alternate energy sources, but even Obama said that to develop such would take up to 26-30 years. And who knows how long it would be before relief is felt in your pocket! If we drill we can expect relief in as little as 4-6 years. To me that sounds a whole lot better than waiting till me mid life crises. It do so much for out economy as well, you stated that other counties (But it’s also true that there are a lot of new drivers in China and India and more to come in the rest of the developing world.)are developing "new drivers" I'll tell you this. I would much rather be in a position where Im selling the oil than having to buy else where.
To all those who think we need to wait 30 years before transitioning to a low carbon energy economy, please read this:
"First, investing in energy efficiency will allow us to keep global energy demand from increasing.Then we can cut carbon emissions by one third by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for electricity and heat production. A further 14 percent drop comes from restructuring our transportation systems and reducing coal and oil use in industry. Ending net deforestation worldwide can cut CO2 emissions another 16 percent. Last, planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon can absorb 17 percent of our current emissions.
None of these initiatives depends on new technologies. We know what needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020. All that is needed now is leadership."
From: Lester Brown et al., Time for Plan B; http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020.htm
(There is a nice pie chart here as well)
Got that? We can start right now, using available technologies.
And if you think this is an extreme view then listen these words from the US-Carbon Action Partnership (http://www.us-cap.org/), whose members include Dupont, Exelon, Shell, Conoco, NRG, and many others:
"United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change."
What these businesses cannot tolerate is the lack of a coherent and consistent energy policy. A president who first says that we are addicted to oil and then we need to get us some more is simply showing a lack of leadership on this issue. The current debate is about procrastination and inertia, not leadership.
Well I read all 12 pages and ther are some good points, but it's mostly nonsense. I'm always surprised that so many sources are willing to make outlandish estimates on topics where they have no expertice and little knowledge (my background is physics btw).
The pie-chart is about CO2 reduction, which is the main point.
Significant replacement of personal vehicle use with electric trains for example requires a complete restructuring of US cities and would require half a century or more - not 12 years. The author seems to not address the facts about wind and solar - these are intermittent sources, yet he uses peak figures for comparison. Further Photovoltaic comes with a huge cost and environmental danger (cadmium is dangerous and tellurium in extremely short abundance). The paper foolishly ignores and downplays nuclear which is the real short term (12-25 year) bright spot.
The other "facts in play" are rife with fallacies. The mis-statements that the DOE estimates little oil production from offshore before 2030 is based on a paper:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
which assumes the moratorium remains until 2012, then production starting in 2017. This estimate is based on the Gulf of Mexico experience which is unlikely to be a good model. The same agency predicted in their most extreme model that oil might reach $100/bbl by 2030, but they expected a price around $60/bbl in 2030.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/wop.html
Needless to say the predictions of this agency are not highly reliable.
My other comment is that the US energy waste is already considerably reduced from a peak around 1982 due to conservation efforts. The DoD energy use is down by almost 40% and the BTU/GDP$ has similarly declined. The notion that there is always 30% more waste available for "saving" isn't supported by any facts presented in any argument I've seen. Also the costs to recoup additional waste is increasing as the "bigger holes" have already been "plugged". Yes let's conserve in a practical manner, but let's not count those chicks before they've hatched.
What the "zero-emissions now" proponents seem to regularly neglect is that human lives and the economy are at stake. Some poor and senior citizens freezing to death in New England or the Dakotas due to heating fuel prices, or perhaps several non-urban states with 30+% declines in economy will once again cause our technically incompetent but highly reactionary Federal legislature to make foolish choices that will make the recent grain-ethanol debacle or the "splash-and-dash" diesel subsidies to the EU seem brilliant.
What a parcel of fools in our nation !
We CAN'T drill our way out of this. Give me a break !!!
Another cliche that the brainwashed robots love to sling out there, as soon as it comes out of the liberal BS machine.
First of all we wouldn't be in this predicament if it wasn't for the liberal anchor around the neck of free enterprise. The other cliche is that there is only 6 months of oil in Anwar. If we have not let the irrational environmentalist take over our lives 25 years ago we would have been an top of the oil market.The truth is that there is 25% of the worlds oil under the Arctic shelf.It use to bubble to the surface and the Eskimos used it to patch their canoes.
It is all by design and the seeds were planted years ago.The people that brought as the Y2K scare,Gore, Carter and Clinton have now brought us doomsday,but "if you buy our C02 credits we will smooth our way out of this"GIVE ME A BREAK.
Don't fall for the quick cliche The liberals and left over hippies are trying to start an industry built on lies.
FACT: In January of 1994 when in the first time in 40 years the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress average gas prices in the US was $1.00 a gallon. (Note: there was just a few months in 2002-2003 that Jumpin Jim caused a brief switch in the US Senate to the Democrats).
FACT: In January of 2006 when the DEMOCRATs took back control of both houses of Congress the average price of Gasoline in the US was $2.28 a gallon.
FACT: In "TWELVE" again, in 12 years of Republican Control of Congress gas prices rose 56.14%.
