Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -


   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

Energy Secy Bodman defines his place in history

Print the article

This entry was posted on 6/29/2008 7:37 PM and is filed under Global Peak Oil,OIL,Global Warming,Economy,Subsidies.

Oil is of course a finite resource.  What are we doing to prepare for it's depletion?  Very little.  The sooner we act, the smaller the consequences.

Some day we'll thank OPEC for not completely "opening up the spigots."  This would lead to an even bigger economic crash some day.  The economic discomfort we're feeling now will benefit us in the long run.  Comparing our actions and OPEC's: they care more about the long-term health of our economy than we do.  The sooner we start using less oil, the better off we'll be.

Then there's that pesky problem of global warming.  OPEC is forcing us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions - that's good.

So what's our Energy Department Secretary doing to bolster U.S. energy policy?

Continuing President Bush/Vice-President Cheney's and House Speaker Pelosi's 'beg for oil' strategy so we can continue to ignore these huge problems.

On June 22, 2008 at the wrap-up of the Jeddah Energy Meeting in Saudia Arabia, DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman called for increased production while giving lip service to energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources:

  "Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil, resulting in increasing—and volatile—prices.  While this problem does not lend itself to quick fixes, I believe there are responsible actions that all nations can and must take to reduce demand and promote the substantial investment in all forms of energy development. While increases in near-term oil production like the one Saudi Arabia offered today are welcome and necessary, fundamentally the market needs to see investments in increased long-term production capability and spare capacity."

Focusing on supply at this pivotal juncture, instead of strategizing on how we can become more efficient and use renewable sources of energy, is Secretary Bodman's legacy.  What a shame.


P.S. - he has been quick to say that nations should fight rising oil prices by cutting subsidies and vastly increasing investment in energy,.......(from AP article in The Capital Times on June 7, 2008).  Great, let's eliminate all U.S. energy subsidies now (they most often have the opposite effect of a federal tax shift from income to energy).  Go.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 7/1/2008 11:02 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      "Then there's that pesky problem of global warming."

      Hi,

      That is the real objection to drilling for more oil, or continuing to mine coal. And that is why 'renewable' is not of primary importance: CO2 is.

      The world, and especially the US, is not going to "run out" of fossil fuel anytime soon. Yes the cheap oil, where it just squirts out of the ground when a well is drilled is getting scarce, but there is plenty of oil to be found in places where it costs more to recover it: on the various continental shelves, in the arctic and under the polar ice, and in various shale formations, especially in Canada. And there is even more energy to be had from coal, and maybe even more than that in methane hydrates on deep ocean floors.

      That is why energy companies invest in exploration and drilling and mining before they invest in wind or solar: the potential for energy return per investment is greater. Power companies want reliable energy for their base load, and only coal, hydro, gas and nuclear can provide that. And of these, only two don't emit CO2. And the hydro dams disrupt the fish and have already been built in most places in the US that have the conditions.

      And if we ever take CO2 seriously, we will need to shut down the coal power plants that now provide half of our electric power while at the same time produce about 20% more power than now.

      I don't see any way to do that if we don't expand nuclear. Not only within the US, but also in places like Iran and North Korea. Instead of trying to end their nuclear programs, we should build plants for them and reprocess the fuel, to insure that it is not used for weapons. But realistically, that just won't happen. So we better learn to live with a changing climate ;-(
      Reply to this
      1. 7/2/2008 6:20 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:

        <That is why energy companies invest in exploration and drilling and mining before they invest in wind or solar: the potential for energy return per investment is greater.>

        Yep, agree.  And, a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy will put the incentives in place so we (as a society) do the best thing for the long-term.  It's just a matter of recognizing the external costs of our energy use and starting to pay for them.

        Thanks for your comments.
        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://solve4biggies.com. All rights reserved.