Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm is touring the country to promote a national clean energy policy. Working with the Pew Clean Energy Project, she’s pushing Congress to impose a renewable energy mandate, quadruple taxpayer spending on “green” energy research, and increase electric vehicle sales.
Granholm along with others lobbying for renewables regularly cites three points in their attempts to justify a tax dollar funded scramble for any substitutes for oil as a transportation fuel: climate change, energy independence, and scarcity. And each of those areas exhibits serious logical holes.
Climate Change
Those interested in grabbing political power and attempting to leverage it to control economic decisions have wielded the threat of climate change for more than two decades. Like this Saturday’s apocalypse, though, the worst forecasts from their computer modeling have failed to transpire. The Wall Street Journal reported last month the U.N. — back in 2005 — warned we’d see 50 million climate refugees by 2010:
Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made—and the U.N. has done a vanishing act of its own, wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.
In the wake of these kinds of erroneous conjectures as well as the global recession, the climate change juggernaut is now on life support as nations attempt to get their fiscal houses in order. By the time the global economy recovers, the climate change enterprise may be limited to simply continuing the entitlement to those who make a living from conference and research welfare.
Energy Independence
The notion of energy “independence” has never made sense. If applied to any other commodity or product, analysts would instantly discredit the idea that America should completely disengage from world markets.
A combination of geological and technological realities means nations in the Middle East — some of which are U.S. adversaries and support terrorists — control much of the global oil supply. This also means that Western countries, to a certain extent, are vulnerable to the whims of those governments such as the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo.
Even though the concept of total self-sufficiency is unrealistic (and arguably even undesirable), our leaders can still take reasonable steps to insulate our country from these geopolitical events.
In the case of the 1970s oil embargo, Congress established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a complex of salt domes with capacity to store enough crude to replace U.S. oil imports for 75 days (727 million barrels). What lawmakers didn’t do was adopt a long-term, rational energy policy that would develop our own resources and invest in a suite of energy technologies. Even so, we have made substantial improvements in efficiency — reducing by 50% the amount of energy and carbon needed to produce a unit of gross domestic product.
Scarcity
There’s a certain conceit to the argument that we’ll soon run out off oil, as it implies that we have an accurate idea of the amount of existing and recoverable natural resources.
At the time of the 1973 embargo, U.S. proven oil reserves totaled about 31 billion barrels. Since then we have produced over 100 billion, but proven reserves have only been reduced to 28 billion. Such are the benefits of technology and new discoveries. The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that potential oil reserves, which include unconventional oil, are about 150 billion barrels. We are not about to run out, although economics and technology limits might constrain how much makes sense to produce.
Given oil’s abundance, versatility, and energy density, there’s little prospect that the gasoline engine will become a dinosaur anytime soon. The preferred alternatives to gasoline are electric, natural gas, and biofuel powered vehicles. The problem with electrics is range and cost. The National Academy of Sciences report on battery technology concluded that the cost per KWH given the state of technology was about 4 times greater than needed for batteries to be cost competitive. It saw no breakthroughs on the horizon. Biofuels are similarly constrained by technology and cost. Ethanol remains in the market through subsidies and economical cellulosic technology needed for more biofuel is nowhere in sight. Natural gas is a niche transportation fuel for large, centrally fueled buses and trucks.
Pursuing a broad range of transportation technologies is in our long term interests. But for the next few decades, gasoline and diesel will remain the dominant transportation fuels and improvements in engine technologies reinforce that reality. One example which will be in the U.S. sometime in the near future is a version of the BMW 320 which reportedly gets 57 miles per gallon.
Dang … I can’t find much written here, that I do not agree with.
You really should be more careful — facts tend to make liberals spew a lot of vitriol and venom, followed by exploding heads. I expect we’ll start seeing this happen momentarily…
On “energy independence” – right now it looks as if the next best technology to oil-based transportation is electricity-based transportation. That electricity must be stored in fuel cells and batteries. Those batteries are made with rare earth metals. Almost all of the world’s rare earth metals come from one place: China.
Energy independence is a ruse put on by nationalistic politicians who want to drill for more oil in the USA. As the article hints, we can’t escape this problem or this argument just by substituting away from oil.
Well said. Only an idiot with jelly for brains would not see exactly the same thing. How can people believe some of the garbage we are fed.
Remember, don’t believe ANYTHING you hear, and only HALF of what you see.
Our elected officials and those like Al Gore, see the idiots out there, and are getting very wealthy off of those that believe what they hear.
Get real people, there is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
Mr. O’keefe is somehow a taxpayer advocate !
However, tax receipts have never completely funded government funding since at present we are off the gold standard and are a sovereign nation who issues it’s own currency and likewise it’s debt in same currency.
Just for your learning, the Chinese do not and cannot exchange their YuanRenmibi to USD to buy treasuries. They do not buy our debt. They are invited to use the monies they earn USD here in the USA ( mainly ) to open a treasury account.
So why would you want to be a taxpayer advocate ? This is a smoke screen, since big oil is heavily subsidized by tax breaks as it is and if we remove them then Mr. O’keefe should be against big oil since they have already “quadrupled” or more taxpayer requirements in his incorrect mechanics of economics.
Therefore, get off the gold AND oil standard now and use our sovereignty to protect our liberty without big oil.
Mike Norman and Warren Mosler have excellent explanations as to why this gold standard mentality is both incorrect and damaging to existing assets created by nontaxed earnings generated by Government Spending.
http://www.moslereconomics.com
http://www.mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com
“pushing Congress to impose a renewable energy mandate, quadruple taxpayer spending on ‘green’ energy research, and increase electric vehicle sales.” Translation – spend more tax dollars that the feds don’t have.
BTW, Kevin. fuel cells do not store electricity. They produce it through the disassociation of water, then the combustion to recombine the H and O2 into H2O molecules.
@ KevinInSpring
‘Energy Independence’ is not a ruse but rather the answer to all the hysteria surrounding ‘Energy Dependence on Foreign Oil’. Can we strive for Energy Independence? YES. Could we ever be 100% Energy Independent? NO (at least not based on today’s technology). Can we strive to be less dependent on Foreign Oil? YES.
Alternative fuels to replace gasoline and diesel are decades away. No amount of scare tactics will replace the facts. No amount of tax breaks, tax incentives, tax money spent chasing a small percentage of the overall fuel consumption will make any significant difference in the foreseeable future. Anyone who thinks that electric power will ever make a significant impact is plain stupid. It take energy to produce the electricity and right now the use of nuclear is out because of the environmental issues with nuclear waste, solar and wind are not reliable and are more expensive than conventional coal or natural gas produced electricity. So we need to 1. improve the efficency of the internal combustion engine and 2. develop the reserves we have here to minimize the use of imports where practical.
During the ’64 and ’68 presidential campaign libs were spouting off about the iminent ice age, now it’s global warming. They need to get radio time with the minister predicting the end of the earth. They are all full of gas.
troy – big oil gets tax breaks as any company or individual does when they invest in their business. Big Oil pays big taxes and makes big profits, that the nature of the capitalist system. If you prefer a socialist culture, move to Venezula, you’ll love Chavez. He is a big advocate for democratic freedoms (wink/wink)…
I disagree about natural gas. Just because it’s currently a niche fuel for fleets doesn’t mean it can’t be converted to mainstream production relatively easily. The thing with natural gas is that you don’t have to worry about range, existing gasoline stations could be converted (or natural gas pumps added), and it’s so much more abundant and cleaner than oil.
@mimic, I’m going to have to disagree with your assertion that there is no global warming. However, I will agree with you that Al Gore is a tool.
here are facts. gasoline is more expensive now than it ever has been. it will continue to be expensive as long as big oil has a monopoly over the fuel we burn to travel.
as for climate- fossil fuel burning does affect the climate. the antarctic glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.
the world burns 80 million barrells of oil a day. times 42 gallons in a barrell= over 3 billion gallons of fuel /day. only a moron would not see the environmental impact of that much consumption.
and only a real cretin would not see the environmental impact of the BP oil spill last summer.
so you may pander to the oil barrons in houston but not me. I have worked in the oil filed and know the business from west texas to alaska to most other places. Oil is a dirty fuel and producing it is dirty.
finally, I bet you didn know lake houston sits atop an old oil field and there is some real nasty stuff on the bottom of the lake. the water there is very hard to treat and stabilize for consumption. and the filtering process only removes orgainics not heavy metal contamination from the old oil field.
