The Oil Drum: Europe

Barack Obama has said that energy is going to be one of his top priorities. I believe he is completely sincere about this and that energy will get a lot of attention early on in his administration. I believe he is committed to moving the U.S. toward energy independence and a greener energy future. However, one can recognize energy as an important priority, yet sharply differ on the policy direction that is needed. For instance, some may have energy as a high priority because they feel that gasoline is too expensive. Their priority may be to keep gasoline prices low so people's budgets aren't adversely impacted by their fuel bills. Some can see energy as a top priority, and yet promote solutions like suing OPEC for more oil.

On the other hand, someone else may see energy as a top priority, but think low gasoline prices are not the solution, but instead a big part of the problem. This is the nature of my disagreement with some aspects of Obama's energy plans: We broadly agree on the big picture, but differ on how to get there. And since I recently heard him say “I may not agree, but I will listen”, here is my attempt to highlight what I feel are the flaws in his energy proposals.

Last night on the Change.gov website, the major 'categories' for the transition administration included the usual headings: 'Commerce', 'Defense', 'Education', etc. But there was a curious entry in the list: "Energy and the Environment", (which is no longer there). My eyes expected to see "Energy" and "Environment" under separate headings. (Todays listing of cabinet positions is now identical to the current admininistrations.) But for a brief, heart pounding moment, I thought this might be a sneak preview into a sea change in the way policy leaders see the world, one unified Cabinet position, linking two critically interconnected areas, Energy and the Environment. I expect it was a snafu, or I misunderstood what I was seeing. As such, this brief post is not about advocating or predicting such a cabinet position will emerge. But as we go forward in these challenging Liebigs Law times, such a cabinet position might be the first step in recognition both of limits, and of the wide boundary impacts of our internalize profits / externalize costs social system. Of course there are risks with such a union...

Senator Barack Obama won. Results are now becoming available on how representation in the House and Senate is changing. The Democrats have added seats in both houses.

What impact do you expect these changes to have on energy policy in the year ahead? What legislation do you expect to actually get passed?

Last weeks Debate Fact Check #1 highlighted the realities of offshore drilling often glossed over in political discussions. Tonight, with less than 3 weeks remaining before the national election,we will view the final head-to-head presidential debate. Beyond the immediate concern of roiling financial markets, candidates are at least somewhat aware of the complex challenges that lie ahead in the coming energy transition. One popular (and pleasing to the ear) phrase that is frequently used is 'Energy independence'. In my opinion, true energy independence, if possible, will require significantly more focus on reducing energy demand than on increasing energy supply, something we are hearing little about (perhaps because its...err...less likely to win votes?) A slightly different take on this was posted here 2 years ago summarizing Council of Foreign Relations report on the infeasibility of energy independence.)

Below the fold is the second in a series of brief fact-checking exercises regarding the major energy issues in the campaign by Professor Cutler Cleveland.

I recently received an interesting e-mail:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Author of "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters" will answer questions in a live discussion on washingtonpost.com today (Wednesday, Aug. 6 at 3 pm ET).

Pelosi will discuss the current political scene heading into the conventions, the message of her new book and other questions submitted by readers.

To submit questions and participate in the live discussion click here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/01/DI2008080102174.html

This seemed to me to be an ideal opportunity to question her on two issues that she is clearly passionate about, but seem to me to be diametrically opposed: Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and reducing carbon emissions. So, I submitted the following question, several hours prior to the chat:

I have a friend who is addicted to nicotine. His liberal friends tell him that this addiction is bad, and point out that it is costing him too much money. Therefore, they want policies passed that ensure that he can continue to consume as much as he likes, and not hurt his budget too much. They are sure that nicotine substitutes will come along soon to save the day. For reasons I detail below, I call this the Boxer approach, but it could just as easily be the Pelosi/Democratic Party approach.