FACT: Right now under a DEMOCRAT led Congress gasoline prices in the US average $4.16 a gallon.
FACT: Since the DEMOCRATs took over both houses in Congress in January 2006 just "EIGHTEEN" again, just 18 months ago, gasoline has sky rocketed 45.19%!!!!! That is FORTY FIVE POINT NINETEEN PERCENT INCREASE IN AVERAGE GAS PRICES IN ONLY 18 MONTHS!!!
FACT: In 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress gas prices rose and average of 04.68% per year or 00.39% per month.
FACT: In 18 MONTHs of a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress gas prices rose and average of "30.13%" per year or 02.15% per MONTH!!!!
FACT: During the Carter years a DEMOCRAT Congress put off limits 98% of all US public lands to oil exploration.
FACT: A DEMOCRAT Congress put off limits BILLIONs of barrels of "KNOWN" oil deposits in a small 2000 acre coastal plain part of ANWR which is 19,000,000 acres in size.
FACT: A DEMOCRAT Congress put off limits the coastal shelf, an area with KNOWN oil deposits of BILLIONs of barrels of oil and TRILLIONs of cubic feet of natural gas.
FACT: A DEMOCRAT Congress put off limits the largest KNOWN oil shale deposits in the world which is in the Green River basin located in the western United States, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. About 70% of this resource is located on federally owned or managed land. Deposits in the United States constitute 62% of world resources which is in shale oil roughly three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Question, how did this world energy crisis become President Bush's fault?
We've seen this movie before.
Mr. Eller should recognize that petrodollar interests are not sitting idly by while we reasonably debate the options. There is major lobbying and media wrangling going on. Here is how petro-thinking goes: 1) Republicans are good for the global petrodollar interests (have you noticed how well oil and gas and the producing countries have done over the last 8 years: did you know that Abu Dhabi is building an entire carbon free city from scratch using petrodollars? Have you seen Dubai lately?), 2) Democrats (and their non-fossil fuel policies) represent a threat to their domination of the global economy, 3) if these petroenergy interests can manipulate public opinion so that Americans believe that the Democrats are the ones spoiling the party, then 4) bingo, they can keep the Republicans in power and the gravy train keeps on truckin'.
These interests would like us to believe that keeping fuel prices low in the short run is good for the US when in fact it is only good for keeping the petroleum gravy train rolling (and all those others who feed at that trough, feeding).
The problem is that what we pay for gas is not the only cost of the oil economy. You may have noticed our expenditures in Iraq? You may have noticed that we are having a credit melt down? You may have noticed that the US automakers are floundering? These are all related to the same political-economic policies that are shifting the world's wealth away from the US.
There are plenty of alternatives to oil and the other fossil fuels, we just need to pursue them as vigorously as we do the oil. One of the greatest assets we have here in the US is the ability to innovate. Let's do it again with energy and the environment!
My response to the anonymous physicist above is: take a look at the work of Socolow (who is also a physicist) and Pacala. Their work on this subject appeared in Science magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968) which I believe is a peer reviewed journal. It's easy to say that things won't be easy or may cost some money, but to pretend that this is the work of a bunch of fools is, I think, inaccurate.
I agree with you that there are many rivers to cross, but as the saying goes: even the longest journey begins with the first step.
Mr. Eller should recognize that petrodollar interests are not sitting idly by while we reasonably debate the options.=========================
Your right about seeing this movie before. It has been going on for over thirty years with the DEMOCRATs saying NO to drilling for oil... NO to drilling for NG... NO to more refineries... NO to Clean Coal research... NO to Nuclear Power.
Any yet it is you another so obviously clueless "L"ib that is complaining about so much of our national wealth is going to OPEC.
So how is our NOT drilling for our own energy resources going to stop the flow of our money to OPEC???
You have got to be kidding! Drill here, drill now, pay less you dolt! This election cycle... "It's about the oil stupid". Screw changing my light bulbs in my house... turn off the damn lights at the night club you go to till 3am.
We Americans that have to get up and drive to work every morning to keep the country running are sick and fed up with the liberal agenda that has become way to over bearing. So you can keep the "change" and the hollow promises.
The drilling platform is a lot more promising than the environmentalist platform for getting off foreign oil dependence.
When oil went to 147 dollars a barrel last May,all the professionals dealing with futures commodity trades were skeptical that this was the true value based only on Peak Oil fundamentals of supply and demand ,the value of our dollar ,and any other variables taken into account.The price should have been $80 a barrel-so what happened?In the year 2000 at the behest of Enron Congrss drafted and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.This legislation allowed futures traders to trade in unregulated OTC electronic markets like Dubai so the CFTC that normally regulates market manipulation was now bypassed.You all remember how Enron was able to escape regulation in the electronic platform market and rip off 40 billion dollars from California.It was called the Enron Loophole.You also have witnessed the same behavior in the sub-prime mortgage industry.We export 1 million barrels of oil a day in america,so I ask you what shortage?
Give me an electric car.
If we don't keep the planet healthy, we won't survive as a species.