Obama's Energy Problem

His recent move to the center on offshore drilling is going to be painted as a flip flop. Additionally the fact that he continues to push for a windfall profits tax on oil companies is pure populism. As for tapping into the strategic reserve it is a bad idea in my opinion. While I, myself, was against offshore drilling a few years ago I believe at this point that moving closer to energy independence is extremely important. As long as the states can decide where drilling can occur off their shores I'll back that.

The windfall profits tax, however, is unfair and not at all business friendly. A more sensible approach would be to cut all subsidies to the oil companies and lease oil and gas rights on public lands (as well as mineral rights) and offshore at fair market value. That at least would be fair. I see no reason to give hand outs to companies that are breaking quarterly profit records repeatedly. As for the strategic reserve rename it the Emergency Military Petroleum Reserve and then leave it alone.

If Obama seriously wants to win he is going to have to differentiate his policies from McCain's and it is far better to have McCain co-opting Obama's policies on energy than it is to have Obama playing catch up to McCain. After all, this is ultimately a race about change vs experience. If Obama can prove that he has quality ideas that seem pragmatic he'll carry the day. Conversely if he appears to be mainly reciting Dem talking points then the election is his to lose.

Please Sir Can I Have Some More?

Imagine the President of the United States of America, with hat in hand, begging the leader of a third world country for anything. Today George W Bush did just that.

From ABC News:

Bush Asks Saudi King to Open Oil Spigots
Makes Personal Appeal After Public Rejection

One hour after his plea for more Saudi oil was publicly rejected by the kingdom's oil minister, President Bush made a private visit to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to again ask him to open the spigots.

The White House revealed Bush's private meeting with the Saudi monarch to reporters aboard Air Force One as the president flew to Egypt on the next leg of his Mideast trip.

...

Earlier Tuesday, Bush made his case for having OPEC, and particularly American ally Saudi Arabia, increase oil production as the price of gas hovers around $3 a gallon.

The Saudi oil minister, however, waited only a short time before announcing that oil prices would remain tied to market forces — a direct slap at Bush.

The president went over the head of the oil minister and made his case to King Abdullah and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the private conversation may have yielded some daylight in the Saudis' hard-line stance.

"The king says that he understands the situation. He's worried about high oil prices and how they can negatively affect economies around the world," Perino said aboard the presidential jetliner. "The president said there's a hope that as a result of these conversations that OPEC would be encouraged to authorize an increase in production … to help deal with the tight supply problems in this time when we have growing economies across the world, especially in China."

Simply put OPEC isn't going to increase supply until high prices drive down demand enough so that they start losing money. And they'll keep playing that game until we actually knuckle down and start moving towards true energy diversity/independence. Until that happens president after president will have to beg for more oil. Until we elect leaders that will do more than subsidize corn farmers and promote the agenda of lobbyists (for example the nuclear power companies or coal companies) this problem isn't going to get solved anytime soon.

We need leaders that understand the connection between oil consumption and terrorism (and/or global warming). That means electing leaders on a federal, state, and city level that will promote public transportation, increased energy efficiency, renewable energy (particularly switchgrass based ethanol), and eschew money from lobbyists. Where will find such leaders? I'm not sure. But we can start by voting for those that we believe are both pragmatic and principled and work our way from there.

Of course until that happens we could actually opt to bite the bullet and conserve.

h/t to Done With Mirrors

**Note** I originally screwed up and typed W's dad's name when I posted. I suck at both names and typing.

The Case Against Ethanol

I've long been an opponent of ethanol as a viable source of alternative energy for America. At best it's a short sighted and inefficient attempt at energy independence at worst its just another way to subsidize corn. Over at Scientific American the recently published an article showing the results of a five year study on switchgrass and found that acre per acre it produces over twenty one times more energy than ethanol.

But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. "It's a prediction because right now there are no biorefineries built that handle cellulosic material" like that which switchgrass provides, Vogel notes. "We're pretty confident the ethanol yield is pretty close." This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is partially funding the construction of six such cellulosic biorefineries, estimated to cost a total of $1.2 billion. The first to be built will be the Range Fuels Biorefinery in Soperton, Ga., which will process wood waste from the timber industry into biofuels and chemicals. The DOE is providing an initial $50 million to start construction.

"Cost competitive, energy responsible cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass or from forestry waste like sawdust and wood chips requires a more complex refining process but it's worth the investment," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at the Range Fuels facility groundbreaking in November. "Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn."

Additionally switchgrass can be grown on land that is of marginal use to farmers meaning that farming it won't raise the price of food the same way diverting corn to ethanol production has.
There is bound to be resistance to the loss of corn subsidies to be sure. However those lawmakers that do resist are most likely much more interested in staying in office (by securing pork/subsidies) than they are in solving problems. Hence those are exactly the type of lawmakers we can do without.

H/T to The Glittering Eye

Conservatives Coming to a Climate Consensus?

No. But they are realizing that achieving energy independence and fighting climate change both have common solutions. Over at Townhall conservative columnist Cal Thompson comes around to a point I made over a year ago about the debate on climate change (although he first does some Gore bashing and accuses those that believe in global warming of being a cult first)

"Republicans and Democrats repeatedly tell us we rely too much on foreign oil, especially that which comes from a current trouble spot, the Middle East, and that which comes from a potential trouble spot, Venezuela. Might it be possible for the CGW crowd and the Church of Free Enterprise (CFE) to come together for the common purpose of reducing our reliance on foreign oil? CGW fundamentalists would get what they want — a reduced carbon footprint and supposedly lower global temperatures (go ahead and let them believe it) — while CFE parishioners would rejoice that Saudi Arabia’s hold on us (not to mention its use of our money to underwrite terrorism) could be broken.

If we would launch an energy independence program with the intensity of a Marshall Plan for Europe, or a man-on-the-moon project, to liberate ourselves from the petroleum despots by developing synthetic fuels and finding new energy sources closer to home — especially nuclear power — we could strike a blow against the Islamofascists more damaging than bombs and bullets."

I'm glad he's finally gotten past his partisan myopia on this topic and started to see the forest rather than the trees. However Mr. Thompson's call for "an energy independence program with the intensity of a ... man-on-the-moon project" went out years ago and was in part answered by Republicans for Environmental Protection (and other groups) when The Apollo Alliance was formed. Unfortunately he missed it because at the time as he (and many others) were too busy painting anyone concerned about global warming as a liberal flake. The result being that we are years behind where we could and should be in regards to energy independence and the Dems picked up the hybrid energy independence/global warming ball and ran with it which contributed to their ability to oust the GOP majority.

My point is that too many pundits, commentators, columnists, and bloggers are discounting the message due to the political affiliations of its messenger to the detriment of the greater good (and their political party). If the drivers of public opinion spent half as much time considering the possible merits of their opponents ideas as they do attacking the messenger we'd be in much better shape as a nation and much farther down the path to energy independence than we are. And maybe if Mr. Thompson can realize different problems sometimes have the exact same solutions and that a concerted bipartisan effort is needed for the greater good others can too.

H/T to Terra Rosa