His conservative friends agree that he is addicted, but their solution is to carve out areas in the U.S. where we can grow more tobacco, and therefore his addiction can at least be homegrown. Sort of like "If you are going to smoke pot, at least smoke American pot." This is the Bush approach.

The following is a guest post by Bill James.

Gasoline prices give a a clear measure of consequences of making oil the lifeblood of our economy. As our economic lifeblood, oil is giving us:

1. Heart attacks, unstable price spikes in this plateau of Peak Oil
2. Leukemia, undermining our planets ability to support us with Global Warming

Facing the facts and acting to resolve them can defeat peak Oil and Global Warming, both civilization killers. A primary fact is that our current infrastructure is the cause of these killers. We built the infrastructure. We can build better. The purpose of this essay is a call to action to defeat these civilization killers by changing the way we govern infrastructure from specifying HOW to build it, to stating WHAT is needed and allowing a free market to find the rare individuals with lucky breakthroughs that can build sustainable infrastructure. We must get lucky and discover the energy equivalents of lasers, personal computers, cell phones, the Internet, etc....

With gas topping $4 per gallon and oil prices seemingly reaching new highs every week, more pain at the pump is certain in the foreseeable future, and energy policy is rightfully claiming its place as a major topic of the 2008 election. Indeed, John McCain gave a major campaign speech earlier this week in Houston specifically on energy (the full transcript can be found here) and addresses the issue again this week in Santa Barbara. It is worth looking in more detail at how he describes the current situation, and what he is proposing.

This is the first in a series of posts co-authored with Phoenix and Matt Mushalik. In my previous post I took a high-level look at solutions for Australia. This post starts the process of iterating down from the high-level view. It assumes that we will not be able to instantly convert to sustainable solutions - we need to get there in steps. This article is co-authored with Phoenix, a qualified mechanical engineer who has been working in the infrastructure construction industry for over 28 years. He has held senior manangement positions with a number of organisations delivering projects to key energy providers. These projects have included oil refineries, power stations, LNG plants and gas processing facilities. He currently works as the National Manager – Power Generation for a major Australian construction group.

Action Plan

1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPORT

Transport is critical to the functioning of our society. If Australia’s transportation stopped tomorrow, then most of us would be starving in the dark a few weeks later.

Yet this is exactly the scenario that is emerging. The vast majority of transport in Australia is fuelled by oil. Without oil, transport stops. And we are being warned from every direction that our oil supplies are no longer secure.

This scenario will be the most serious threat experienced by our society since the Second World War. This is the first in a series of discussions that look at ways to secure Australia’s oil based energy security into the future. Over the next few weeks we will look at short and long term goals for personal and industrial transport.

This is a guest post by Eugene Linden. Eugene's most recent book is Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations. Prior books include The Future in Plain Sight: Nine Clues to the Coming Instability. Over the years, Eugene has written for publications ranging from Parade to Foreign Affairs (for more complete list, please visit Eugene's site). In recent years Eugene has been publishing more and more on the web. Apart from his writing, he does a good deal of speaking, and also serves as chief investment strategist for Bennett Management, a family of hedge funds.

"The Speech I'd Like to Hear from a Presidential Candidate on Energy and Climate Change" by Eugene Linden

“As I stand here today on the shore of Lake Lanier in Georgia, I’m sure that many of you are wondering why I’ve chosen to talk about climate change when we face so many immediate problems. Climate change seems far away while the housing and credit crisis, unprecedented oil prices, expensive healthcare, a global food crisis, and the never-ending war in Iraq are right upon us.

These are all urgent issues, and the American people have every right to demand that a Presidential candidate address these problems with leadership and credible programs. Indeed, I’ve spent the great majority of my time in this campaign trying to lay out the way I would confront such issues should the voters entrust me with the Presidency.

But many of these problems, particularly energy prices, our national security and soaring food prices cannot be addressed in isolation. Moreover, changing climate feeds into a number of these immediate issues, and the threat of climate chaos may not be as far off as we might hope.