Now please write another one-sided article about the true cost of oil and why what we pay at the pumps does not accurately reflect how much each gallon actually costs due to the tax breaks and subsidies we give to the oil industry, wars we fight to ensure the oil supply isn’t interrupted, environmental clean up we pay for as a result of pollution, damage to other industries as a result of fossil fuel extraction techniques and pollution, health problems as a result of pollution… and more.
Thanks.
Excellent article….libs will call it biased…they do so hate facts. Well done…too bad the left is so blind to the truth….The electric car is a joke….too expensive….not much distance between charges….actually run off of coal produced electricity and we are already over using electricity and having brownouts….disposing of the used batteries will be expensive and hazarous and has not yet even been explored…oil, gas and hydrogen are the only fuels that have a plus side with minimal downside….
Xane, there is no big oil monopoly. Not even the OPEC cartel has a monopoly, nor can OPEC really affect prices much any more because of places like Canada and Russia producing more oil. U.S. oil companies control about 2% of the world’s oil supply.
The “disaster” from the BP oil spill last year turned out to be a dud, the Gulf has already dealt with it. Remember, all that oil would be like a thimble full in an olympic swimming pool.
Our contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is less trivial than the oil in the Gulf. Human activity doesn’t affect the climate.
I have it, stick our head in the sand re climate change (because one item doesn’t add up), oil is still here and really good (ignore all the other costs, such as the Iraq war, increased pollution and health risks, and cost to the economy, and alternate energy is too expensive (of course, it doesn’t yet enjoy the levels of oil subsidies). Makes sense to some.
Anyone ever do a cost analysis on what it takes for those electric companies to produce the electricity needed to charge those cars? Hint, your internal combustion engine is more efficient than the power companies’ combustion engines. You should know that a power company produces much more than a 100 watts to power that 100 watt light bulb in your home. The inefficiency of their equipment, added to line loss pushing that electricity, is enormous.
Yes, the glaciers are melting, as they have done off and on for hundreds of thousands of years. Climate is cyclical. Instead of attempting to scare people into believing the global warming advocates can control the weather, we’d be better served planning on how we will address the results of that inevitable climate change. If Gore really believed in man causing global warming, why does he live in a 10,000 sq ft house?
I’m tired of hearing people tell me “Do as I say, not as I do”; while they keep on getting richer scaring people.
The biggest unknown with Global Warming debate is the that big bright round thing in the Sky we call the Sun. We have very limited data on Solar cycle (relative to millions of years fossil Earth Data). Solar radiation completely dwarfs all other factors. We are only now starting measure in detail total solar reflection, solar/magnetic effects and a number of other very import factors for determining actual changes in Sun base radiation affects. Our Sun is a very dynamic radiation source (look at Nasa pictures of Solar flares which can fit multiple earth diameters into the spacing between features). To even think we know enough to say that there is a global warming trend is questionable but to say it is entirely due to man kind to me is completely unfounded. Total CO2 generation are a minute effect compared to very small changes in Solar total radiation impacting Earth. We do not have the data IMHO to make any call for or against.
Let’s just stop this fake science being taught to our kids and stick with the experts that produce oil and gas. Those people who worry about earth are just mistaken. Why,earth has had major extinctions before and probably will have them again. Silly to be restricted because of an Earth that may get several degrees warmer on the average.
Natural gas vehicles don’t have to be a niche market. Practically everyone can fill up a natural gas vehicle at their own home with a properly installed compressor. It also doesn’t hurt that the price is equivalent to $2.35/gallon in Houston today.
another set of messages from the folks who say smoking isn’t bad for you.
Scarcity is not a great argument. Eventually we will run out and when that appears to be likely, technology will come up with a solution. Our hybrid vehicles are more or less the first generation of that movement. Climate change probably ought to be a good argument, but people will ignore that problem and we can all hope that things don’t go to hell as a consequence. Energy independence however should be a strong and compelling argument. Look at our wars and how much wealth we transfer to nations that hate us. I believe our national security clearly depends on our ability to detach ourselves from the events of pleaces like Baghdad and Lagos. Japan went to war in part over our oil embargo and China is gobbling up the world’s resources every chance they get. Energy independence can keep us out of wars and anyone with a young son or grandson who will one day be eligible for the draft ought to keep that in mind.
CNG…”Gassy and Proud of It!”
So that is why Jesus gave us the dinosaur and another engineer with a soapbox.
William and others,
Let’s not be cynical about the issue here.
First, there is Global Warming. The earth has been getting warmer and that is a fact tha can be scientifiacally proven. The impact of Global Warming is what is at issue here from both Liberals and Democrats. Is is why program to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emmisions(GHGE) such as Cap and Trade have been debated as to its effectiveness. There are actually several Cap and Trade programs out there such as the Green House Gas Initiative in the NorthEast US that has had mixed results on Coal fired plants, There is Cap and Trade some Europe nations and here in the US Cap and trade for Acid Rain Emmisions have seen much success. If Global Warming was not an issue why are there Cap and Trade markets in place?
Second, Energy Independence and Scarcity go hand in hand here. My studies at University of Colorado Denver in Global Energy Management has had me do reaserch into both of these subjects. I can say with certainty that oil and gas are finite resources. Whether we have abundance right now it does mean much about our future investments. I can also say with certainty that there is no silver bullet as to which transition fuel will replace gasoline in the future but the one thing that everyone is certain of is that there needs to be a transitional fuel. Maybe not this decade or the following but in the future we do.
Third, Your Scarcity portion is misleading sir…..it’s irresponsible to mislead your readers with these numbers. When you add unconventional oil you are adding tar sands that may not be viable to produce economically unless the price of oil shoots up astronimically, which can happen but most likely we will import more oil before we produce unconvetional oil. Even you must agree that conventional oil is on the decline and has been for years. We have been net importers since US peak oil was reached in the 70′s. Today our two largest exporters to the US have been Canada and Mexico and around 41% of total imports are from OPEC countries. The OPEC % is down from the Embargo you mentioned. So this situation is not as bad as stated and we do not need to invest in unconvetional oil right now unless of course you would like to lose your shirt.
Inventing in a transitional fuel would probably be the best case scenario but the key is to find out which one of the usual suspects will be best.
If you want my opinion, it will be a convination or mix of all transition fuels. It seems that EV are bet suited for City driving. Natural gas is best suited for Commercial vehicles or fleet vehicles. Ehtanol and Gasoline are best suited for suburban and urban driving…90% of our transportation fuel is gasoline so any dent in this percentace will reduce imports or increase the life of our conventional oil reserves.
Ad Paid for By Big Oil.
Uh…
I am a political conservative before starting…
1) While the UN and Al Gore positions are clear scare tactics that have nothing to do with the official computations (they basically chose the worst case scenario and tried to scare folks), yah, I agree with Bob Inglis who was bushwhacked by the tea party folks. The conservative solution to global warming (and scarcity) is called the excise tax on fuel, which reading section 21 of the federalist is the original Constitutional intent, something the tea party folks out to consider as what they spew sounds more like the Brutus Anti-Federalist position.
2) So do you want to deal with the human rights abusers? We need to stop this. It is stupid that the left has nothing against importing Nigerian oil and is against Canadian bitumen. I for one am SICK AND TIRED of overseas wars in places that really have nothing but OIL. I think Bob Inglis shares this position (he was 92% on the American Conservative Union voting). Yah, if you like more 9/11 (remember they were Saudi) and more wars embrace the dictators.
3) There is an equal and worse conceit in assuming we will have abundant oil. If you are wrong society is in deep doo-doo since as you point out this is the basis of our prosperity. I think your position is more conceited than a conservative, CONSERVATION position.
The libertarians are going to drive our country to the ground. Can we have some conservatives please?
nspector:
Big oil will disagree with this. Except for Exxon all have estimates of peak oil and all are begging for conservation.
This article is libertarian tea party nonsense.
What O’Keefe reports – even what he propagandizes – supports one clear statement: The move to diversify our sources of fuel for transportaion has never been more imperative. Petroleum should be presented with some challengers, which should receive at least as much government help as does petroleum, and more – to have a competitive and efficicent market soon.
As a personal aside, I am one who does not think this is the case today, and is not the policy our Senators are pushing for whom it is rather: give petroleum owners more money!
Liberals are doing just what they always do. They’re attacking their “enemies” rather than the facts.
And who pays for the “Goracle” to go all over the world holding one-sided conferences where dissenters aren’t allowed?
Well said.
I tried to limit my comments to facts and objective realities. I believe that they will withstand any fair assessment.