Staff Contributors
Staff Contributors
Adam Browning
Adam Stein
Alan Durning
Andrew Dessler
Andrew Sharpless
Ariane Lotti
Ben Tuxworth
biodiversivist
Brad Johnson
Coby Beck
Edward Mazria
Eric de Place
Erik Hoffner
Frank O'Donnell
Gar Lipow
Glenn Hurowitz
Guest author
Jason D Scorse
Jim Goodman
JMG
John McGrath
John McQuaid
Jon Rynn
Joseph Romm
Josh Dorner
Ken Ward
Kit Stolz
Laura Hess
Lisa J. Bunin
Lou Bendrick
Maywa Montenegro
Melinda Henneberger
Meredith Niles
Michael Hoexter
Michael Moynihan
Miles Grant
Sean Casten
Sharon Astyk
Steph Larsen
Stephanie Paige Ogburn
Summer Rayne Oakes
Thomas Dobbs
Van Jones
Zoe Bradbury


A media boon for Pickens

T. Boone Pickens' plan is overexposed and inferior to Gore's

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:30 AM on 24 Jul 2008

Read more about: energy | renewable energy | climate | Al Gore | cars

It's official: T. Boone is overexposed. His monotonous TV ad runs on an endless loop, he has testified in front of Congress, he is now appearing on every cable show, and everybody quotes him even though he doesn't actually agree with anybody but himself.

What specifically bugs me:

  1. His ads say we can't drill our way out of this problem, but then he says we should drill everywhere -- offshore, Alaska, your backyard.
  2. He keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles.
  3. His plan shares a great deal in common with Al Gore's, but he still goes out of his way to diss it (inaccurately, see below): "Gore's Global Warming Plan Ignores Crippling Stranglehold Foreign Oil Has on America's Economic and National Security."
  4. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D/R ?-Conn.) said the plan is a "classically American message of honesty, determination and can-do optimism."
  5. Did I mention he keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles, even though Russia, Iran, and Persian Gulf states have most of world's gas reserves?

The Gore critique seems to me particularly lame, as if he can't stand to share the stage with anyone else. Why else release such a petty statement as this:

"Today, former Vice President Al Gore put forward a framework of a plan that is focused on global warming and climate issues. My plan is aimed squarely at breaking the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our country and the $700 billion annual impact it has on our economy. We import 70% of our oil and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem, it is clear that he and I have two different objectives and our plans should be viewed with that in mind."

"I believe that elements of any realistic plan to reduce our deadly addiction to foreign oil should encompass the following:

- Will it slash oil imports by at least 30% in 10 years?
- Does it rely 100% on domestic energy resources?
- Does it rely on existing and proven technologies?
- Can it be on line within 10 years?
- Can it be done by private investment?"

Unveiled on July 8th, the Pickens Plan will reduce the amount of foreign oil imported by more than one third within the next decade, or $300 billion annually. It focuses on our abundant domestic renewable resources available and would harness extensive use of wind power, a resource the Department of Energy this year recognized can generate more than 20 percent of our electricity needs. This wind energy can replace the natural gas currently being used to operate power plants around the country, and the released natural gas can be redirected and used as a cleaner, more cost effective fuel in our transportation system. Pickens believes the infrastructure can be built by private enterprise within the next 10 years.

"It's time for us to take responsibility for the problem we've created and act now. The Federal Government should provide the leadership to clear the way for action and private enterprise should build the infrastructure to get it done. Only in that way can we recapture our energy destiny."

Actually, the Gore plan does move us quickly in the direction of energy independence -- and it makes much more sense than the Pickens plan, because "electricity is the only alternative fuel that can lead to energy independence," and we don't have enough domestic natural gas to replace a substantial fraction of oil. Also, nobody is going to build out the natural gas fueling infrastructure, since natural gas is not the transportation fuel of the future. And nobody's going to buy natural gas vehicles absent tens of thousands of fueling stations.

Electricity, on the other hand, is already available almost everywhere. And utilities have a great incentive to build out the rest of the electric vehicle fueling infrastructure. And governments have a huge incentive to promote the transition to a transportation fuel that is inexpensive and can be zero carbon.

But if Pickens is just going to be a pre-Madonna primadonna, the part of his plan that makes sense will, sadly, suffer the same fate as a part of his plan that does not.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It's good that Pickens presented his plan

if you follow the logic of this this NY Times Op-Ed piece, because he's at least declaring very loudly that drilling won't solve the problem.  The pretty pictures of windmills also help.  Other than that, I don't know if people will notice too many of his details, and hopefully not his criticisms of Gore.

The main thing he's doing is making people more aware of peak oil.

pickens explained

Imagine a rich guy sitting on top of a monopolistic business. What would be his primary motive ? It is simple, it is to maximize the amount of profit that can be milked out of this business.

Mr.Pickens did just that. He puts on his eco evangelist coat at the precise moment when his oil wells run dry and when he can no longer make any money on it. So he tries to shift to the next best monopoly, which is natural gas.

An illuminating figure about the acting strategy of several countries is their estimated reserve life of oil resources at the current rate of production. Each country wants the world to shift to an oil-free economy based on this particular time frame. No more no less. Now that oil is over, Mr. Pickens will shout his policy of emptying natural gas until as long as his reserves run dry.

The corporate puppeteers pull their political strings to align public policy with the time frames they have in their mind. Nobody is going to order about a shift to real sustainable energy anytime soon. Not until the greedy guys milk their oil profits or natural gas profits to completely dry.

Whenever I see a "green" energy plan, I will see how long into the future it keeps us dependent on fossils. This date would not just come out of a hat. It is the precise moment where the profits start watering down.


Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

Agreed, vakibs

which is why the Saudis did their best to drive down the cost of oil in the 1980s, to get people as addicted as possible, they with the huge reserves. Now they want people to keep going until they're sucked dry...is government the only institution that can think long-term?

But TBP isn't Al Gore...

I more/less completely agree with Romm's criticisms of the TBP plan, but I think he fails to understand why it resonates with people.

As an aside, it is not dishonest to advocate drilling while saying it is not the only solution--as TBP makes very clear he wants to avoid the US exporting oil dollars as much as possible.

But the fact of the matter is, Gore can say whatever he wants, but a lot of people simply don't like him. Gore saying 'reduce emissions' is the new worn-out 'lockbox' phrase to a lot of people.

Let's looks at the TBP on the other hand, some good 'ol American oil baron billionaire who says we need to revamp our system and the petro-economy needs to change.  That, to many people, is something exciting and different. He's certainly wrong on many details but the whole of the message--and its deliverer--is something that resonates with a lot of Americans.

Also (in response to some of the other comments), if we're going to (justifiably) look at TBP's economic interests at stake (while also realizing the guy is like 80 and already has plenty of money--I don't think he and his buddies need much more), it's only fair to acknowledge that I'm sure Gore stands to make (and has already made) much money off of climate change issues and the technologies he proposes.  Let's call a spade a spade here. Just because we may agree with Gore doesn't make him a saint.

re: Romm

Watch out, the Pickens zombies are coming!
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...

-David Ahlport
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks