Apparently, last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) numbers regarding future oil supplies were fudged to protect the innocent or at least our frail economic recovery. According to a whistleblower who whispered in the ear of The Guardian, the world is much closer to running out of oil that we think.
So, what is to be gained or lost by such skullduggery? Stockbrokers, bankers and oil investors jumping out of windows…sure, but what is the downside? (Insert sarcasm here).
The comments in the UK’s respected Guardian stated that the IEA has inflated its 2009 report of oil reserves for fear that the truth would shock world markets into a reactionary panic. IEA is alleged to have put its role as an industry watchdog in the kennel for the time being to fend off a potential buying panic…even at the risk of being exposed for overplaying supplies and chances for finding increased reserves.
On face value this might seem to be based on at least a modicum of twisted logic, but what are the ramifications for world governments who govern, plan and even invest based on IEA’s data? Consider that they also develop their own energy policies based on such essential information.
According to the Guardian’s high-level IEA source, estimates of global oil production growing from its current level of 83 million barrels per day to 105 million barrels per day are as bogus as the Tooth Fairy. The source said many IEA officials believe even 90 million barrels per day is unreachable, but the agency will not lower its forecast because it fears panic could spread through financial markets.
If we have indeed entered the “Peak Oil Zone” (that strange and unfamiliar place where we actually feel the pressure to get real about “energy policy” not oil policy) then it is time to fess up like an alcoholic at an AA meeting. “Hi my name is Joe Consumer and I have a petroleum problem.” (more…)
A new climate change bill was introduced this week – but is it any better than the first one?
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) debuted the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” an 821-page bill designed to “create clean energy jobs, reduce pollution, and protect American security by enhancing domestic energy production and combating global climate change,” as well as creating millions of green energy jobs. Part of that includes reducing carbon emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels.
“This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change,” said Kerry. “Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth — it’s right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead.”
However, reaction to the measure has been mixed. U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is not a fan.
“As I have stated many times before, I want to support legislation that addresses climate change and provides a more secure energy future for America. Unfortunately, the legislation introduced today by Senators Boxer and Kerry follows the House-passed bill down the path of higher energy costs, job losses and economic pain for no benefit. Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land. I cannot support this bill.”
An American Petroleum Institute publication out this week contains two unrelated but ironically intertwined stories. The first – an opinion piece from the Washington Post casts a stone at the U.S. Department of Energy, taking them to task for funding programs to reduce our reliance on petroleum and efforts to speed the transformation of the nation’s vehicle fleet to alternative sources.
The second article quotes the investment bank Morgan Stanley which has raised its forecast of U.S. crude oil price to $105 (U.S.) a barrel in 2012 from $95 due to tightening spare capacity and growing world demand.
Through its Clean Cities program, the Energy Department will use $300 million in economic stimulus money for “petroleum reduction projects.” According to the agency, the funded programs will “speed the transformation of the nation’s vehicle fleet” by putting 9,000 alternative fuel vehicles on the road and creating 542 refueling stations for them. (more…)
The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C., “think tank,” has released the results of a poll it commissioned surveying public attitudes about the renewable fuels standard. The press release headline states “Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Scaling Back Corn Ethanol Mandate, New Poll Finds.”
So, haw many “Farm-Belt Voters” were surveyed for this poll? 500? 1,000?
How about … 40. Of the 802 voters surveyed, only 5 percent were what the pollsters considered farm belters.
But what is truly ridiculous here is the transparency of the bias. Question Three of the poll gives a brief version of boths sides of the issue. But notice how the bias is toward one side:
“Supporters of this corn ethanol mandate say that the law promotes America’s energy security, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and provides financial benefits for farmers and agricultural businesses.”
“Opponents of this corn ethanol mandate say that ethanol production is increasing food prices, produces more net greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline, and contributes to world hunger by converting food to fuel, while doing little to promote energy security. It has been estimated converting the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol would reduce gasoline consumption by only a few percentage points.”
“Two new studies, one from Princeton University and the other from the University of Minnesota in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, found that ethanol contributes more greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline to the atmosphere, while expanded ethanol production encourages habitat destruction.
“Now knowing this, do you believe the ethanol mandate should be…”
No attempt whatsover is made to offer an opposing viewpoint.
Well, it is a political season, and the pollsters are based in Washington, so maybe this survey is just one example of what we have to look forward to in the months ahead. But it’s a shame they stoop to this and cannot rely solely on arguing the facts.
“The RFS requires that increasing amounts of our motor vehicle fuel come from biofuel, such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soy,” said Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). “Homegrown biofuels are good energy policy, good environmental policy and good national security policy. However, there is some concern that RFS as enacted risks taking the biofuels industry backward rather than pushing it ahead. I am particularly concerned about three aspects of the RFS: first, early year biofuel requirements could be too aggressive; second, mandates for specific technologies and feedstock could prove to be overly prescriptive; finally, the environmental restrictions may be too narrow.”
Witnesses at the hearing included Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen, American Coalition for Ethanol executive vice president Brian Jennings, Michael McAdams of the Advance Biofuels Coalition, Charles Drevna of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and Carol Werner with the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
When President Bush signed the Energy Bill last week, he noted that it will take the biofuels industry beyond corn.
New technologies will bring about a new era of energy. So I appreciate the fact that Congress, in the omnibus spending bill that I’m going to sign later on, recognizes that new technologies will help usher in a better quality of life for our citizens. And so we’re going to spend money on new research for alternative feedstocks for ethanol. I mean, we understand the hog growers are getting nervous because the price of corn is up. But we also believe strongly that research will enable us to use wood chips and switchgrass and biomass to be able to develop the ethanol necessary to help us realize the vision outlined in this bill.
Read the president’s full remarks during the bill signing here.
President George W. Bush today signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and ushered in a new era in the way America produces and uses energy.
Bush says the new law is “a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure.” The bill signing took place this morning at the Department of Energy building.
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) President Ron Litterer issued the following statement today regarding final passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act.
“NCGA is delighted President George W. Bush signed the energy bill into law today, taking an historic step in strengthening America’s national security and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
“NCGA appreciates Congress’s strong bipartisan leadership in getting the energy bill to the president’s desk. This legislative victory would not have been possible without the many renewable fuels advocates who paved the way. This energy bill demonstrates that leaders in both the Democratic and Republican parties clearly understand the future energy needs of this country.
“Additionally, I commend the nation’s corn growers for their efforts in making the 15 billion-gallon renewable fuels standard (RFS) for corn ethanol a reality.”
President George W. Bush is expected to sign the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law on Wednesday, after passage of the Senate bill by a vote of 314 to 100 in the House today.
Corn growers nationwide have been vocal in advocating for an energy bill. “The National Corn Growers Association put out a national call to its members to contact their congressional leadership and they responded in a big way,” said NCGA President Ron Litterer. “Growers contacted their members of Congress, wrote letters, sent e-mails, attended town hall meetings, and made Capitol Hill visits. Their diligence has truly paid off.”
President Bush plans to sign the bill into law during a ceremony at the Energy Department Wednesday morning.
We here at NCGA are thrilled the Senate passed the House energy bill last night, but what’s always even better news is when the President signals that the legislation meets with his approval. This is additional encouragement to members of the House as they prepare to vote on the revised package.
By a vote of 86 to 8, the U.S. Senate on Thursday evening overwhelmingly passed an amended energy bill that President Bush can sign.
“If this legislation makes it to the president’s desk, he will sign it into law,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Democratic leadership removed two provisions, one to require utility companies to use a fixed percentage of renewable energy and the other a $21 billion tax package that would have eliminated billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil companies.
The bill would increases the Renewable Fuels Standard to 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022, 21 million gallons from new sources.
Under increased CAFE standards, automakers would be required to increase the average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
The bill still needs to be approved by the House before going to the president for his signature.
Apparently, last week’s International Energy Agency (IEA) numbers regarding future oil supplies were fudged to protect the innocent or at least our frail economic recovery. According to a whistleblower who whispered in the ear of The Guardian, the world is much closer to running out of oil that we think.
“As I have stated many times before, I want to support legislation that addresses climate change and provides a more secure energy future for America. Unfortunately, the legislation introduced today by Senators Boxer and Kerry follows the House-passed bill down the path of higher energy costs, job losses and economic pain for no benefit. Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land. I cannot support this bill.”
An American Petroleum Institute publication out this week contains two unrelated but ironically intertwined stories. The first – an opinion piece from the 
The 
When President Bush signed the Energy Bill last week, he noted that it will take the biofuels industry beyond corn.