Let’s act on clean energy....

Today's post: Wednesday, 6-16-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those, the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

Today, most of the critical comments on President Obama’s speech last night badly missed the mark.

They revealed the small mindedness of the critics more than the actual faults of the President.

Given the Gulf Oil Spill situation, he clearly needed to take several kinds of action.

It would be nice if he could have started earlier and done more on each of the key areas he listed. But, given his lack of God-like power and the other demands on his time, I think he is doing a decent job.

He laid out the exact things he should be doing and showed that in each case, he is indeed taking action to be sure those things get done.

He’s chosen experienced and appropriate people to work in each of the areas and set them to work.

He is taking the time to go see the situation first hand besides which shows in the strength of the effort he has begun to restore the health of the Gulf and the people who depend on it for their income.

The only weak point was his last and in many ways his most important one.

Let’s act on clean energy!

We have the ability to reduce our use of petroleum by 60 to 90 % with the technologies now developed. Had we done that already, BP would not have had the incentive to do deep water offshore drilling or have felt the necessity to cut corners to go faster despite the grave risks involved.

So, perhaps the most effective long term way to ensure only well managed, careful, and safe offshore drilling is done or is no longer needed at all, is to do just that.

The problem is that the Senate has many members who either are virtual employees of the oil companies who are taking a dangerously short sighted view of the situation OR those who want very badly to increase jobs and boost the economy and are scared to death of anything that might harm that.

Because of the oil spill and how horrible it has turned out to be, the influence of the oil companies and their lobbying money is temporarily low.

But those Senators, including some conservative Democrats, who are scared to do anything that might slow the economy, are still holding the energy bill hostage in fear that it will have that effect.

I think the President’s speech would have been far stronger as hopefully will his future policy, if he had added these two points.

1. We are running out of oil yet our economy now depends on it and we are NOT prepared enough to avoid economic collapse when it does.

So, I think the President needs to make this point about the initial costs of the change over to clean energy. Well managed companies will have the employees they want and need to keep during a severe recession cut their hours or pay a bit so that they can keep their jobs and will be in place when it turns around. In the same way, it is justified to have energy costs go up a bit now so that later they won’t go up horribly or have us run out of energy completely. Yes. It’s not great now to do this. But it will be SO much better later if we do, it’s irresponsible to refuse to do it.

2. On the other hand, we have a lot of people out of work and a lot of people very worried. In addition, we have other things slowing our economy. So, it’s also irresponsible to add costs to our economy without making every intelligent effort to reduce the impact of the switch over in energy or even make it zero if we can.

I am disappointed that the Obama administration has not made a major effort to create programs that will do just that.

And, I’m not just disappointed in the Senators who have done nothing in this area besides saying we can’t act on energy, I’m a bit angry about it.

This is exactly the area where a win win compromise can be reached in the Senate.

Tom Campbell just lost the Republican nomination to the Senate here in California. The Republicans here wanted a more partly line only candidate more than they wanted one who could win in November.

The good news is that Tom Campbell said that we should postpone acting on Clean energy while the economy is so bad; and now he won’t be in office supporting that view.

But, he WAS the best Republican candidate and does think well on topics where he has expertise.

He may have come up with the solution to how to get a bill through congress that will both help us switch from oil to clean energy AND minimize how much doing so will impact the economy.

When I emailed me about energy, he replied with this.:

“"The key is to lower business taxes by exactly the amount of revenue that would be generated by a carbon tax. The carbon tax would apply to the large users of fuels: largely, electrical generation and automobiles.

Economists overwhelmingly agree that the reduction in greenhouse gases proposed under a cap-and-trade program can be achieved, more efficiently, with less government supervision, less cost, and less interference with productive operations, by imposing a tax on the carbon content of the fuel used.

If we offset that increase in tax, dollar for dollar, by a lowering of the business tax, we actually favor companies that produce less amounts of greenhouse gases. The overall cost of doing business in our state would not change; but we would have achieved good environmental results. We also would have given an incentive to the creation of technology to reduce greenhouse gases, which is a real future area for California's business future.

We can find a way to achieve both good environmental results and good economic growth results...."

I think this is an example of the kind of bi-partisan work that can lead to an energy bill that can pass the congress.

I’d like to see more data on his assertion that carbon taxes have the advantages over cap & trade that he says they do. But it IS clear that you get better control of what the costs will be and scripting a gradual phase in program using carbon taxes.

AND, whether or not we use carbon taxes or a cap & trade – which has worked well in some applications, his idea of a compensating tax break to minimize the slowing on the economy and INCREASE the incentive to build more renewable energy is brilliant and has so far been missing from the debate.

Had President Obama included this last set of ideas AND given a list of the people he has recruited in a bi-partisan group to work on this area to improve it, I think the impact of his speech & his Presidency would have been far greater.

The good news is that it’s not too late to do so now.

I hope he does.