Obama Was Right

I was traveling the past couple of days, or I would have been all over this story. As it stands, I certainly won’t be the first one to make this point.

You may know that Barack Obama recently suggested that if all Americans kept their tires properly inflated and their cars correctly maintained, this would save as much oil as we could get from new drilling. Here he is making these comments, courtesy of YouTube. Obama’s critics (and his political opponent) jumped all over this, and are having a field day with it, suggesting that this is Obama’s energy plan, that he said “that’s all we need to do”, or “this will make us energy independent.” That’s not what he said. Time has already weighed in with a definitive rebuttal:

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

I thought the issue had probably passed, but apparently not. I am presently in the Netherlands, and during my visits here I have a roommate who is very conservative. This morning, he was listening to Fox News, and I overheard Sean Hannity ask “How on earth is keeping your tires inflated going to reduce dependence on foreign oil?” As someone who has long advocated this as a way to reduce gasoline consumption, I had a hard time believing that Hannity had asked that question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that under-inflated tires alone waste about 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline a year. To put that in perspective, that’s 28 million barrels of gasoline a year, worth over $3 billion that we won’t send out of the country for foreign oil purchases.

Of course I mentioned this to my roommate. I said “You know, Obama is correct about that.” My roommate then said that he has a device in his tires that enables his tire pressure to be monitored remotely. He said - completely tongue in cheek - that we should require this on all new vehicles and have someone in the government monitoring everyone’s tire pressure to make sure they were properly inflated. If not, fine them $25 for being unpatriotic and supporting foreign dictators with their unnecessary gasoline purchases.

Whether it’s a good idea to get government involved in monitoring our tire pressure is beside the point. The bottom line is that the suggestion that this would reduce our dependence on foreign oil is correct. While I have criticisms of some aspects of Obama’s energy plans (McCain’s as well; his gas-tax holiday is a joke) - and I believe he is definitely pandering on this windfall profits issue - his comments here are on the mark.

Further, I have a real problem with people who would ridicule someone for suggesting that we conserve. This sends the wrong message that this is not a serious issue. Our energy problems aren’t going to be completely solved by increasing supplies (drilling our way to independence) or by conservation. It’s going to require both. Let’s keep that in mind, and not suggest that conservation won’t have an important role to play.

The Lowdown on Miscanthus

Now that Blogger has determined that I am in fact a real person (see this note for an explanation), I am back in business. I notice the Barack Obama is now in favor of my proposal for allowing drilling and using that to fund alternative energy. Just glad I could help. Call me if you need an energy secretary who detests politics and doesn’t respond to direction very well. More on that proposal in a later post, but first there was some topical alternative energy news from a couple of days ago.

A new report from researchers at the University of Illinois suggests that using Miscanthus as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production would be far superior to switchgrass:

Miscanthus can meet U.S. biofuels goal using less land than corn or switchgrass

Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use – a current White House goal – would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage.

“What we’ve found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn,” said crop sciences professor Stephen P. Long, who led the study.

In trials across Illinois, switchgrass, a perennial grass which, like Miscanthus, requires fewer chemical and mechanical inputs than corn, produced only about as much ethanol feedstock per acre as corn, Long said.

One finding that I felt was significant:

“One of the criticisms of using any biomass as a biofuel source is it has been claimed that plants are not very efficient – about 0.1 percent efficiency of conversion of sunlight into biomass,” Long said. “What we show here is on average Miscanthus is in fact about 1 percent efficient, so about 1 percent of sunlight ends up as biomass.”

That’s pretty good solar capture for biomass. It is far short of the efficiency of solar cells, but you have a built in storage mechanism - the primary weakness of solar power.

So what’s the catch? Seems like there is always a catch, doesn’t it? The catch is that it is still highly energy intensive to turn this biomass into ethanol. You have energy inputs in growing and harvesting the biomass, getting it to the ethanol plant, converting the cellulose to sugars, fermenting the sugars to ethanol, and then purifying the highly dilute broth to fuel-grade ethanol. That is of course the conventional cellulosic route, and as I have argued before I do not believe this route will ever be commecially viable. The chemistry and physics are strongly aligned against you, which is why we have spent over 40 years failing to crack this nut. That doesn’t mean that companies won’t try to commercialize. They are trying. I just don’t think they will be commercially viable, any more than I think a company is going to cure the common cold in the next 3 years.

Biomass gasification is another story. While the capital costs are still very high, in the long run you may be able to justify growing something like Miscanthus for a gasification plant to produce ethanol, methanol, or diesel. First, though, there is a lot of available waste biomass that could be utilized. Use the waste that is currently rotting or just being burned, and then let’s debate whether or not to dedicate good cropland to growing fuel.

News on a Lazy Sunday

First up, Vinod Khosla:

On the Record: Vinod Khosla

On biofuels:

I have no question that in 10 years, there’s no way oil will be able to compete with biofuels. Even in five years. Now it will take a long time to scale biofuels, but I’m the only one in the world forecasting oil dropping in price to $35 a barrel by 2030. I’ll put it on the record: Oil will not be able to compete with cellulosic biofuels. If you do it from food, the food will get so expensive you can’t make fuel out of it.

Let’s focus our energy on the research and development and innovation that allows us to produce a $1-a-gallon fuel. There’s no question about it, we can produce it for $1 a gallon and retail it at Wal-Mart for $1.99 a gallon and create a competitor for oil. Oil is a monopoly. It leads to an energy crisis, it leads to a terrorism crisis and it leads to an environmental crisis. So we have to replace it.

And on electric cars and solar power:

Others talk about things like electric cars. Nice cars. In fact, we can make money on them and are investing in electric hybrid batteries and things like that. But they will not make a dent in either worldwide oil consumption or carbon reduction in the next 20 years. And that’s why we have to be clear about nice, (patchwork) solutions that make people feel good.

People say, “Priuses are selling a lot, people want them.” Yeah, but so are Gucci bags. You know, they make people feel good, they’re great fashion statements. Do they reduce carbon emissions enough? If you do a critical analysis, a hybrid reduces carbon emissions about the same as corn ethanol, and costs 100 times more. So what’s the point?

I drive a hybrid, and I can afford it. But in the next 15 years, we’re going to ship a billion cars. Unless a technology can reduce carbon emissions dramatically for 50 to 80 percent of those cars, we haven’t made a dent in the climate change problem. And too many politicians are focused on silly ideas like that, because politically it sounds good.

Take San Francisco, for instance. Putting solar cells on anybody’s roof is absolutely silly, in a foggy city like San Francisco. If somebody wants to do it with their own money, that’ s great. Do it. But don’t do it with other people’s money.

Somehow, not-so-sunny Germany has developed a large solar industry.

Next, Barack Obama shows that he can pander like everyone else:

Obama: Solving energy crisisis going to take time

It isn’t right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt just to fill up their tanks. That’s why we’ll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use it to help Oregon families reduce energy costs.

We’ll also take steps to reduce the price of oil and increase transparency in how prices are set so we can ensure that energy companies aren’t bending the rules. And to help Oregon families meet the rising cost of gas, we’ll put a middle-class tax cut in their pockets that will save them $1,000 a year, and we’ll eliminate income taxes altogether for seniors making less than $50,000.

But the truth is, there is no easy answer to our energy crisis — and we need a president who’s going to be straight with us about that; a president who’s going to tell the American people not just what they want to hear, but what they need to know.

So, in addition to telling them what they want to hear, you will also tell them they need to hear. Funny, I didn’t read the “need to hear” bit in that article.

Hillary’s Stupid Energy Plan

I had intended for this, my 500th essay on this blog, to be about my recent trip to Choren’s new plant in Germany. But Hillary Clinton has just come out with a plan for high gasoline prices so asinine, it had to be addressed. Note that I have already picked on McCain’s plan, and Obama’s plan isn’t all that different from Hillary’s. In my opinion none of these candidates have demonstrated that they actually have a grasp of the reasons for high oil and gas prices.

So, in stark contrast to the proposals I laid out in my previous essay, here is Clinton’s plan, along with some comments from me:

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump

Hillary’s plan includes:

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

This plan builds on Hillary’s long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming.

Notice the irony in that last phrase? Let’s lower gas prices and address global warming! Hey, I know what else we can do. Let’s eat more, and lose weight. It’s genius.

Let’s pick apart her proposals, and I will tell you why her positions are stupid.

Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain’s plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.

Why This is Stupid

If Hillary had anyone on her staff who had a clue about energy issues, they would see that refineries are already cut back due to low margins. Historically, low margins are the very reason that underinvestment has taken place in the refining sector. I seem to recall many politicians screaming about this underinvestment last year (even as they argued to confiscate profits which happened to be good in the refining sector last year). Total oil company profits are currently a result of very high oil prices - and most of that is flowing right out of the U.S. So there are a couple of ways this could break, both contrary to Hillary’s expectations.

If the policy could actually be implemented as Hillary outlines it, it ensures that demand remains high through the summer months. It sends a message to consumers that high gas prices really aren’t a worry; the government is going to take care of you. Thinking about buying a Prius? No, don’t do that. Because you see, the government is going to do everything possible to ensure that gas prices stay low, so you can continue to contribute your carbon emissions and we can continue our dependence on oil.

But that’s not really how it is likely to pan out. What will happen is that oil companies will allocate those taxes to their already struggling refining sector (they don’t produce all that much oil in the U.S.) Then what happens? Percent refinery utilization, which is currently running in the low 80’s (normal for this time of year, when margins are usually better, is upper 80’s or lower 90’s) will fall into the 70’s. Why? Let’s say you run a business, and you are making thin profits on one of the products you sell. Now someone wants to tax it at a higher rate. What do you do? Personally, I would shift my investments into something that offered a higher return. That’s exactly what oil companies will do. There will be less incentive to focus on upgrading and maximizing refining capacity.

Next up:

Oil and gasoline markets contain loopholes for traders, and the markets are inadequately policed by regulators under current law. As a result, there is considerable concern that current market prices reflect the influence of speculators and other forces beyond supply and demand. In early April, an Exxon Mobil executive testified under oath before a House committee that the price of oil should be $50 to $55 per barrel based on supply and demand fundamentals.

Why This is Stupid

So now you trust ExxonMobil? Do you believe them all the time, or only when you are trying to make a specific point?

The reason this proposal is stupid is not because there isn’t speculation in the market: There is. The problem is trying to identify how much, how to police it, and most importantly - how to apply those policies world wide. Because haven’t you heard? The oil market isn’t specific to the U.S. We don’t pay higher prices than they pay in Asia because of speculation. If speculation was responsible for $50 of the price as Clinton implies above, shouldn’t we see gross disparities in crude pricing?

How about taking on OPEC? A stupid plan wouldn’t be complete without threatening to bring legal action against OPEC in order to force them to lower prices for us:

OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC’s control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas - With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC’s refusal to increase production.

Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law - Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market.

Why This is Stupid

This is probably the stupidest of her proposals. Oh, the can of worms it would open up. Here’s the analogy I have used before. Let’s say Saudi Arabia loves American wood. They love it so much, that their purchases start to drive the price higher. It seems other countries love American wood as well, so supplies are tight. But Saudi feels like they have a God-given right to cheap wood. Therefore, they demand that we increase production of our wood to bring prices back down. They demand that we overproduce our resources in order to meet what they would prefer to pay, because they have grown dependent on our wood. So, they threaten to sue and take us before the world court.

Of course the big difference here is that wood is a renewable resource. When Saudi’s oil is gone, what else do they have? Yet we demand that they produce according to the price we prefer to pay - not necessarily what’s in their own best long-term interest. How self-centered is that? Can’t Hillary recall when the Mideast cut us off from their oil because they didn’t like our policies? Does she think they couldn’t do it again?

Hey, we haven’t pulled the Big Oil card since the first paragraph. You just can’t do that often enough when you are pandering for votes:

Hillary believes that in addition to imposing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, Congress should move immediately to end the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits. These subsidies are in part a result of the 2005 Energy Bill she voted against. She would use those resources this year to provide assistance to lower-income families who are not only being hit at the gas pump, but with skyrocketing energy and food bills as well.

Why This is Stupid

Similar to her first proposal, Hillary wants to send a message that it isn’t the consumer here that is the problem, it’s those big, bad oil companies and their gouging ways. That’s why you are paying higher prices: Greed. She will take that money and return it to the consumers, thus achieving her goal of lowering prices AND fighting global warming. Don’t start that car pool just yet - Hillary is going to refund the extra money you have been paying. No need to worry.

Any why not tap the SPR?

Hillary is calling on President Bush stop taking oil off the market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is now 97 percent full, which analysts believe is more than adequate. Continuing to fill it at these high prices exacerbates high oil prices and costs taxpayers money. Hillary also believes that the SPR should be more actively managed to enable releases from the SPR to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Why This is Stupid

If the SPR is 97 percent full, why do you need a policy to stop filling it? Won’t that happen pretty quickly anyway? Also, it seems that Hillary (and many others) don’t understand the purpose of the SPR. It is for national emergencies. The fact that I am paying more for gasoline is not a national emergency. A war with Iran that could curtail our imports sharply is more along the lines of what the SPR is for. And if you drain it right now for political purposes, and then you need it for an actual emergency, it wasn’t very strategic, was it?

Using it to try to counter market spikes suggests that you can predict where the market will be in the future - when you need to buy the crude back. The fact is, politicians on both sides have been urging releases from the SPR ever since oil was at $20/bbl. Where would we be now if we had done so? With an empty SPR, and with oil prices still at very high levels.

In the long term, Clinton proposes the following:

Proposals to Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil Over the Long-Term

Key elements of that plan include:

Raising fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 55 miles per gallon by 2030;

A $150 billion investment in researching, developing, and deploying renewable and alternative energy;

Cutting our foreign oil imports by two-thirds by 2030;

Providing $1.5 billion per year for public transit, an additional $1 billion for intercity rail, and additional funds for congestion reduction, better traffic management and telecommuting;

Providing tax credits and research and development funding for plug-in-hybrid vehicles, which can get up to 100 mpg; and

Conserving fuel in the federal fleet. Hillary will call on all federal government agencies to suspend non-essential travel and other activities that use gasoline or diesel fuel, and encourage employees to carpool, telecommute, and use public transportation to reduce fuel use. And she will direct federal employees to reduce maximum speeds to conserve fuel, with exceptions for law enforcement and other emergency services. Under Hillary’s plan, the agencies will to report to the White House once a month on their energy use and the impact of conservation efforts.

That 3rd one is brilliant: Cut our oil imports by 2/3rds. Why didn’t someone already think of this?

I won’t call those proposals stupid, but they all have something in common: The painless fix. There isn’t a single proposal there that suggests consumers need to cut back (except for the last one, in which government employees are asked to do so). For the average consumer, this all sounds great. They get to continue the status quo, and Hillary is going to see to it that they are not inconvenienced.

This is the kind of shallow political rhetoric that put us where we are in the first place. Two thumbs down for Hillary’s energy plan. Now where’s that president with courage; the one I was looking for in my previous post?

Hillary’s Stupid Energy Plan

I had intended for this, my 500th essay on this blog, to be about my recent trip to Choren’s new plant in Germany. But Hillary Clinton has just come out with a plan for high gasoline prices so asinine, it had to be addressed. Note that I have already picked on McCain’s plan, and Obama’s plan isn’t all that different from Hillary’s. In my opinion none of these candidates have demonstrated that they actually have a grasp of the reasons for high oil and gas prices.

So, in stark contrast to the proposals I laid out in my previous essay, here is Clinton’s plan, along with some comments from me:

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump

Hillary’s plan includes:

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

This plan builds on Hillary’s long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming.

Notice the irony in that last phrase? Let’s lower gas prices and address global warming! Hey, I know what else we can do. Let’s eat more, and lose weight. It’s genius.

Let’s pick apart her proposals, and I will tell you why her positions are stupid.

Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain’s plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.

Why This is Stupid

If Hillary had anyone on her staff who had a clue about energy issues, they would see that refineries are already cut back due to low margins. Historically, low margins are the very reason that underinvestment has taken place in the refining sector. I seem to recall many politicians screaming about this underinvestment last year (even as they argued to confiscate profits which happened to be good in the refining sector last year). Total oil company profits are currently a result of very high oil prices - and most of that is flowing right out of the U.S. So there are a couple of ways this could break, both contrary to Hillary’s expectations.

If the policy could actually be implemented as Hillary outlines it, it ensures that demand remains high through the summer months. It sends a message to consumers that high gas prices really aren’t a worry; the government is going to take care of you. Thinking about buying a Prius? No, don’t do that. Because you see, the government is going to do everything possible to ensure that gas prices stay low, so you can continue to contribute your carbon emissions and we can continue our dependence on oil.

But that’s not really how it is likely to pan out. What will happen is that oil companies will allocate those taxes to their already struggling refining sector (they don’t produce all that much oil in the U.S.) Then what happens? Percent refinery utilization, which is currently running in the low 80’s (normal for this time of year, when margins are usually better, is upper 80’s or lower 90’s) will fall into the 70’s. Why? Let’s say you run a business, and you are making thin profits on one of the products you sell. Now someone wants to tax it at a higher rate. What do you do? Personally, I would shift my investments into something that offered a higher return. That’s exactly what oil companies will do. There will be less incentive to focus on upgrading and maximizing refining capacity.

Next up:

Oil and gasoline markets contain loopholes for traders, and the markets are inadequately policed by regulators under current law. As a result, there is considerable concern that current market prices reflect the influence of speculators and other forces beyond supply and demand. In early April, an Exxon Mobil executive testified under oath before a House committee that the price of oil should be $50 to $55 per barrel based on supply and demand fundamentals.

Why This is Stupid

So now you trust ExxonMobil? Do you believe them all the time, or only when you are trying to make a specific point?

The reason this proposal is stupid is not because there isn’t speculation in the market: There is. The problem is trying to identify how much, how to police it, and most importantly - how to apply those policies world wide. Because haven’t you heard? The oil market isn’t specific to the U.S. We don’t pay higher prices than they pay in Asia because of speculation. If speculation was responsible for $50 of the price as Clinton implies above, shouldn’t we see gross disparities in crude pricing?

How about taking on OPEC? A stupid plan wouldn’t be complete without threatening to bring legal action against OPEC in order to force them to lower prices for us:

OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC’s control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas - With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC’s refusal to increase production.

Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law - Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market.

Why This is Stupid

This is probably the stupidest of her proposals. Oh, the can of worms it would open up. Here’s the analogy I have used before. Let’s say Saudi Arabia loves American wood. They love it so much, that their purchases start to drive the price higher. It seems other countries love American wood as well, so supplies are tight. But Saudi feels like they have a God-given right to cheap wood. Therefore, they demand that we increase production of our wood to bring prices back down. They demand that we overproduce our resources in order to meet what they would prefer to pay, because they have grown dependent on our wood. So, they threaten to sue and take us before the world court.

Of course the big difference here is that wood is a renewable resource. When Saudi’s oil is gone, what else do they have? Yet we demand that they produce according to the price we prefer to pay - not necessarily what’s in their own best long-term interest. How self-centered is that? Can’t Hillary recall when the Mideast cut us off from their oil because they didn’t like our policies? Does she think they couldn’t do it again?

Hey, we haven’t pulled the Big Oil card since the first paragraph. You just can’t do that often enough when you are pandering for votes:

Hillary believes that in addition to imposing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, Congress should move immediately to end the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits. These subsidies are in part a result of the 2005 Energy Bill she voted against. She would use those resources this year to provide assistance to lower-income families who are not only being hit at the gas pump, but with skyrocketing energy and food bills as well.

Why This is Stupid

Similar to her first proposal, Hillary wants to send a message that it isn’t the consumer here that is the problem, it’s those big, bad oil companies and their gouging ways. That’s why you are paying higher prices: Greed. She will take that money and return it to the consumers, thus achieving her goal of lowering prices AND fighting global warming. Don’t start that car pool just yet - Hillary is going to refund the extra money you have been paying. No need to worry.

Any why not tap the SPR?

Hillary is calling on President Bush stop taking oil off the market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is now 97 percent full, which analysts believe is more than adequate. Continuing to fill it at these high prices exacerbates high oil prices and costs taxpayers money. Hillary also believes that the SPR should be more actively managed to enable releases from the SPR to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Why This is Stupid

If the SPR is 97 percent full, why do you need a policy to stop filling it? Won’t that happen pretty quickly anyway? Also, it seems that Hillary (and many others) don’t understand the purpose of the SPR. It is for national emergencies. The fact that I am paying more for gasoline is not a national emergency. A war with Iran that could curtail our imports sharply is more along the lines of what the SPR is for. And if you drain it right now for political purposes, and then you need it for an actual emergency, it wasn’t very strategic, was it?

Using it to try to counter market spikes suggests that you can predict where the market will be in the future - when you need to buy the crude back. The fact is, politicians on both sides have been urging releases from the SPR ever since oil was at $20/bbl. Where would we be now if we had done so? With an empty SPR, and with oil prices still at very high levels.

In the long term, Clinton proposes the following:

Proposals to Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil Over the Long-Term

Key elements of that plan include:

Raising fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 55 miles per gallon by 2030;

A $150 billion investment in researching, developing, and deploying renewable and alternative energy;

Cutting our foreign oil imports by two-thirds by 2030;

Providing $1.5 billion per year for public transit, an additional $1 billion for intercity rail, and additional funds for congestion reduction, better traffic management and telecommuting;

Providing tax credits and research and development funding for plug-in-hybrid vehicles, which can get up to 100 mpg; and

Conserving fuel in the federal fleet. Hillary will call on all federal government agencies to suspend non-essential travel and other activities that use gasoline or diesel fuel, and encourage employees to carpool, telecommute, and use public transportation to reduce fuel use. And she will direct federal employees to reduce maximum speeds to conserve fuel, with exceptions for law enforcement and other emergency services. Under Hillary’s plan, the agencies will to report to the White House once a month on their energy use and the impact of conservation efforts.

That 3rd one is brilliant: Cut our oil imports by 2/3rds. Why didn’t someone already think of this?

I won’t call those proposals stupid, but they all have something in common: The painless fix. There isn’t a single proposal there that suggests consumers need to cut back (except for the last one, in which government employees are asked to do so). For the average consumer, this all sounds great. They get to continue the status quo, and Hillary is going to see to it that they are not inconvenienced.

This is the kind of shallow political rhetoric that put us where we are in the first place. Two thumbs down for Hillary’s energy plan. Now where’s that president with courage; the one I was looking for in my previous post?

Hillary’s Stupid Energy Plan

I had intended for this, my 500th essay on this blog, to be about my recent trip to Choren’s new plant in Germany. But Hillary Clinton has just come out with a plan for high gasoline prices so asinine, it had to be addressed. Note that I have already picked on McCain’s plan, and Obama’s plan isn’t all that different from Hillary’s. In my opinion none of these candidates have demonstrated that they actually have a grasp of the reasons for high oil and gas prices.

So, in stark contrast to the proposals I laid out in my previous essay, here is Clinton’s plan, along with some comments from me:

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump

Hillary’s plan includes:

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

This plan builds on Hillary’s long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming.

Notice the irony in that last phrase? Let’s lower gas prices and address global warming! Hey, I know what else we can do. Let’s eat more, and lose weight. It’s genius.

Let’s pick apart her proposals, and I will tell you why her positions are stupid.

Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain’s plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.

Why This is Stupid

If Hillary had anyone on her staff who had a clue about energy issues, they would see that refineries are already cut back due to low margins. Historically, low margins are the very reason that underinvestment has taken place in the refining sector. I seem to recall many politicians screaming about this underinvestment last year (even as they argued to confiscate profits which happened to be good in the refining sector last year). Total oil company profits are currently a result of very high oil prices - and most of that is flowing right out of the U.S. So there are a couple of ways this could break, both contrary to Hillary’s expectations.

If the policy could actually be implemented as Hillary outlines it, it ensures that demand remains high through the summer months. It sends a message to consumers that high gas prices really aren’t a worry; the government is going to take care of you. Thinking about buying a Prius? No, don’t do that. Because you see, the government is going to do everything possible to ensure that gas prices stay low, so you can continue to contribute your carbon emissions and we can continue our dependence on oil.

But that’s not really how it is likely to pan out. What will happen is that oil companies will allocate those taxes to their already struggling refining sector (they don’t produce all that much oil in the U.S.) Then what happens? Percent refinery utilization, which is currently running in the low 80’s (normal for this time of year, when margins are usually better, is upper 80’s or lower 90’s) will fall into the 70’s. Why? Let’s say you run a business, and you are making thin profits on one of the products you sell. Now someone wants to tax it at a higher rate. What do you do? Personally, I would shift my investments into something that offered a higher return. That’s exactly what oil companies will do. There will be less incentive to focus on upgrading and maximizing refining capacity.

Next up:

Oil and gasoline markets contain loopholes for traders, and the markets are inadequately policed by regulators under current law. As a result, there is considerable concern that current market prices reflect the influence of speculators and other forces beyond supply and demand. In early April, an Exxon Mobil executive testified under oath before a House committee that the price of oil should be $50 to $55 per barrel based on supply and demand fundamentals.

Why This is Stupid

So now you trust ExxonMobil? Do you believe them all the time, or only when you are trying to make a specific point?

The reason this proposal is stupid is not because there isn’t speculation in the market: There is. The problem is trying to identify how much, how to police it, and most importantly - how to apply those policies world wide. Because haven’t you heard? The oil market isn’t specific to the U.S. We don’t pay higher prices than they pay in Asia because of speculation. If speculation was responsible for $50 of the price as Clinton implies above, shouldn’t we see gross disparities in crude pricing?

How about taking on OPEC? A stupid plan wouldn’t be complete without threatening to bring legal action against OPEC in order to force them to lower prices for us:

OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC’s control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas - With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC’s refusal to increase production.

Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law - Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market.

Why This is Stupid

This is probably the stupidest of her proposals. Oh, the can of worms it would open up. Here’s the analogy I have used before. Let’s say Saudi Arabia loves American wood. They love it so much, that their purchases start to drive the price higher. It seems other countries love American wood as well, so supplies are tight. But Saudi feels like they have a God-given right to cheap wood. Therefore, they demand that we increase production of our wood to bring prices back down. They demand that we overproduce our resources in order to meet what they would prefer to pay, because they have grown dependent on our wood. So, they threaten to sue and take us before the world court.

Of course the big difference here is that wood is a renewable resource. When Saudi’s oil is gone, what else do they have? Yet we demand that they produce according to the price we prefer to pay - not necessarily what’s in their own best long-term interest. How self-centered is that? Can’t Hillary recall when the Mideast cut us off from their oil because they didn’t like our policies? Does she think they couldn’t do it again?

Hey, we haven’t pulled the Big Oil card since the first paragraph. You just can’t do that often enough when you are pandering for votes:

Hillary believes that in addition to imposing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, Congress should move immediately to end the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits. These subsidies are in part a result of the 2005 Energy Bill she voted against. She would use those resources this year to provide assistance to lower-income families who are not only being hit at the gas pump, but with skyrocketing energy and food bills as well.

Why This is Stupid

Similar to her first proposal, Hillary wants to send a message that it isn’t the consumer here that is the problem, it’s those big, bad oil companies and their gouging ways. That’s why you are paying higher prices: Greed. She will take that money and return it to the consumers, thus achieving her goal of lowering prices AND fighting global warming. Don’t start that car pool just yet - Hillary is going to refund the extra money you have been paying. No need to worry.

Any why not tap the SPR?

Hillary is calling on President Bush stop taking oil off the market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is now 97 percent full, which analysts believe is more than adequate. Continuing to fill it at these high prices exacerbates high oil prices and costs taxpayers money. Hillary also believes that the SPR should be more actively managed to enable releases from the SPR to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Why This is Stupid

If the SPR is 97 percent full, why do you need a policy to stop filling it? Won’t that happen pretty quickly anyway? Also, it seems that Hillary (and many others) don’t understand the purpose of the SPR. It is for national emergencies. The fact that I am paying more for gasoline is not a national emergency. A war with Iran that could curtail our imports sharply is more along the lines of what the SPR is for. And if you drain it right now for political purposes, and then you need it for an actual emergency, it wasn’t very strategic, was it?

Using it to try to counter market spikes suggests that you can predict where the market will be in the future - when you need to buy the crude back. The fact is, politicians on both sides have been urging releases from the SPR ever since oil was at $20/bbl. Where would we be now if we had done so? With an empty SPR, and with oil prices still at very high levels.

In the long term, Clinton proposes the following:

Proposals to Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil Over the Long-Term

Key elements of that plan include:

Raising fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 55 miles per gallon by 2030;

A $150 billion investment in researching, developing, and deploying renewable and alternative energy;

Cutting our foreign oil imports by two-thirds by 2030;

Providing $1.5 billion per year for public transit, an additional $1 billion for intercity rail, and additional funds for congestion reduction, better traffic management and telecommuting;

Providing tax credits and research and development funding for plug-in-hybrid vehicles, which can get up to 100 mpg; and

Conserving fuel in the federal fleet. Hillary will call on all federal government agencies to suspend non-essential travel and other activities that use gasoline or diesel fuel, and encourage employees to carpool, telecommute, and use public transportation to reduce fuel use. And she will direct federal employees to reduce maximum speeds to conserve fuel, with exceptions for law enforcement and other emergency services. Under Hillary’s plan, the agencies will to report to the White House once a month on their energy use and the impact of conservation efforts.

That 3rd one is brilliant: Cut our oil imports by 2/3rds. Why didn’t someone already think of this?

I won’t call those proposals stupid, but they all have something in common: The painless fix. There isn’t a single proposal there that suggests consumers need to cut back (except for the last one, in which government employees are asked to do so). For the average consumer, this all sounds great. They get to continue the status quo, and Hillary is going to see to it that they are not inconvenienced.

This is the kind of shallow political rhetoric that put us where we are in the first place. Two thumbs down for Hillary’s energy plan. Now where’s that president with courage; the one I was looking for in my previous post?

Hillary’s Stupid Energy Plan

I had intended for this, my 500th essay on this blog, to be about my recent trip to Choren’s new plant in Germany. But Hillary Clinton has just come out with a plan for high gasoline prices so asinine, it had to be addressed. Note that I have already picked on McCain’s plan, and Obama’s plan isn’t all that different from Hillary’s. In my opinion none of these candidates have demonstrated that they actually have a grasp of the reasons for high oil and gas prices.

So, in stark contrast to the proposals I laid out in my previous essay, here is Clinton’s plan, along with some comments from me:

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump

Hillary’s plan includes:

Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

This plan builds on Hillary’s long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming.

Notice the irony in that last phrase? Let’s lower gas prices and address global warming! Hey, I know what else we can do. Let’s eat more, and lose weight. It’s genius.

Let’s pick apart her proposals, and I will tell you why her positions are stupid.

Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months. Hillary will ensure that this relief is passed along to consumers by charging the Federal Trade Commission with conducting aggressive oversight. Unlike Senator McCain’s plan, Hillary’s plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. This will ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is not affected at all by the gas tax suspension, and can continue to support critical repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure and highways.

Why This is Stupid

If Hillary had anyone on her staff who had a clue about energy issues, they would see that refineries are already cut back due to low margins. Historically, low margins are the very reason that underinvestment has taken place in the refining sector. I seem to recall many politicians screaming about this underinvestment last year (even as they argued to confiscate profits which happened to be good in the refining sector last year). Total oil company profits are currently a result of very high oil prices - and most of that is flowing right out of the U.S. So there are a couple of ways this could break, both contrary to Hillary’s expectations.

If the policy could actually be implemented as Hillary outlines it, it ensures that demand remains high through the summer months. It sends a message to consumers that high gas prices really aren’t a worry; the government is going to take care of you. Thinking about buying a Prius? No, don’t do that. Because you see, the government is going to do everything possible to ensure that gas prices stay low, so you can continue to contribute your carbon emissions and we can continue our dependence on oil.

But that’s not really how it is likely to pan out. What will happen is that oil companies will allocate those taxes to their already struggling refining sector (they don’t produce all that much oil in the U.S.) Then what happens? Percent refinery utilization, which is currently running in the low 80’s (normal for this time of year, when margins are usually better, is upper 80’s or lower 90’s) will fall into the 70’s. Why? Let’s say you run a business, and you are making thin profits on one of the products you sell. Now someone wants to tax it at a higher rate. What do you do? Personally, I would shift my investments into something that offered a higher return. That’s exactly what oil companies will do. There will be less incentive to focus on upgrading and maximizing refining capacity.

Next up:

Oil and gasoline markets contain loopholes for traders, and the markets are inadequately policed by regulators under current law. As a result, there is considerable concern that current market prices reflect the influence of speculators and other forces beyond supply and demand. In early April, an Exxon Mobil executive testified under oath before a House committee that the price of oil should be $50 to $55 per barrel based on supply and demand fundamentals.

Why This is Stupid

So now you trust ExxonMobil? Do you believe them all the time, or only when you are trying to make a specific point?

The reason this proposal is stupid is not because there isn’t speculation in the market: There is. The problem is trying to identify how much, how to police it, and most importantly - how to apply those policies world wide. Because haven’t you heard? The oil market isn’t specific to the U.S. We don’t pay higher prices than they pay in Asia because of speculation. If speculation was responsible for $50 of the price as Clinton implies above, shouldn’t we see gross disparities in crude pricing?

How about taking on OPEC? A stupid plan wouldn’t be complete without threatening to bring legal action against OPEC in order to force them to lower prices for us:

OPEC recently reiterated that it will not even consider increasing crude output until September 2008, even though limited supplies are contributing to record oil prices. Hillary believes we should be taking more aggressive action to address OPEC’s control over global production levels and hold OPEC accountable for its decisions. President Bush’s efforts to pressure OPEC over the past seven years have been inconsistent and unsuccessful. Hillary supports sending a strong signal to OPEC that the era of complacency has ended. Hillary will:

Use the WTO to Challenge OPEC’s Production Quotas - With nine of the thirteen OPEC member countries also being members of the WTO, Hillary believes we should use the tools available at the WTO to address OPEC’s refusal to increase production.

Allow OPEC Production Decisions to Be Challenged Under U.S. Anti-Trust Law - Currently, OPEC countries cannot be challenged under U.S. anti-trust laws, even when they are engaged in coordinated, commercial activity to control the global oil market.

Why This is Stupid

This is probably the stupidest of her proposals. Oh, the can of worms it would open up. Here’s the analogy I have used before. Let’s say Saudi Arabia loves American wood. They love it so much, that their purchases start to drive the price higher. It seems other countries love American wood as well, so supplies are tight. But Saudi feels like they have a God-given right to cheap wood. Therefore, they demand that we increase production of our wood to bring prices back down. They demand that we overproduce our resources in order to meet what they would prefer to pay, because they have grown dependent on our wood. So, they threaten to sue and take us before the world court.

Of course the big difference here is that wood is a renewable resource. When Saudi’s oil is gone, what else do they have? Yet we demand that they produce according to the price we prefer to pay - not necessarily what’s in their own best long-term interest. How self-centered is that? Can’t Hillary recall when the Mideast cut us off from their oil because they didn’t like our policies? Does she think they couldn’t do it again?

Hey, we haven’t pulled the Big Oil card since the first paragraph. You just can’t do that often enough when you are pandering for votes:

Hillary believes that in addition to imposing a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, Congress should move immediately to end the approximately $7.5 billion per in tax giveaways and subsidies that we continue to provide to oil and gas companies, despite their record profits. These subsidies are in part a result of the 2005 Energy Bill she voted against. She would use those resources this year to provide assistance to lower-income families who are not only being hit at the gas pump, but with skyrocketing energy and food bills as well.

Why This is Stupid

Similar to her first proposal, Hillary wants to send a message that it isn’t the consumer here that is the problem, it’s those big, bad oil companies and their gouging ways. That’s why you are paying higher prices: Greed. She will take that money and return it to the consumers, thus achieving her goal of lowering prices AND fighting global warming. Don’t start that car pool just yet - Hillary is going to refund the extra money you have been paying. No need to worry.

Any why not tap the SPR?

Hillary is calling on President Bush stop taking oil off the market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is now 97 percent full, which analysts believe is more than adequate. Continuing to fill it at these high prices exacerbates high oil prices and costs taxpayers money. Hillary also believes that the SPR should be more actively managed to enable releases from the SPR to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

Why This is Stupid

If the SPR is 97 percent full, why do you need a policy to stop filling it? Won’t that happen pretty quickly anyway? Also, it seems that Hillary (and many others) don’t understand the purpose of the SPR. It is for national emergencies. The fact that I am paying more for gasoline is not a national emergency. A war with Iran that could curtail our imports sharply is more along the lines of what the SPR is for. And if you drain it right now for political purposes, and then you need it for an actual emergency, it wasn’t very strategic, was it?

Using it to try to counter market spikes suggests that you can predict where the market will be in the future - when you need to buy the crude back. The fact is, politicians on both sides have been urging releases from the SPR ever since oil was at $20/bbl. Where would we be now if we had done so? With an empty SPR, and with oil prices still at very high levels.

In the long term, Clinton proposes the following:

Proposals to Reduce our Dependence on Foreign Oil Over the Long-Term

Key elements of that plan include:

Raising fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) to 55 miles per gallon by 2030;

A $150 billion investment in researching, developing, and deploying renewable and alternative energy;

Cutting our foreign oil imports by two-thirds by 2030;

Providing $1.5 billion per year for public transit, an additional $1 billion for intercity rail, and additional funds for congestion reduction, better traffic management and telecommuting;

Providing tax credits and research and development funding for plug-in-hybrid vehicles, which can get up to 100 mpg; and

Conserving fuel in the federal fleet. Hillary will call on all federal government agencies to suspend non-essential travel and other activities that use gasoline or diesel fuel, and encourage employees to carpool, telecommute, and use public transportation to reduce fuel use. And she will direct federal employees to reduce maximum speeds to conserve fuel, with exceptions for law enforcement and other emergency services. Under Hillary’s plan, the agencies will to report to the White House once a month on their energy use and the impact of conservation efforts.

That 3rd one is brilliant: Cut our oil imports by 2/3rds. Why didn’t someone already think of this?

I won’t call those proposals stupid, but they all have something in common: The painless fix. There isn’t a single proposal there that suggests consumers need to cut back (except for the last one, in which government employees are asked to do so). For the average consumer, this all sounds great. They get to continue the status quo, and Hillary is going to see to it that they are not inconvenienced.

This is the kind of shallow political rhetoric that put us where we are in the first place. Two thumbs down for Hillary’s energy plan. Now where’s that president with courage; the one I was looking for in my previous post?

An Open Letter to Our Next President

Mr. or Madam President,

Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn’t negotiate. It doesn’t appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource - albeit one crucial for the “American way of life.”

Because this resource is so crucial - and obviously not just for Americans - depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn’t going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn’t going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn’t going to change that. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it.

Shouldn’t we also consider what happens when our “non-negotiable” way of life impacts the way of life for others worldwide? What if the Saudis also consider their way of life non-negotiable? Is suing them supposed to force them to negotiate? What about the person in Kenya whose way of life is eased by the very small amount of oil they consume? Shall we negotiate with that person, or just not invite them to the table while we price them out of the market?

Let’s first consider common ground that you and I may have. I presume we would agree that our dependence on oil is not healthy. It puts the economy in a very vulnerable position. It helps to enrich some countries that are hostile to us. It increases carbon dioxide emissions. I think this reflects the positions of all remaining candidates, and is consistent with my own position.

Now let’s consider a position on which apparently differ sharply: Gas prices must come down. While I understand the position of the average American that we are paying too much for gasoline - what impact do you think price has on demand? Higher prices will eventually spur conservation and encourage alternatives - which helps achieve the objectives of lowering our dependence by lowering our usage. Isn’t this what you want? Instead, all three candidates propose measures to bring down gasoline prices - thus encouraging consumption. Can’t you see the inconsistency in your position?

This is the time to show political leadership. The pandering sickens me. So what if the average person thinks we are paying too much for gas? The average person also voted for your predecessor - so let’s not presume that we must bow to the wishes of the average person. I offer the following unsolicited advice for dealing with this problem. This is how I would address Americans on this subject:

My Fellow Americans,

Spiraling gasoline prices are having a negative impact on the overall economy. Recent polls have shown that high energy prices are one of the biggest concerns of the American public. However, I have to be bluntly honest: There are no easy solutions. The situation we find ourselves in is a result of many years of policies that are short-sighted and have essentially ignored the long-term consequences of a dependence on fossil fuels - which in turn translates into a dependence on crude oil imports. One administration after another has paid lip service to energy independence, and yet our dependence has risen during each administration since Nixon. We are obviously doing something wrong. I believe I know what it is.

We have failed to truly understand why we have a problem. We have failed to understand why we are addicted to oil. We have failed to appreciate the nature of oil, and why it is so difficult to replace it with low energy density biomass. The truth of the matter is that we are addicted to oil because of the unparalleled conveniences it provides us. We sought painless solutions to our addiction. But if breaking an addiction was easy, we wouldn’t be addicted.

I don’t believe it serves a useful purpose to continue promising easy solutions. On the other hand, a big part of the reason that you find yourselves in this vulnerable position is because of the previous hollow promises that were made. So I propose the following measures to begin the process of breaking our oil addiction:

1. We must improve the fuel efficiency of our automotive fleet. It is an embarrassment. Here again, we have sought the easy solution: Just increase CAFE standards. Most people view this as a relatively painless solution. They think that instead of their Ford Expedition getting 14 mpg, the automotive industry has tricks up their sleeves that can push it to 24 mpg. All that is required is a bit of legislation, which doesn’t affect me, the consumer. But that’s not the way it works. To achieve 24 mpg, we are going to require a fundamental change in the SUV mindset.

We have fuel efficient vehicles available now, we just need to convince people to buy them. I propose to offer rebates ranging from $500 to $2000 for vehicles that achieve high fuel efficiency. I propose to penalize vehicles that achieve low fuel efficiency. I propose to phase these changes in over the next 3 years.

2. Continuing with theme of the first proposal, we need to find other ways to reduce our fuel consumption. Europe provides a useful guide here, as the average per capita energy consumption in Europe is half that of the U.S. How do they achieve this?

Primarily, they have achieved this by making fuel very expensive. Because I don’t think it would be fair to penalize you as a result of the decisions made by previous administrations, I propose to make this proposal revenue neutral. The goal here is not to collect more taxes; it is to encourage behaviors that reduce fuel consumption. So here is the specific proposal.

The average American consumes 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year. I propose to increase the federal gasoline tax by $0.20/gallon this year, $0.30/gallon next year, and then $0.50/gallon in each of the three following years. The total tax increase I am proposing is $2.00/gallon. This would still put gasoline prices at less than they are in Europe, but by having a clear understanding that gasoline prices won’t be going down, this will encourage conservation measures.

In order to offset the burden of these higher taxes, I propose a tax credit equivalent to the increased tax burden for the average American. This is equivalent to $200 in the first year of the tax. Those who use less gasoline than the average will actually see their overall tax burden go down. Those who consume more than 1,000 gallons per year will see an overall increase in their tax burden - and will therefore have a strong incentive to reduce their fuel consumption. For those whose fuel usage is for business use, the fuel taxes can be deducted against your business income.

3. Solutions will be required on the supply side as well. However, too many “solutions” to date rely heavily on fossil fuels, which is the very problem we are trying to mitigate. Therefore, I am appointing an independent panel of experts across multiple disciplines - environmental, energy, agriculture - to evaluate various sources for 1). Reliance on fossil fuels; and 2). Negative side effects. There will be specifically defined criteria that alternative sources must meet in order to qualify for tax breaks. For example, energy “producers” - fossil and alternative - will pay a surcharge on the fossil fuel inputs they use to run their operations. This will encourage a move away from the use of fossil fuels to produce “renewable” energy.

4. In order to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels for heating and electricity, I propose to extend tax credits for installation of solar systems, especially those for solar water heating. Tax credits for installation of wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and various other qualifying energy sources will be extended for 10 years.

5. From my viewpoint, we need to move to a future in which electricity drives our transport systems. The electricity would be derived initially from existing sources like coal and nuclear power, but increasingly from solar, wind, and various other renewable sources. Improved battery technology and energy storage technologies are the key enabling technologies required. Therefore, I am proposing to significantly increase the funding and resources devoted to these technologies. Cash awards will also be available to inventors meeting certain key milestones - as inspired by the Automotive X PRIZE.

These five proposals are merely a start. I understand that for some of you, these changes will be painful. But the pain is coming regardless; I am just proposing to manage it in a more effective and predictable manner. For too long, we have been too passive in managing our oil addiction. The time has come for more aggressive measures.

Such proposals would not be without harsh critics, and would require strong leadership to push them through. Special interests will line up to protect their pocketbooks. Short-sighted politicians will try to protect a few at the expense of many. Will you be the president who takes a stand, tells the hard truth about our energy predicament, and pushes through measures that secure a brighter future for our children? Or will you be like the long succession of presidents who have made hollow promises and offered false solutions - only to see our dependence worsen?

Addiction can be a difficult thing to beat. But make no mistake: The path we have been traveling down is unsustainable, and the bills are starting to come due. If we don’t start paying them now, we will put an enormous burden on our children.

Please Make it Stop

The pandering, that is. First up, the presidential candidates take turns accusing each other of not having a plan for high gas prices, which the accuser of course has a neat solution for that will be painless for the public:

Obama presses on gas prices, Clinton highlights energy bill

INDIANAPOLIS - Democrat Barack Obama on Friday blamed high gasoline prices on Washington and a political establishment, including his rivals for the presidency, that he says hasn’t stood up to oil companies.

Barack, that’s incredibly naive. Why are gas prices high everywhere else? This problem isn’t limited to the U.S., you know. By implying that standing up to “Big Oil” would have made a difference, you show yourself as either incredibly naive, or you are pandering.

“So what have we got to show for all that experience?” Obama asked. “Gas that’s approaching $4 a gallon.”

You should get out more. By world standards, that’s still pretty cheap. I suppose all of those foreign governments are also incompetent for letting prices get out of hand?

Clinton, who is challenging him for the Democratic presidential nomination, derided his promise to take on special interests.

“When it came time to stand up against the oil companies, to stand against Dick Cheney’s energy bill, my opponent voted for it and I voted against it,” the New York senator said at a rally at Indiana University in Bloomington. “And that bill had billions of dollars in giveaways to the oil companies. It was the best bill that the energy companies could buy.”

Ugh!

The 2005 energy bill actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about 300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Please don’t insert random facts into the story that would contradict the pandering.

“I’ve been a strong supporter of ethanol,” Obama said, noting that demand for the corn used to make ethanol is driving up food prices. “Corn-based ethanol is a transitional technology.”

At least we know where to point fingers, then.

Obama’s speech came after Sen. John McCain, the Republican Obama hopes to challenge in the fall, proposed suspending the federal gas tax for the summer driving season. Clinton supports the idea; Obama does not.

Score one for Obama.

Republican Party official and McCain adviser Carly Fiorina disputed Obama’s argument that the average motorist would benefit little from a suspension of the gas tax.

“I think it demonstrates that he doesn’t understand what hardworking Americans are going through,” she told reporters.

I have already addressed this very stupid idea: John McCain’s Bad Idea

In the speech, Obama called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, with the money used to help consumers pay utility bills. He also said middle-class tax breaks he’s proposed would help families with energy costs.

Can he not see the problem here? How is this ultimately that much different from McCain’s proposal?

“But the truth is, there is no easy answer to our energy crisis — and we need a president who is going to be straight with us about that,” Obama said, a reference to his oft-stated contention that Clinton hasn’t been upfront with voters.

At least he is correct that there is no easy answer. He is correct that we need a president who is going to be straight with us. Sadly, it would appear that none of the candidates are going to do that.

But it doesn’t stop there. We have Nancy Pelosi using Earth Day to attack high gas prices:

Pelosi to Bush on Gas Prices: We Cannot Wait to Act

I respectfully ask you again to work with the Congress to allow the Justice Department to pursue oil cartel price-fixing, allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to investigate and punish price gougers, end taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and invest those funds in renewable American energy. Lastly, your Administration must use the authority given to it by the Congress to end market manipulation. We cannot wait to act in the face of these prices increases.

Nancy, you may want to consult a history book to see how many times the FTC has done these investigations at taxpayer expense, and what they have found each time.

And the stupidity of this proposal from Pelosi’s letter is just stunning:

The No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264

This legislation enables the Department of Justice to take legal action against foreign nations for participating in oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the United States. It does so by exempting OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when acting in a commercial capacity; by making clear that the so-called “Act of State” doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments; and by authorizing the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts against cartel members. This bill passed the House 345-72. You have threatened to veto this legislation.

Yes, let’s sue OPEC because they won’t sell us oil at the price we want to pay. Then maybe they will countersue because we are charging them too much for corn. Or perhaps they will just say “You know what? We just aren’t going to sell you oil any more.”

Our politicians are pathetic. They offer false solutions to problems they don’t understand. They could put us on the right path, but it would require courage. Yet the phrase “courageous politician” would appear to be an oxymoron.

Barack Obama Panders

He’s got my vote. He doesn’t take money from oil companies, and is going to punish them for their “windfall profits.” For some reason, Oil Watchdog does show him as having taken $157,390 from oil companies, and I still haven’t heard anyone define “windfall profits.” Of course he does take money from ethanol companies, but that’s OK because this is our key to energy independence (cellulosic ethanol, according to Obama, is our best “short-term” solution).

The best I can hope for is that if he does win the presidency, Bill Richardson is his running mate. I think Richardson is the one of the most knowledgeable politicians around on energy issues.

I have to be honest. Of all the candidates, I thought Obama was a breath of fresh air. But the more I hear him talk about energy policy, the more concerned I become about our future. I don’t think there is any doubt that he will be bad news for oil companies. On the other hand, I can’t stand Hillary. At one point, I really respected McCain for speaking out on the ethanol fiasco. That was before he flipped. I also fear that McCain will keep us in Iraq forever.

Regardless of who wins, I think they are going to preside over one of the most difficult economic periods in American history.