Archive for the ‘energy policy’ Category

h1

GOP bears some responsibility for Solyndra

September 16, 2011

The Solyndra bankruptcy after receiving over $500 million in DOE loan guarantees is fast becoming the first political scandal of the Obama administration.   Republicans are eager to make political hay out of the failure, and they will probably be successful.  The entire situation reeks of worst excesses of crony capitalism.  Yes, there are direct political aspects of administration officials pressuring overseers to approve the loan without full due diligence.  But the loan program itself exists because of a structure put together by the Bush Administration and passed by a Republican controlled Congress.  This Solyndra release touting their receipt of the loan guarantee in 2009 identifies the authority for the loan as Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (pdf of act here).    This act was originally criticized by Democrats as unfairly supporting and subsidizing oil and gas companies.  When their party took control of both the White House and Congress, they amended the act to the benefit of their favored energy constituents as part of the massive 2009 stimulus bill (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act).  The Republicans crafted the structure and authority under which this sort of scandal could occur.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners.  This is true regardless of which party has its hands on the controls.  The government’s role is to institute a neutral set of rules and then enforce them, period.  EGP has a clear policy position – eliminate all energy subsidies.  Eliminate all energy taxes except a single Pigovian-type tax which prices in negative externalities (i.e., a carbon tax).  Combine that with a tradeable tax credit that rewards the amelioration of those negative externalities.  Institute open policies which favor no particular energy source and let the market determine which is the cheapest and most efficient.

h1

North American oil production could reach 22.5 million bpd by 2035

September 15, 2011

With the right mix of regulatory reform and technical advancement, the combined production of oil from conventional, unconventional and offshore oil could reach 22.5 million barrels per day, according to a report prepared for the Department of Energy from National Petroleum Council (pdf of the report here).  Given that 22.5m bpd is the current US daily usage, the NPC does not believe oil shale or oil sands will be enough to wean the US from non-North American imports.

However, increased use and consumption of the vast natural gas deposits in the US alone could make up the much of the difference.  The NPC report demonstrates that North American supplies could meet as much as an 85% increase over current demand:

For that to happen, regulatory reform cannot be limited to enabling the extraction industries.  For example, the sort of Open Fuel regulatory mandate championed by Bob Zubrin would be necessary to pave the way for other liquid fuels to fill the gap.   Finally, with advances in clean coal and coal-to-liquid technologies, the potential for energy independence is possibly within reach within 25 to 35 years, but that independence will come with a price – we will have to institute some form of carbon pricing (EGP supports a direct carbon tax).   A price on carbon has two benefits – on the one hand, it co-opts some of those who would otherwise be opposed to regulatory reforms that enable increased consumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time providing an incentive for investment in cleaner technologies that would enable gas and coal to liquid conversions (which would also ease the exportation of surpluses of these fuels).   Indeed, with the correct regulatory mix that is sensitive to both environmental concerns and energy needs, it is conceivable that the US (or, at least, USA/Canada combined) could at once become the world’s largest consumer, producer and exporter of energy before mid century.

h1

EU Energy Commissioner seeks control over individual states’ energy policies

September 13, 2011

From European Energy Review (registration required):

For the first time, Brussels is taking concrete steps to wrest control of external energy policy from the EU member states. To begin with, the European Commisson wants to monitor all intergovernmental energy deals between EU member states and third countries. In the longer term, it wants to be allowed to negotiate energy deals on behalf of the EU. The proposals come at a sensitive time in the history of the European Union.

‘When you see that some 60% of natural gas is imported from third countries and as far as oil is concerned 80%… it’s perfectly clear that the success of any energy policy is dependent upon a successful common external energy policy on the part of the EU,’ EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger told journalists in Brussels last Wednesday when he unveiled his plans for a new external energy policy for Europe. ‘If we speak with one voice’, he added, ‘I think we’ve got a completely different weight [in negotiations].’

“A sensitive time in the history of the European Union” really soft peddles the current situation.    Oettinger’s proposal makes sense – a purchasers consortium can bargain for better prices based on volume – and a concerted European approach could take some of the potency out of Russia’s “energy weapon.”   The timing, however, is unfortunate.  Statism in general and the EU’s particular brand of it are teetering concepts.

h1

Analysis shows how to lubricate jobs machine with oil and gas

September 7, 2011

New report by Wood MacKenzie for the American Petroleum Institute quantifies what we have been writing all summer long.

Wood MacKenzie’s analysis found that US policies which encourage the development of new and existing resources could, by 2030, increase domestic oil and natural gas production by over 10 billion boed (barrels of oil equivalent per day), support an additional 1.4 million jobs, and raise over $800 billion of cumulative additional government revenue.

If anything, I think this report under-reports the amount of revenue available, which could ultimately run into the trillions of dollars.  Three years ago, the bipartisan NEED Act (which failed to gain any traction) estimated that opening up US energy resources would send as much as $2.6 trillion into government treasuries.

Here are a couple of key charts and tables from the Wood MacKenzie report to think about while you are listening to President Obama’s job speech.  Let’s hope he talks about energy tonight.  The fortune beneath our feat is the best way out of our current box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h1

Obama cancels proposed EPA ozone regulations

September 2, 2011

Given the state of employment in the nation today – and the way it acts as a noose slowly strangling his re-election chances – this was probably the only decision he could make.

Watch for him to soon endorse the State Department decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, perhaps as part of his much anticipated address to Congress next week.

As I have posted before (for example, here, here and here), I believe that unleashing the fortune beneath America’s feet – the massive energy reserves of our continent’s fossil fuel storehouse – is the surest bet to reviving the economy.  Unlike other pro-energy boosters, however, I actually do believe that the environmental lobby makes many sound points, that they are a powerful and important (and well organized) constituency, and that, at some point, they are going to have to be paid back for these decisions.

h1

State budgets in collapse nationwide while shale fills PA coffers

August 29, 2011

Amidst reports that state budgets across the nation are suffering record shortfalls that could be a drag to local business for years, we also learn that the shale gas boom has produced over $100 million in extra revenue for the state of Pennsylvania.   It cannot be written too often:  it is not too late for an energy-sector led recovery in both finances and employment.  President Obama is preparing a major new speech on the economy and employment.  If he really wants to ignite a national boom and ensure his re-election, then he needs to say only 10 words:  Drill, baby, drill; frack, baby, frack; and shale, baby, shale!

h1

More Trenchant Energy Questions for the President

August 24, 2011

I really enjoy Peter Kirsanow’s daily series of Questions for the President at National Review.  Look for them daily at The Corner.  I will highlight his energy and geopolitics related questions from time to time.  From Today’s Questions:

The EPA is in the process of issuing  new emissions rules affecting coal-fired power plants, which rules will cause one-fifth of such plants to shut down.

The U.S. imports nearly 65 percent of its oil — more than 4 billion barrels a year at a cost of approximately $440 billion. Imported oil accounts for 62 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. In recognition of those facts, you gave a speech a few months ago about moving the nation toward energy independence. You set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third over the next decade by “finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing dependence on oil with cleaner alternate fuels and greater efficiency.” Among the alternate fuels you cited was natural gas.

Yet, despite your speech:

  • You continue to oppose drilling in several regions in Alaska, including ANWR — estimated to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil.
  • As reported by Robert Bluey, deepwater oil drilling permits are down 71 percent from their historical average.
  • Your administration has canceled or stalled the development of oil shale leases in the mountain west.
  • Shell Oil canceled plans to drill for an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil off the Alaskan coast after the EPA denied a permit.
  • No new construction of nuclear power plants has begun in 30 years.
  • As reported by Kevin Mooney, ten oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico since you imposed the deepwater drilling moratorium and 8 other planned rigs were moved elsewhere (i.e., the coasts of Africa, South America).
  • The shut down of coal-fired plants noted above will add tens of billions to energy costs and the Commerce Department estimates tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.

Follow the link to read the questions that follow from this set up.

h1

Pre-development of huge Utah oil shale block begins

August 23, 2011

TomCo Energy is a London-based company which owns leases on over 3000 acres of oil shale land in Utah’s Uintah Basin.  As I have noted several times (most recently just last week), the Uinta Basin is the site of the massive Eocene Green River Shale formation – potentially the largest reservoir of unconventional petroleum in the world.  With total reserves estimated at up to 1.3 trillion barrels,  and ultimately recoverable reserves of 800 billion barrels or more , this formation holds three times or more the amount of Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves.  Unlocking this formation would change the energy outlook of the nation – and of the world – for a century or more.

Today, TomCo has announced that it has awarded contacts toward the development of this resource.  These are pre-development contracts intended to provide the baseline operational and environmental information required to move forward.

There is a long way to go in developing this resource.   As I have noted in the past, the Uinta Basin is a place of scenic beauty and we can anticipate very strong resistance from environmental interests on any development.  However, TomCo will be able to avoid the most visible environmental damage by refraining from traditional mining methods.  TomCo envisions using an in situ heating process to develop their lease blocks.  They plan to use what they call a new type of heating process called EcoShale In-Capsule technology.   While the EcoShale process sounds similar to the in situ process long under development by Shell Oil, a major difference seems to be in the use of water.  Shell’s process was said to utilize three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.  The EcoShale process, on the other hand, claims to use no water.  If so, this would of course be a tremendous development and would disarm one of the main points of attack against shale oil development.  If successful, TomCo’s development would mark the beginning of The Second Age of Oil.

EGP will watch this story closely over the coming months.

h1

Michelle Bachman vs. Christopher Mims on $2 gas – they are both wrong

August 19, 2011

Michelle Bachman made news this week when she pledged that US gasoline prices will drop below $2 if she is elected president.  Bachman did not give any details on how she plans to accomplish this, but it probably centers on maximizing existing US fossil fuel resources in both conventional and unconventional reserves.  This would mean opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and re-opening the Gulf of Mexico for new production, as well as clearing regulatory hurdles for increased coal and shale oil production.

Christopher Mims, writing for the rabidly anti-oil Grist, correctly assumes that Bachman is talking about shale oil (although he is incorrectly reductionist in believing this is all she is talking about).  Mims is also correct that shale oil has been the Next Big Thing in fossil fuels for decades, always available but never economically feasible to extract.  He is wrong, however, in his belief that shale oil will always be out of economic reach.  The fact of the matter is that the technologies that have led to the shale gas revolution – especially horizontal drilling – have been profitably turned to shale oil, and numerous shale fields are already producing oil.  The Bakken field has been instrumental in the economic boom of North Dakota, and other plays like Eagle Ford and Permian Basin are having similar impact.  Mims’ entire analysis of the feasibility of shale oil is out of date.

That, however, does not make Bachman’s “$2 per gallon” assertion correct.  It is still more expensive to produce oil from shale formations than it is to pump conventional oil, and it is not at all clear whether $2 gas can support it, without subsidies (which, if Bachman is to be consistent with the broader Tea Party philosophy, she cannot endorse).  Also, the currently exploited shale oil reserves are the “low hanging fruit” of the kerogen tree.  These plays are terrific for local economies, but they do not represent the kind of massive reserves that would be game-changing.  The game changer is the Eocene Green River Formation in Utah and Colorado, which contains an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of oil, most of the estimated shale reserves in the US.  If – and that is a big if – this formation can be fully developed, then yes, we would see a collapse in oil prices and probably an era of sub $2 gasoline.  However, this formation has unique factors, not the least of which are ecological and environmental – it is an area of immense scenic beauty that will prove politically difficult to despoil for petroleum.

If Bachman thinks that she, or any president, can simply ignore the concerns of organized and opposing political factions, then she is deluded.   A grand bargain will have to be worked out if the US is to maximize its shale resources.  I believe that this will have to include some form of a carbon tax .   You cannot just wish your opponents away in a democratic republic.  You have to give something to get something.   If the oil crowd wants shale, they have to give something to the environmental crowd.   If the Greens want taxes on carbon emissions, they have to give something to the development crowd.  Quid pro quo, everybody wins.  But, until that happens, there is no $2 gas on the horizon.

h1

Three Trenchant Energy Questions

August 18, 2011

Peter Kirsanow has three questions for President Obama (and, really, for all of the GOP candidates, as well.

During your bus tour of the Midwest, you blamed the poor economy on, among other things, Arab Spring uprisings and oil prices.

We import approximately 65 percent of our oil. It’s estimated that the U.S. has up to 2 trillion barrels of oil-equivalent in shale rock deposits — nearly five times the stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Yet your administration has stymied or canceled the development of oil shale leases.

China imports approximately 50 percent of its oil. It’s estimated that Canada has up to 2.2 trillion barrels of oil-equivalent in oil sand deposits. China has invested billions in Canada to access that oil.

Why is China more aggressive in developing North American oil resources than your administration?

What, if any, national-security implications has your administration identified related to China’s investment in Canadian oil sands?

How many windmills need to be built to equal the energy produced by 2 trillion barrels of oil?

h1

It’s not too late for an energy led recovery

August 8, 2011

In a wide ranging interview with Reuters today, Gluskin Sheff lead economist Dave Rosenberg laments the failure of pursuing a shale-gas dominated energy policy for the last two and a half years.

Q:  What can be done now?
A:  On the fiscal side, it’s too late. Nothing on the fiscal side will help the economy.

Q:  What should have been done?
A:  What would have helped is a real energy policy combined with a jobs policy.

Q:  What happened to real energy policy?                                                                                                                                         A:  If we had a permanent shift to shale gas, that would have helped the economy. We thought we weren’t going to see gas prices go back up into the $100s, but they did. Gas prices and oil prices have gone back up. A permanent decrease in energy costs would be really beneficial and help the bottom line in Washington.

It is the opinion here at EGP that it is not too late.  As we have written time and again, there is a fortune beneath our feet.  There are more than a trillion dollars in revenue available to the government from leases and royalties, let alone taxes, from unleashing our fossil fuel wealth.   On the Democratic side, it is going to require courage to take on the powerful anti-fossil fuel wing of the environmental movement.   The GOP can help them do so by offering up something on CO2 reduction, like a carbon tax (which would have to be coupled with an end to both subsidies and fuel taxes).  Give something to get something – which is the essence of politics.

h1

New process for developing Canadian tar sands

August 4, 2011

MIT’s Technology Review reports on a new process for extracting deep tar sand oil by using a solvent rather than through the typical two step heating process.  The latter uses additional energy to release the oil, raising the price, and also releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.  The solvent based process would make the tar sands both cheaper and cleaner to process, and would also make millions of barrels of currently uneconomic oil suddenly viable.

Technological breakthroughs such as this, as well as the hydraulic fracturing binge in the US, are why the fears over Peak Oil are incorrect.  The world in general – and North America in particular – are awash with oil.  Even with the current state of technology, it is estimated that Canada and the US will be able to supply 92% of their energy needs domestically by 2030.  If, that is, we find the technological means of mitigating the climate impact and the political will to do so.

h1

Los Angeles doubles down on Solar Incentive Program

July 11, 2011

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has re-launched its Solar Incentive Program and doubled its size.  They have also announced plans to review proposals that will allow property owners to sell excess power into the city grid.   I believe this will be the “killer app” of the solar energy movement.  Large, centralized projects require too much land, are too expensive and are too distant from consuming cities.  Distributed, local power is a better approach.  Let a million energy entrepreneurs bloom!

h1

Fracking and groundwater contamination: The Data

July 7, 2011

The MIT Energy Initiative’s recently released Future of Natural Gas study is a comprehensive and balanced examination of this essential resource.  It contains much information that I will be digesting and using in future posts.  Today, I want to focus on the report’s analysis of environmental risks associated with natgas fracking.  I want to thank Robert Bryce, whose tweets (@pwrhungry) tipped me to this report.

The authors of the report acknowledge that there are risks associated with natural gas drilling in general, and fracking in particular, just as there are in any resource extraction activity.  These risks need to be accounted for and the industry must take steps to mitigate them going forward, especially as drilling expands into regions of the nation that do not have experience with natural gas drilling and where, therefore, the regulatory and oversight functions will be underdeveloped.  That being noted, it is also important to examine the actual occurrence rate of environmental problems.  Over the past ten years, the authors note, there have been over 20,000 wells drilled and very few incidents of groundwater contamination.  In those cases where contamination has occurred, it has usually been gas contamination not, as most commonly feared, contamination with fracking liquids (p. 39).  The chart below (reproduced without permission) shows the low frequency of incidents over the 5 year period of 2005-2009.

So, in the thousands of wells drilled in that period, there have been just 20 incidents of groundwater contamination.  Thus, while it is a legitimate concern and regulators and drillers alike must be aware of the issue, the fear (sometimes bordering on hysteria) surrounding groundwater contamination is simply not supported by the data.  Can it happen?  Yes.  Is it likely to happen on any given well?  Statistically, no.  Is the reported level of incidence worth ceasing development of this vast resource?  In our opinion, definitely not.

h1

DoD Operational Energy Plan is a fizzle

June 17, 2011

Six months late, the Department of Defense delivered its Operational Energy Plan.  Although applauded by some environmentalists, the plan has been widely panned as a bumper sticker approach devoid of details.    The National Journal tried to be supportive, calling it a “sweeping energy strategy,” but then gave away their real feelings by summing it up thusly:  “Right now, the energy strategy consists of a new office, a new way of thinking about energy, and a three-point plan laid out in an 11-point memo that’s full of slogans but short on specifics”

The DoD’s own Dan Nolan’s DOD Energy Blog ripped the plan, saying it landed “with all the impact of a low velocity marshmallow.”    Read the whole post, then go to the home page and read their dissections of the individual service plans.

h1

Turning Garbage into Gas

June 3, 2011

Popular Science has  a story up on Enerkem, a Canadian company that is working on a process that can turn old utility poles and household trash into ethanol.  Their work is significant enough that it is drawing serious investors, including oil companies.  EnerGeoPolitics is a big supporter of garbage as a renewable energy source.  However, it faces two big hurdles in the US:  First, landfill space is relatively cheap here, but, more importantly, the environmental lobby is committed to a 1970s vision of overall trash reduction and tend to be rejectionists of trash cogeneration.

h1

Green Oil?

June 17, 2010

National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg published a column yesterday comparing the environmental effects of petroleum to some other “green” energy sources, especially contrasting the mounting Deepwater Horizon damage in the Gulf of Mexico to the permanent “dead zone” in the same Gulf caused by agricultural runoff.

Goldberg very well could have mentioned bird deaths, as well.  Oil soaked pelicans are now staples of televised coverage of the spill, and the numbers of birds that will die as a result of this disaster will probably number in the hundreds of thousands, at least (an estimated 500K perished as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill).  Wind energy advocates downplay the number of birds killed by wind turbines (and the annual number is nowhere near as large as what will be lost in this event), but remember that we will be ramping up wind capacity by an order of magnitude, so the number of bird deaths will also increase.  And, the big killer associated with wind – as it will be with solar and as it already is with other means of generating power – is transmission lines.  Estimates are that as many as 174 million birds per year are killed by US transmission lines – some by collision while flying, some by touching their wings to two lines at the same time.

The point is that we live in an energy intensive society, and there is no way (short of the type of self-induced human extinction envisioned by radicals like Peter Singer) to avoid this kind of impact on our environment.  Whatever the means of generating power, modern society will always be a target rich environment for those looking for Green Issues on which to hoist their flag.

But, oil and fossil fuels can be greener than they are.  There are other non-conventional sources beyond deepwater offshore pockets that will be cleaner (if not easier and cheaper, at least initially), such as tar sands or shale oil.   If we couple exploitation of these resources with tightened environmental regulations, we can have both a cleaner environment and energy independence.

As a nation, the last thing we want is independence from oil and coal.  We want energy security, which is not the same thing.  The ascent of the US as a world power was made on the vast quantities of oil and coal with which our nation is blessed, and those same resources are the key to maintaining – and even extending – that position in the future.  “The World is Awash in Oil” is a recurring theme on this blog; I even posted on this topic yesterday, at roughly the same time Goldberg published his discourse.   To beat the drum yet again:  While we may be ending the end of the First Age of Oil (“cheap oil” that is easy to find and pump), we are approaching a Second Age of Oil – the Shale Age – in which oil will be more expensive, but it will also (with new technologies) burn more cleanly.  And, once again, the US with its vast reserves will dominate this age as well.  It won’t be tomorrow or next year, but when shale oil extraction matches the current shale gas extraction, the US will find its trade deficit suddenly turned upside down – not only will the hundreds of billions of dollars currently sent offshore for imported oil be retained, but additional hundreds of billions will be earned through the exportation of our own excess capacity.  Over the course of a couple of decades, trillions of dollars of federal revenues from leases and taxes will reduce and possibly eliminate the government debt.

The environmental costs must be addressed through technology and some sort of carbon accounting scheme, but the hard core anti-oil crowd has to be fought on this issue.  Fossil fuels are the path to a bright future and a new American century.

h1

“Drill, baby, drill” after Deepwater Horizon

May 5, 2010

The proponents of large scale offshore oil exploration and production have taken a serious hit with the massive accident in the Gulf of Mexico.  Much, maybe all, of the momentum that had been on their side has gone with the spill, or will be gone once the oil makes landfall.  Alternative energy proponents are seizing on the disaster to promote their favored play – wind, solar, even nuclear.  “Blow, baby blow”; “Shine, baby, shine”; and “Glow, baby, glow.”

But, none of these are the answer.  Certainly, each can be part of the answer, but they will all be a small piece of the energy puzzle of the future.  Wind is too inconstant and the best places for generation are too far removed from the places of heavy use.  Solar, as it stands, is expensive and inefficient.  Nuclear is dead – no community wants to store the waste such plants generate, and even the plants that we have online are aging and approaching their planned end of service dates with no plans for building new ones to replace them.  Trash is an abundant and renewable resource, and modern facilities that burn trash to generate electricity are very clean and efficient, but they, too, face entrenched opposition from environmentalists not dissimilar to the objections to nuclear plants.  And now, for the foreseeable future, we can also write off deep offshore drilling.

No, the answer to the energy crisis is under our feet.  The US is sitting on a vast storehouse of energy – coal, natural gas, and oil.  Yes, we will have to change the way we use these fuels.  Our vehicles have to be more fuel efficient and we have to capture and sequester the carbon that burning these fuels produces.  But, even with carbon capture, these fuels are inexpensive relative to the available alternatives.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) will allow us to fully embrace the immense reserves of coal, and to turn much of it into a liquid fuel using coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology.  Fracking has opened the door to vast reserves of natural gas trapped in shale.  Curiously, natgas fracking has also opened the door to finally developing the shale oil resource.  Between the three fossil fuels of coal, natgas and oil, the US has enough proven and technically recoverable reserves to fuel the economy for centuries, albeit at a higher price than in the past.

These resources are so vast that, not only would their full exploitation make the US become energy independent, it would make the US a major exporter of energy, its clout growing as the cheap oil from existing sources slowly runs out.  The trade deficit, so badly hurt by our massive importation of oil, would benefit twice:  first, the flow of dollars outward to pay for fuel would stop and, second, there would be a flow of currency inward from nations purchasing fuel from us.  And, they would also be purchasing or licensing CCS and CTL technology to use this resource cleanly and efficiently.  It’s a win-win-win situation – solving the energy crisis, reducing carbon emissions, and cleaning up the current account balance at the same time..

“Drill, baby, drill” might be down for some time, so it’s time to embrace “frack, baby, frack”; “capture, baby, capture”; and “sequester, baby, sequester” in its stead.

h1

CNAS examines the gap between science and national security policy

April 29, 2010

The Center for a New American Security has released a report examining the lack of fruitful communication between climate scientists and national security policymakers.  “Lost in Translation:  Closing the Gap Between Climate Science and National Security Policy” makes a handful of recommendations:

• The president should form an interagency working group on climate change and national security with all relevant interagency partners.
• The Department of Defense should establish a Permanent Advisory Group on Climate Change and National Security under the Defense Science Board.
• The Department of State should appoint climate science advisors to serve within the regional bureaus and on the policy and planning staffs.
• The academic and scientific communities should create incentives for climate scientists to research how climate change could affect national security.

This is rather tepid stuff, in my humble opinion.   The DoD is well aware of the potential implications of climate change, thank you very much.  Take a look, for example, at the US Air Force Bibliography on Climate Change under the Energy Research and Information link list on the right side of this page.  Just a few months ago, the Naval Post Graduate School hosted a conference that featured a number of papers relating to climate change.  This is not an unfamiliar topic in the national security field.

Another bunch of commissions and another layer of advisors is not what is needed.  That reads more like a jobs programs for Ph.D.s.

We need to take a bold policy statement:  Commit to making the US military independent of foreign* sources of energy by the end of the decade (I qualify “foreign” to mean non-North American in this context – we need Canada and Mexico to make this work).  While it will take longer to wean the nation as a whole, we can certainly do it for the military – the world’s single largest consumer of petroleum products.  Of course, overseas deployments will need to utilize local sources, but that can be accounted for on a barrel-by-barrel basis with North American purchases as offsets.  This goal will require the acceptance of coal- and gas-to-liquid fuels with carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as biofuels and other renewables, but it can be done.  If we have the will and the leadership to make the political deals and concessions necessary to get there.

h1

The Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas

April 15, 2010

Secretary of Energy Chu and Secretary of State Clinton are hosting energy minister from throughout the hemisphere in Washington today at the ministerial meeting of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA) that President Obama launched last April at the Summit of the Americas.   This could be a necessary first step to ensuring that the energy reserves of the hemisphere are brought to the global market, and not expropriated by extra-hemispheric nations for neo-mercantilist purposes.  Of course, this is not on the agenda of the meeting in so many words, but it should be its ultimate goal.

The agenda for the conference includes:

  • Advancing Sustainable Energy in the Caribbean
  • Strengthening Central American Energy and Environmental Security
  • Senior ECPA Fellows
  • Advancing Sustainable Biomass Energy
  • Peace Corps Renewable Energy and Climate Change Initiative
  • Promoting Shale Gas in the Americas
  • Cooperating on Sustainable Urban Development and Planning

More details on each at the ECPA home page link, above and, soon, on my link list to the right.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers