Energy Smart

REMINDER: SITE MOVED …

A Siegel — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:46:23 +0000

Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!

SITE MOVED: Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!

A Siegel — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:46:56 +0000

This site will not have regular discussions.

Now posting at: Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!!

Hope to see you there.

Drillusion

A Siegel — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:35:37 +0000

At times, we might forget that there are a good number of very bright, extremely dedicated, and fundamental people working in Congress. Elected officials and staff. Our funding system that seems to drive member after member to be begging, tin in cup, for funds can make the entire process look open to purchase. The traditional media mania for ever lower quality reporting magnifies this, making foolish shallowness the norm. Reality is far from this and it is worthwhile at times to take a moment to consider that reality.

An e-mail came into me today that reminded me of this, a letter with perhaps the best single word I’ve seen to summarize Republican truthiness when it comes to energy issues but a letter with substance.

Drillusion

Thank you Representative Earl Blumenauer.

Americans deserve better …

What is the challenge?

After seven years of dangerous energy policies, Oregon families are reeling from the effects of rising gas prices. Americans deserve better than political posturing from an administration that continues to serve up a failed energy policy, and pushing for increased drilling on our public lands is their newest deceitful maneuver.

Drilling does not address our near term challenges in anyway when it comes to energy supply and it does next to nothing even in the longer term. The Republican gamesmanship is getting to an extreme, with too many cooperative traditional media and the right-wing sound machine helping to whip up a storm. It is past time to be angry.

This is not only a hoax, but pure “drillusion.”

Drillusion.

Earl, I think you’ve nailed this one.

Just what is the substance behind the R mania?

Opening up new public lands to drilling can take anywhere from 10-20 years to produce oil, yet I know you need relief today.

Americans (“Oregon families”) require “relief” and assistance now, not decades from now.

What do the oil companies want out of this?

Oil companies already hold leases on 68 million acres of public lands but are NOT drilling. Instead of exercising the opportunities they have, they are trying to accrue additional drilling leases in the Arctic and along our coasts. This is not a solution; this is only a continuation of the same disastrous policies that fail to address our growing crisis.

We face oil prices that are devastating our economy, a result from the failure to do anything to address Peak Oil. We face ever mounting threats of catastrophic climate change. What do the Republicans wish to do? Drillusion to drill the hole deeper.

When the hole is deep, what is the first thing to do? Stop digging.

We have an oil addiction. It is time to think about ending the addiction rather than feeding it.

But, there are steps in the near term that can provide some breathing space of somewhat moderated energy prices while taking serious steps away from that addiction.

There are immediate steps we can take to alleviate the impact of rising gas prices. For instance, we can rein in speculators, which add $5 to $50 to the price of a barrel of oil.

Notice that uncertainty: “$5 to $50”. It seems quite plausible that the massive speculation in the oil markets are fostering higher prices. Reality: we simply don’t know how much. Various elements of tension (such as warfare and military threats in the Persian Gulf region) are quite likely fostering a higher element of the cost level. Reality: the full true drivers of oil prices are unknown, though this author thinks that the main drivers are the realities of Peak Oil limiting supply in the face of ever mounting demand.

But, in the near term, amid the economic tensions, we can moderate prices even as taking the steps to move off oil.

We can also reduce the cost of gas by releasing some of the oil stored in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Currently at 97 percent capacity, the SPR is the largest emergency supply in the world. Three presidents have done this in the past, cutting the cost of oil by as much as a third.

With the resources from releases from the SPR, which would moderate prices, we can start to take action for change.

In addition to short term help, we need to make wise investments in our transportation system. This will not only address the energy crisis, but it will create thousands of new jobs and boost our sagging economy.

Sigh.

Thinking about how to help people tomorrow while setting the stage to help them (and their children) even more tomorrow.

Who would have ever thought that was what government was about?

Oh, right, Democratic Party members of Congress.

Recently I introduced a bill, the “Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act,” that would immediately reduce the impact of high gas prices.

What does the Oregonian have to say about Earl’s bill?

It’s a smart bill. More members of Congress should be seriously discussing such ideas instead of spinning their wheels in a politically motivated debate over more offshore oil drilling. While it’s a long-term debate worth having — more exploration and drilling might help the nation’s future strategic position — as a route to lower fuel prices it goes nowhere. The expanding global economy has ended the era of cheap fuel in America. Today, the cheapest gallon of gas is the gallon you don’t have to buy. Blumenauer’s farsighted bill would help more Americans avoid that painful purchase.

I’ve met Earl. He is a thoughtful person, working hard to create a path forward toward a better present and future for Oregonians, Americans, and, as well, the larger world.

While I don’t necessarily agree with every element and wish there were some additional items, compared to Drillusion, it is a fundamentally sound policy. And, much of what he recommends are elements that are part of any sensible move forward, such as “help[ing] Americans cope with rising energy costs by providing transportation options, such as incentives for commuting by carpooling, public transit, and bicycling, as well as telecommuting.”

Although there is no silver bullet for solving the complex energy problem, we can take action now to make sure that Oregon’s families receive the assistance they need. Ten to twenty years is far too long to wait for a solution that was needed decades ago, and I will continue working on common sense approaches that will prepare us for an oil-independent future.

“No silver bullet for solving the complex energy problem …” Yes. Earl. You are right.

And, not only “we can take action now,” we must.

Earl is right, we can not wait decades “for a solution that was needed decades ago.”

I, for one, am glad that Earl Blumenauer is representing Oregonians, and the rest of us (the rest of the US), in the US House of Representatives to “continue working on common sense approaches that will prepare us for an oil-independent future.”

Greening the Netroots

A Siegel — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:23:11 +0000

Sometimes those of who focus on energy and global warming issues seem to screaming into the wind, with little attention from others in the community. Netroots Nation‘s announcement for the 2009 put those emotions to the side. The Netroots Nation staff worked hard to find a site and location that meets the types of standards that are hoped to from us.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is close to major US cities, with a good rail network providing options to get there from New York, Washington, DC, and Chicago.

Pittsburgh is a leader in green building, touting the first and largest LEED certified convention center in the country. As part of newly announced effort to make Netroots Nation the most environmentally-sustainable bloggers gathering ever, organizers say they plan to introduce a carbon offset program in 2009. The city’s accessibility to rail travel will also cut down on the overall carbon footprint.

A Gold LEED convention center.

A farmer’s market near the facility.

More recycling options.

And, an offset program.

Now, for your registration.

Hit the web.

But, in the comments, let the organizers know what you think about Orange going Green.

Solve tomorrow’s problems. Today.

A Siegel — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:05:27 +0000

Mañana.

Sigh.

Procrastination is a disease that inflicts many of us (certainly not excluding this author) and The US.

It seems that there is nary a chore, nary a challenge whose solution can’t be put off to tomorrow or, preferably, the day after.

The time has passed. It is time to change our habits. We must start doing our chores.

We must stop making a mess. We must fight to clean up our collective messes.

We, together, can solve tomorrow’s problems. Today.

Al Gore gave a speech Thursday (video) in Washington, DC, one that set a major objective before us, a path toward clean up our biggest mess, the dumping of carbon and other pollutants into our atmosphere and waters. He set a path for us to begin to Solve Tomorrow’s Problems, Today. And, he gave another speech earlier today in Austin, Texas, at Netroots Nation that raised, not just Global Warming, other serious problems in our society and democracy. He laid out problems, but, at the core, stated: Carpe Diem. Seize the Day. Work together, fight to Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today!

Nancy for a moment …

Nancy Pelosi had a long session prior to Vice President Gore’s talk and answered questions alongside Gore. The engagement and participation within Netroots Nation is welcome, with her direct statements of appreciation for the Netroots’ quite real role in contributing to the Democratic Party victories in 2006 and the role quite notable.

Pelosi’s opening had a notably strong emphasis on Global Warming, an issue that she seriously cares about and understands. Sadly, however, within the comments she threw out a line that is being bandied about to fight the Republican lies about DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! and did not complete the concept as it should. She talked about the effort to Free Our Oil and releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to help lower gasoline prices.

My reaction to this when :

If we make this just about gas prices, we are caught into a very dangerous framing. “Lowering” gas prices gets people thinking back to cheaper energy unit costs days. We need people, the nation thinking about enery as a system, as a “cost to own” rather than “cost to buy”. We (the nation) should foster upfront investment (help it) that will lower total “cost to own” by reducing wasteful use of polluting energy. While difficult in a robocall, every single message (I would argue) should avoid getting captured in messaging that fosters thinking that we can go back to days of cheaper gasoline. Over the long term (and likely short term), it isn’t going to happen.

The missing part of Pelosi’s response to the Republican lies is that taking oil from the SPR doesn’t solve our problems. If we can “free our oil”, we must take the resources (the money) from that sold oil to undertake initiatives to lower our oil and other energy requirements. Rather than “Free our oil.” (e.g., end “period”), how about “Free Our Oil and Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today!”

Turning to Al

Vice President Gore spoke to Global Warming and threats to Democracy and … He thanked the blogger crowd in the audience for their efforts to fight to regain Democracy in America, to turn back America toward a path of robust discussion and interaction on real issues. To fight and turn the tide on The Assault on Reason.

Al Gore has long (LONG) spoken of the challenges and opportunities of Global Warming. He has often provided and presented pathways toward a better future. He has now laid a very serious challenge before us, before the US, to create a path toward a sustainable, climate-friendly society through moving toward 100 percent renewable electricity for the American economy within a decade. This is a serious, difficult challenge with many obstacles (technical, policy, regulatory) to achievement. The most serious challenge, however, is the mobilization of will. This is a difficult challenge, but one that can be tackled, but we must choose to do so. When it comes to Global Warming and our inefficient, wasteful polluting energy system, we need to listen to Bob the Builder: “Can We Fix It? Yes, We CAN!!!”

While this has been true for a long time, when it comes to our energy and global warming challenges, it is time to get serious and started on our way to Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today!!!

Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today!!!

Peak Oil (polluting energy) and Global Warming are THE Progressive Crises. And, Al Gore has set out a path to Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today.

But, as Vice President Gore emphasized Thursday and pointed to in Austin earlier today, we face a plethora of problems. Trade and Budget deficits. War in Iraq. Too Many Children Left Behind. Pollution. And, … sadly, the list is long.

The time for Mañana has ended.

We must begin to clean house.

We face serious challenges.

WE can solve these problems, starting today, if we make the choice to do so.

As a first step, to stake a place among those ready to help solve the problems we face, recognize that Global Warming is a key challenge before us, before the US. Al Gore has laid out a path to address seriously this challenge, a path that will help deal with Peak Oil.

Ask youself,

Are you ready to stand with Al to begin to Solve Tomorrow’s Problems. Today?

If so, then go join the WE campaign. NOW!!!

What to do about gas prices?

A Siegel — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:11:52 +0000

null

Americans United for Change has launched a campaign to Free Our Oil! While an interesting response to the Republican focus on lying to support drilling, I challenged this campaign, stating that this effort supports a quite dangerous framing of the problems and solutions.

If we make this just about gas prices, we are caught into a very dangerous framing. “Lowering” gas prices gets people thinking back to cheaper energy unit costs days. We need people, the nation thinking about enery as a system, as a “cost to own” rather than “cost to buy”. We (the nation) should foster upfront investment (help it) that will lower total “cost to own” by reducing wasteful use of polluting energy. While difficult in a robocall, every single message (I would argue) should avoid getting captured in messaging that fosters thinking that we can go back to days of cheaper gasoline. Over the long term (and likely short term), it isn’t going to happen.

In response, I was asked the following question:

Say, for example, you were on TV today as a representative of the Democratic Party. The interviewer asks, “A, what is the Democratic Party doing in Congress to help lower oil/gas costs for Americans who are hurting?” What’s your answer?

The GOP has an answer – gas tax holiday and drilling offshore. You and I know that these are two options that won’t do anything significant in the short-term, and we they do nothing to change the culture of oil that we live in. However, they are ideas and Americans want to hear ideas, be them good or bad.

What can the Dems do right now to bring down costs, without sacrificing their long-term message of changing the way we think about oil. OR, given our foreign policy and the world as it is today. is $4/5/6/gallon just the new reality and we need to suck it up?

For my off-the-top of the head (basically unedited) response, follow me after the fold.

I think that I know what I would want to be able to say. This does not, however, work with the muddled confusion of the Ds in the House / Senate / and elsewhere.

What might I want to say?

The Democratic Party is looking for solution paths that will help people in the near term while setting the nation on a path for a prosperous and climate friendly future.

About today’s gasoline prices, the Democratic Party will:

Fight to open up the SPR, to the tune of between 150,00 to 300,000 barrels per day, to add oil into the global market and reduce the pressure on supply. At 200,000 barrels / day, this would provide $25+ million/day in revenue.

Use 100% of those revenues to support new initiatives (both the near and long-term)

Energy Efficiency and renewable energy programs in homes and buildings, specifically additional targeting of places that use home heating oil to relieve pressure on oil supplies in winter months.

Fight for programs to foster greater fuel efficiency in America’s cars & trucks

Public education campaign re fuel efficiency and driving habits. Ability to gain up to 30% (roughly equivalent of 2.5 million negagallons) in automobile fuel efficiency.

Tax credit/support to have 100% of America’s gas stations provide free air pressure (underpressured tires cost about 3.5% lost of gasoline across America’s car fleet)

Tax credits toward purchase of systems proven to help improve fuel efficiency for both commercial users and individuals. These include things such as auxiliary power units, enabling trucks to be shut down when stop rather than using the engine to cool refrigerated units, to mileage per gallon feedback systems that plug into existing (post 1996) cars to help improve mileage through real-time information about gasoline usage.

Incentive taxi cab fleet purchase of hybrid cars

Initiatives to help reduce driving requirements and ease driving, both of which will reduce gasoline use.

Support to compressed, flexible, and telecommuting work schedules. A worker on a 9/80 drives to the job 10% less. Flexible scheduling enables people to travel outside rush hours, saving time and gasoline. A telecommuter might reduce work related driving by 100%. As a start, 100% of Democratic Party offices on Capital Hill are going to strive to reduce their office’s daily commuting footprint by 10%, with an additional 10% on flexible hours putting their travel outside traditional rush hour periods.

Resources for improving traffic management throughout America to help reduce fuel demands.

About the mid-long/term

Electrification

Support electrification of America’s rail system. This would, before 2020, eliminate 250,000 barrels of oil used by trains and provide capacity for the rail system to carry more cargo — potential saving millions of barrels per day. Note that drilling the outer continental shelf might add 250,000 barrels of day in supply by 2030, a decade later than rail’s impact.

Support movement of American’s trucks, buses, cars off gasoline

$50 million / year for Plug-In Hybrid Electric School Buses, starting immediately

Federal fleet vehicle purchases to be minimum 5% PHEV/EV starting in 2010, with a 5% increase each year that follows.

Tax credits for individuals and business for purchase of EVs and PHEVs. The tax credit increases as the ‘all electric’ driving distance increases.

Funding of a Smart Grid, with V2G (vehicle to grid) research and development, which will enable this transportation electricity to come from the grid more efficiently and enable greater penetration of renewable power.

A mandate that all vehicles with liquid fuel be either GEM flex-fuel (100% of all gasoline like fuels (ethanol, methanol, gasoline) can be used) or diesel flex fuel (from 0% to 100% biodiesel).

Mandate that 100% of vehicles (of all types) provide real time and longer term feedback to driver as to gallons per mile / fuel efficiency.

Etc … And, so on …

It is time to be Energy Smart.

To have plans that help address quite real near-term challenges of high gasoline prices while setting a path to real solutions for tomorrow. The Democratic Party is working for real solutions. We hope that you will work with us to achieve them.

Okay, a new slogan for the “Free the Oil” campaign:

So, a Question: What do you think?

Free the Oil and help solve tomorrow’s problems today!

Energy Smart Jeff

A Siegel — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:58:44 +0000

Amid skyrocketing oil, gasoline, coal, and electricity (coming to a neighborhood near you) prices, 2008 offers Americans quite serious and stark choices between knowledgeable, impassioned, and thoughtful candidates when it comes to finding paths toward a prosperous 21st century economy, on the one side, and Fossil-Fool candidates focused on tightening our shackles to the ever-more costly (pollution, financial, otherwise) and archaic oil-coal based energy system.

One of these choices comes in Oregon, where Speaker of the House Jeff Merkley against so-called “moderate” Republican Gordon Smith.

Jeff was an easy choice for membership in the ranks of the Energy Smart Act Blue page. Join me after the fold for some indications as to why.

First the List

The Energy Smart Act Blue page focuses on challengers who offer an opportunity to change the discussion and votes when it comes to energy and environmental issues in Congress. (For a more complete discussion.) In some cases, these are incredibly “Energy Smart” candidates; in other cases, their opponents are incredibly Energy/Earth Dumb, and, actually, they are mainly both at the same time. What is the Energy Smart Act Blue’s core principle?

All of the candidates on this list will help foster a Congress and political climate conducive for more meaningful action toward a Prosperous, Climate Friendly America through dealing with the challenges of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

Rather than focusing on the mercurial nature of Gordon Smith’s politically convenient navigating between fealty to George W Bush and feigning a close relationship with (and pseudo-endorsement from) Barack Obama, in this case we are going to focus on the Energy Smart side of the discussion

Energy Smart Jeff

Concerns about energy and environmental issues have been embedded in Jeff’s career. For example, he worked in Mexico for a Quaker organization building and operating an environmental-issues camp. Not necessarily ‘energy’ smart related, but when as a Presidential Management Intern just a few years later, Jeff worked in the Department of Defense. From a Quaker environmental camp to the Office of the Secretary of Defense is a voyage that, I suspect, few have made. And then, after his DOD stint, he had a chance to work on housing security as Director of Oregon’s Habitat for Humanity. (Hopefully, he emphasized energy efficient building but that’s a question that I forgot to ask.) But that’s ancient history …

As one who has also painted his finger green, it matters to me that Jeff has green fingers.

Jeff just finished a banner year of leadership in the Oregon House with some real praise. Looking at a list of environmental/energy legislation passed in 2007, it is easy to see why the Oregon LCV Education Fund called this: “2007: An Environmental Victory” with electronic recycling program established, the setting of a 25% RPS by 2025, commentment of 1.5% of public building construction to solar power, and expansion of tax credits fo renewable energy (both for businesses and individuals). These happened, in no small part, due to Merkley’s passion and leadership as OCLV gave him their caretaker award.

Speaker Merkley was a strong leader who did not carry his ego on his sleeve. He listened carefully and always had an open door to the conservation community. He also cared a great deal about the cohesiveness of his caucus and was able to juggle the tricky balance between moving a conservation agenda forward while ensuring his caucus members agreed to the goals. Speaker Merkley deserves much of the credit for this successful environmental session.

Not just passion on the issues, but passion combined with an ability to find and see through a path to move from vision to reality.

While Jeff wants energy independence, his path is not to focus on feeding the addiction through misleading calls to drill, drill, drill. Instead, he has a holistic focus to drive energy efficiency and development of alternatives, such as electrification of transport. And, Jeff’s focus on working with Maria Cantwell on the Reducing Demand through Electricity Grid Intelligence Act is just smart, not just Energy Smart.

Jeff calls for, and plans to fight for, seizing the MG3 (making green by going Green) revolution to seize the Global Warming fight as an opportunity to foster a cleaner, more robust economy.

“Let’s sell this technology to the world and make it part of our economic strength,” he said. “A dozen or more companies have come to Oregon because of the energy tax credits we passed last year. This is an area that’s growing so fast,” Merkley said. “Venture capitalists are getting involved.

“We don’t want to be buying that technology from Spain and Germany. We want to be developing and selling it to the rest of the world. Oregon is the perfect place to be on the cutting edge because we have the possibility.”

Robustly, Jeff recognizes and accepts that we will make mistakes along this path. Accepts it, that is, as long as we learn from failed paths.

Learning … Sigh, to have a governance philosophy again where learning from, rather than covering up and excusing, mistakes is core.

Excuse that lament.

When it comes to this November, Americans quite serious and stark choices between knowledgeable, impassioned, and thoughtful candidates when it comes to finding paths toward a prosperous 21st century economy, on the one side, and Fossil-Fool candidates focused on tightening our shackles to the ever-more costly (pollution, financial, otherwise) and archaic oil-coal based energy system. Jeff vs Gordon. Will Oregoians choose the future or the past when it comes time to punch the ballot? We know what the Energy Smart ones will do.

NOTE:

Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley (OR) will be at Netroots Nation. Join Debbie, Jerome a Paris, Devilstower, Energy Smart candidates Mark Begich (AK-Senate) and Debbie Cook (CA-46), and myself for a conversation about Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress Friday morning in Austin, Texas.

A list of Global Warming sites

A Siegel — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:38:00 +0000

If you want to go for Global Warming information, where do you go? After the fold are some great sites.

The Stop Global Warming DOT org

NOAA’s Global Warming info

EPA’s Global Warming with for kids

NASA’s Global Warming page

National Geographic’s Global Warming overview page

Climate Crisis is an important stopping point on Global Warming

National Resources Defense Council’s Global Warming 101

The Discovery of Global Warming, a great book and useful website

Science Daily examines Global Warming

Sierra Club on Global Warming and energy

Energy Smart Debbie

A Siegel — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:58:45 +0000

One of these stark choices comes in California’s 46th district, where Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook is running against ten-term Congressman Dana Rohrbacher.

Debbie was one of the first on the Energy Smart Act Blue page. Join me after the fold for some indications as to why.

First the List

The Energy Smart Act Blue page focuses on challengers who offer an opportunity to change the discussion and votes when it comes to energy and environmental issues in Congress. ((For a more complete discussion.) In some cases, these are incredibly “Energy Smart” candidates; in other cases, their opponents are incredibly Energy/Earth Dumb, and, actually, they are mainly both at the same time. What is the Energy Smart Act Blue’s core principle:

All of the candidates on this list will help foster a Congress and political climate conducive for more meaningful action toward a Prosperous, Climate Friendly America through dealing with the challenges of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

Perhaps the greatest example of Energy Smart vs Energy Dumb? Extremely Energy Smart Debbie running against quite energy illiterate and Energy Dumb Dana.

A word about Dana

To start with, let us quote from one of the village voices, David Brooks, as he remarks on a remarkable competition to be the “the biggest blithering idiot” among a group of Congressmen.

There’s “a foul odor that’s coming out of the U.S. Senate!” bellowed Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, who then went on to win the prize by suggesting that instead of using illegal aliens to harvest crops, we force felons to do it. “I say, Let the prisoners pick the fruits!”

Here was a seemingly mentally competent adult recommending that we force a largely minority population to go out in the fields and pick lettuce and cotton. You wanted to hit him over the head and scream: Is this ringing any bells, Representative Rohrabacher? Are we repealing the Emancipation Proclamation, too?

There’s Dana on Iraq:

We’re not talking about war on Iraq. That’s totally misleading. We’re talking about helping the people of Iraq liberate themselves from this monster and, in doing so, alleviate a major threat to the security and well-being of the people of the United States of America. … this job in Iraq will be easier than what happened in Afghanistan.

Ah, okay, Dana’s an idiot, you might agree, but how does
arguing for moving our prisons to our tomato harvesting or his prescience on the rosy future in Iraq merit Dana as Energy Dumb? They don’t. They set the stage, however, for a brief exploration of Dana’s energy idiocies from his consistent votes against against renewable energy packages and increasing CAFE standards to his support of Newt’s Contract on the Earth driven Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay (a tiny bit) Less (a decade+ from now)!
Campaign for America’s Future took a look at energy issues and rated candidates in the 2006 cycle. Energy Dumb Dana did well: he scored zero across the board on issues related to energy independence.

About Global Warming. Dana Rohrabacher is a vehement global warming denier. Energy Dumb Dana recently showed his face on the House floor with a studied effort at willful ignorance several weeks before Senate Republicans stooped to the lowest forms of obstructionism to avoid having to have a substantive and meaningful debate about Global Warming legislation. Rohrbacher’s speech is worth notice since it is such a studied effort, with strong framing language, of misleading deceptiveness and outright deceit on what might be the most critical issue that we face through this century.

To gain a feel for the extent of deceit, let us look at part of Rohrbacher’s opening comments:

Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks with a personal statement that, while I am opposed to the advocates of man-made global warming theories, I am committed to a clean and healthy environment, to purifying our air, our water, and our soil; all of this for the sake of the people of this planet, including my three children, Anika, Tristan and Christian. I do this not because of some paranoid theory that humans are changing the climate of the world, but instead, I am very concerned about the health of the people of the world and, thus, committed to clean air, clean soil, and clean water.

Yes, Dana Rohrbacher is concerned, concerned mightily about “a clean and healthy environment”. Of course, we should simply take him on his word for this. Should’t we? After all, he is a sitting member of Congress. Well, let us take Ronald Reagan’s words to heat: “Trust, but verify.” Okay, Mr Rohrbacher, i will trust you but will verify. The question, how to verify?

There could always be the League of Conservation Voters ratings of members of Congress. According to LCV, Dana has not scored about 17% on his votes over the past decade and only 10% in votes on issues of environmental impartance. 10 of 100? That doesn’t seem to indicated a commitment to “clean air, clean soil, and clean water.”

But, perhaps LCV is simply a bunch of left-wing Democratic Party operatives. Perhaps time to look to another organization. Why not the Republicans for Environmental Protection? That might be a little more friendly to a senior Republican member of Congress. According to REP’s rating of Congressional voting (pdf), Dana’s score? He scored a blazingly high 17 of 100 for the 2005-2007 period. An average dragged down by the 13 of 100 score for 2007.

Concerned about the environment, I think not.
Okay, while we could continue, we’ve adequately established Energy Dumb, haven’t we?

Energy Smart Debbie Cook for Congress

Debbie Cook, CA-46, has focused on sustainability issues as Mayor of Huntington Beach, California, and serves on the board of directors for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO-USA) and Post Carbon Institute. Amid escalating oil prices, perhaps the Congress could use someone respected enough by the concerned community to be put onto ASPO-USA’s board? From Debbie’s issues page:

It is imperative to address the energy constraints in our future. Our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels is reaching a critical point in human history.

Faced with price volatility, the likelihood of supply disruptions and the physical limits of the world’s oil extraction industry, our government needs to think creatively about how we will provide services in an energy-constrained world.

We cannot predict the changes in our economies and ecosystems or even the likely responses to the peaking of world oil production, but we can begin the dialogue, raising public awareness, tackling public and private consumption, and making decisions about transportation and land use within the context of their energy implications. Just as we plan for medical emergencies, civil unrest and natural disasters, we must also plan for energy uncertainties.

When it comes to Drill Here, Drill Now, Don’t Pay Less [warning: pdf of a cover story article on Debbie vs Chicken Hawk Dana] (my perspective), Debbie said back in March, before this idiotic discussion began:

Drilling is more of the same and it’s going to more of the same result. We don’t really have a strong transition plan [to deal with Peak Oil].

In 2006, Post Carbon Cities did an interesting interview with Debbie about what local leaders can and should do. Among other things, this emphasized Debbie’s passion and commitment to figuring out how to educate people (leaders and citizens) when it comes to Peak Oil.

because you know we have a lot of people who need to learn about the subject so that they can write the correct policies in order to change the way we’ve been planning cities and doing transportation and everything that’s related to energy.

She has thought through this education process and gives quite practical advice (material which makes me think and consider).

sometimes you have to go about these things rather slowly, and you’ve got to lay the ground work first – you can’t just dump this issue on people, because it is overwhelming and it kind of can be scary, and people go into resistance if they are frightened into listening to a subject that they are not familiar with.

When asked who she found useful, she showed an expert’s eye, without partisanship driving it, with Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and oilman (and author) Matt Simmons among her list of people to listen to and get others to listen to. She also makes a critical point about physical fact versus economic theory.

It’s an issue that has a lot of different layers and most people come ignorant on the subject, but they need to learn a little bit about the geology to understand it completely, because the economists come in and say, “Oh, we don’t need to worry about it – there’s going to be something else around the corner, and technology will take care of it,” but once people have the basic understanding of the geology and the history of exploration, then they can better see through some of the Pollyanna-type messages that some of the economists like to throw out.

Translated for economists: when there are physical limits, increased prices does not guarantee increased supply.

As for Peak Oil, in line with the very important Hirsch report, she made the following call for politicians:

I would say we shouldn’t spend anytime at all trying to figure out when the peak is going to happen – it is going to happen, and it doesn’t matter when; it is very important that we start immediate planning, because we need a 20-year head start to even make it a somewhat soft landing. So that is something elected officials, I think, can get behind, because that’s more of a positive message, but they still need to understand this is something we need to start immediately, and that there are no easy alternatives.

Peak Oil is not if, but when (and that when quite likely could be past). Hirsch said that we needed to start 20 years before peak to avoid massive problems … have we started yet?

The next question: “What is the responsibility of elected officials with respect to peak oil?”

I think their responsibility first is to understand the issue and to implement policies that will actually deal with this issue, but it’s also very important for them to educate the public, because we don’t need a spike in oil prices to panic the public, but they need to know of the possibilities because then they have an idea of how to deal with this issue.

Sadly, have we had that “spike” since then? Do we have a public in panic?

Energy Smart Debbie was right then. She is right now. And, CA-46 and the rest of the nation would be well served with Energy Smart Debbie working on these critical issues at this critical time from the floor of the House Chamber.

The Choices are Stark

We face stark choices this fall.

Do we want, as a nation, to continue to feed our fossil fuel addiction, worsening the damage, or do we want to begin the process of weaning ourselves off carbon toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future?

The voters of California’s 46th district face one of the clearest choices about their, their children’s, and our collective future. Do they want to continue to allow “blithering idiot” Dana to have his hands on reins of power or do they want to place their confidence in the thoughtful, educated, and compentent
Energy Smart Debbie?

But, to help them have the ability to make this decision, they need the information to make an informed decision. Thus, figure out whether you’re ready to put a few dollars ($xx.01) into the kitty to help Energy Smart Debbie in her campaign against Energy Dumb Dana. That is a true investment in our future.

NOTE 1:

Many on the blogosphere have begun to notice Debbie Cook since her placement on the Energy Smart list (no, don’t think that I drove it). See great interview discussions, for example, at Open Left, Calitics, and FireDogLake.

NOTE 2:

Congressional Candidate Debbie Cook (CA-46) will be at Netroots Nation. Join Debbie, Jerome a Paris, Devilstower, Energy Smart candidates Mark Begich (AK-Senate) and a surprise additional major candidate to be named, and myself for a conversation about Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress Friday morning in Austin, Texas.

Updated: What Fraction Of America’s $4+/Gallon Gasoline Is Due To The War In Iraq?

A Siegel — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:48:17 +0000

Just how much of the pump price of gasoline is attributable to the war in Iraq? A dollar? Three dollars? None. That conversation recently swirled around me and, one one point, someone commented that well over half (or more than $2) of America’s $4.10 gallon of gas is due to the war. Another person asked “Is that right?” And, after pulling out some hair from my head, my response was both short and then long.

The short:

Two dollars a gallon is, perhaps, as good a swag as anyone’s. … I think.

And, the long after the fold.

This is really a tough analytical (ANALyst) question, without a pure answer. How much did invading Iraq add to the price of gasoline? It really depends on who the hell you ask, what assumptions are, etc ..

1. For most, the two prime drivers are mounting demand combined with constrained supply (Peak Oil hits … and the news is NOT GOOD re Peak Oil).

2. There is the seriously debated role of speculation. I have tended to see this as exaggerating the reality, that the situation is is profiting off oil prices not driving them, but people are providing me information/data that at least makes question my viewpoint.

3. There is, however, a major risk factor in the market due to tensions in the Persian Gulf/etc. (The war, threats to Iran, etc …)

4. What about “what if” questions? Without Operation Iraqi Freedom and with better relationships with Iran, would there be global investments in Iraq / Iran such that they would be producing more oil for the world market?

5. To what extent is the Iraq War responsible for the devaluation of the dollar over the past five years and the role this has had on oil price increases?

6. And, this question doesn’t deal with the most interesting question: What is the true total cost of a gallon of gasoline? Because, when we add in security, infrastructure, health, pollution, lost and damaged lives (LIVES!! cost in blood) and other costs, some analysts put the “price” of a gallon of gasoline well above $10 (and even $15) per gallon. But ‘the true cost of gasoline’ wasn’t the question and conversation … thus we will leave this aside.

7. To complicate the picture even more, we could ask “what if” questions. What if the United States hadn’t committed so much in resources (people’s lives, people’s time and intellectual/other capacity, money) to the conflict? What might dead, disabled, and wounded Americans, Iraqis, and others have achieved? Would (could?) some portion of that been used to help move the nation (the globe) toward an Energy Smart future? Might we have made steps to Energize America toward a more prosperous, climate friendly society? What were the “opportunity costs” and how do those relate to gas prices at the pump? This is an incredible sensible, but complex, set of questions and issues which we will also leave aside for the moment, even if you can count me intrigued by the ‘what if’ question.

Let’s look around at some of the discussion of the issues related to the Iraq War and gasoline prices.

From the Enegy Information Administration’s gasoline price primer:

Crude oil supply and prices – Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand. Events in crude oil markets that caused spikes in crude oil prices were a major factor in all but one of the five major run-ups in gasoline prices between 1992 and 1997, according to the National Petroleum Council’s study “U.S. Petroleum Supply – Inventory Dynamics.” Rapid gasoline price increases occurred in response to crude oil shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1978, the Iran/Iraq war in 1980, and the Persian Gulf conflict in 1990. The cost of crude oil has been the main contributor to recent increases in gasoline prices. World crude oil prices reached record levels in 2007 due mainly to high worldwide oil demand relative to supply. Other factors contributing to higher crude oil prices include political events and conflicts in some major oil producing regions, as well as other factors such as the declining value of the U.S. dollar (the currency at which crude oil is traded globally).

Okay, for EIA, the prime cause: supply / demand curves, but note “political events and conflicts”.

Chris at Daily Liberty Research did a nice post on driving factors of oil prices with an interesting collection of articles, including the late June reporting that “OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted that the price of oil will climb to $170 a barrel before the end of the year, citing the dollar’s decline and political conflicts…” Chris comes to this key conclusion:

[T]he main reasons for high gas prices are the weak dollar/inflation (aka the Federal Reserve), the current wars we are in, and the likelihood of the U.S. starting more wars in the near future.

National Security Network took a look at the issue as well, with a focus on the risk premium. They comment that “some experts estimate” a risk premium of $30 to $40 barrel due to tensions with Iran/etc. That is what my ‘off the top of the head’ figure would have been for risk premium. But, guess what: even the best analysts, when pushed away from reporters, seem call this a guess, a swag or, at best, an “educated” or “informed” estimate. And, of course, the risk premium doesn’t address the question of whether there would be more oil produced absent the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and sanctions against Iran. Nor does it address the question of how much of dollar’s fall is due to conflict in Iraq and tension with Iran.

A version of this discussion first appeared at The Oil Drum. And, as always, the comments (okay, most comments there) were thoughtful and (often extremely) well informed. There were (just a few) comments that Iraq was irrelevant to gas prices. Others who focused on supply / demand, with one suggesting that about $1.50 of price premium is increased demand/tight supply with about $0.75 being Iraq. Some who tried to calculate what the market implications would be if Iraq and Iranian oil had been maximized, suggesting a major impact on gasoline prices. And, others who queried some of the ‘what if scenarios’.

Many focused on the extent to which Iraq and federal borrowing to pay for it has undermined the US dollar and thus contributed to gasoline price increases. One commenter took the approach of simply attributing 100% of US military operations to the cost of Iraqi oil production, placing it far more expensive per barrel produced than any conceived production project in the world. Another asserted that we sacrificed $0.99 gallon gasoline by the invasion, suggesting $3 increase at the pump, due to lost opportunities for significant increases in supply.

A modified version went up at FireDogLake, where the informed comments and education continued. Amid the comments, Hugh very strongly asserted that the price is driven by speculation above all.

Hugh’s 3 Iron Laws of Energy

1. The price of crude oil and the price of gasoline are not directy coupled.

2. The price of gasoline is always manipulated.

3. The price of crude oil in the short term is excessively high and in the long term absurdly low.

Sort of as a corollary of 3. The major driver in the price of crude since 2004 has been excessive speculation.

If you would like a more detailed explanation of this last, go to my [list of Bush] scandals list item 365.

Have to say that that list is terrifyingly impressive. And, item 365 is a strong statement, with data, of Hugh’s assertion that speculative activity is a major driver behind mounting oil prices. Hugh has me thinking. Not convinced, but thinking.

Over at The Oil Drum, Jeffveil’s very thoughtful comment, which rejects the very concept of a risk premium, began/ended this way:

Hmmmm… this is a thorny issue. … the opportunity cost of the Iraq War may justify some of the price at the pump. Exactly how much? I’ll stick with you SWAG.

Back to a swag:

To place a little context, America’s gasoline at the pump, on average across the country, has gone up from $1.42 / gallon in January 2003 to $4.10 now. It has gone up $2.68. While there was already some ‘risk premium’ in place at that time (war drums beating), this suggests some form of upper bound on the discussion — but an upper bound that is well above $2 per gallon.

These, however, don’t clearly answer the questions. Is the Iraq war premium $3?$2.30? $2? A buck? Twenty cents? Or, is there no premium at all? I find a $3 per gallon assertion absurd, just as I would find it absurd to assert that there is no premium at all. But, in terms of defensible analysis, in scratching my head, I return to the short answer:

Two dollars a gallon is, perhaps, as good a swag as anyone’s.

…

I think.

But that is why this post is here. To spark a conversation. To be honest, I don’t know the answers to these questions. I wonder whether anyone really does. Which is one of the reasons why I’m writing this. I don’t know. I am not expert on gasoline prices and all the factors that coalesce to drive prices that are paid at the pump. Many here, however, are … Are the questions asked above the right ones? Are there major factors missing? And, what might the answers be? What is a ‘defensible’ statement as to the premium American drivers pay at the pump due to the Iraq War.

Peak Oil

Now, to finish, we must be careful. The Oil Drum published a piece yesterday highlighting that global declines in oil field productivity (core to Peak Oil) seem to be accelerating faster than analysis and reporting had suggested would occur.

The evidence seems to be pointing to an overall increase in the global decline rate for existing wells. What this means is that, if world production is around 86 million barrels a day, then to replace existing declines next year, an additional new production of 4.47 mbd at 5.2% decline, instead of the 3.87 mbd required at 4.5% decline, will be needed just to stabilize supply at a fixed level.

If things work well, opening up all of Alaska would add perhaps 900,000 barrels per day to the oil supply in a decade or so. Ignoring growing global demand for oil (Chinese ‘consumers’ wanting cars like America’s soccer moms and McSUV fans), we need to be finding and putting on line new oil the equivalent of 5% of current production year in, year out just to stay even. Ten years from now, that theoretical new US oil production would be less than 1/50th of the requirement to fill in that gap. (I don’t want to be in the should we, shouldn’t we discussion on that but to make it clear, in yet a different way, that those who are advocating “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!” are, in the politest words possible, deceitful on a level of nearly criminal negligence in terms of America’s and the globe’s future.) While it is an interesting intellectual discussion to battle over how much Iraq is responsible for today’s gasoline prices and a very sad discussion to have about ‘what if’ George the W had been a thoughtful President and the opportunity costs of not using these resources in a wiser fashion, the key challenge is to figure out and execute paths to get the US and the Globe on a planned (rather than forced) glide slope off oil (and off coal, Global Warming …). And, to get on this glide slope NOW.

We must Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!

At the pump and elsewhere, we are suffering the consequences for, as a society and individuals, our energy illiteracy and bad energy choices. The consequences are already dire. They will only get worse … unless we (as individuals, communities, businesses, governments at all levels, nations, global society) get our act together and start acting. WE have a choice …

Ask yourself: Are you doing your part to ENERGIZE AMERICA?

Are you ready to do your part?

Your voice can … and will make a difference.

So … SPEAK UP … NOW!!!

PS: Energize America has a panel Friday morning, 9 am, at Netroots Nation. Please join Jerome a Paris, Devilstower, Energy Smart candidates Debbie Cook (CA-45) and Mark Begich (AK-Senate), and myself for a conversation about Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress.