Energy Blog

At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, there is little significance in the policy platforms adopted by the presidential candidates. Aside from making suggestions for the policy agenda, the president has very little control over the regulations passed. Hence although we are given a packaged solution to the energy crisis, even from the most honest politicians, there is absolutely no way the entire solution will be passed by congress. Consider us lucky if we get a portion of it passed. The power lies with congress. The president is simply the spokesperson of the nation, not the man who sets the laws. After all, Clinton approved the Kyoto Protocol only to have congress reject it. Candidate positions only reaffirm their definition of morality and cement voter identification with each candidate.

Policies that are quantified look good because they portray a clear goal and imply a knowledgeable candidate who knows what he’s doing, but how realistic are these numbers and what are the effects, especially long-term?

The ANWR (Artic National Wildlife Refuge) is home to 8,000 people, an entire ecosystem, and a historically and culturally significant area with Native American carvings on the trees. Alaska is America’s Last Frontier, a truly unique place that attracts a large number of tourists. Governor Palin welcomes Big Oil to destroy the natural beauty that is an asset to her state’s economy. Exceptions are easy to rationalize and if we continue to allow this to happen now, it will continue until we have nothing left. And when we realize that mistake, it will be too late.

As for the promotion of hybrid cars and ethanol fuels, many consumers complain that ethanol damages their engines and gives them must less mileage, requiring more frequent fill-ups, simply an added inconvenience. And consumers are very vocal about this so develop all the hybrid cars you want but good luck getting consumers to buy them.

So here’s my take on the candidates:

Barr- needs to adjust to the now era- social responsibility matters

McCain/Palin- drill in pristine land? Is nothing sacred?

McKinney- Environmentalist winner, Consumer loser

Nader- no comment (was too tired to listen)

Obama/Biden- an ultimatum to use the land or lose it? Is it ok to turn socialist when we are in crises? What happened to the fundamental right to property?

One cannot help but wonder who has ties with oil companies and who has been getting the most funding from Big Oil. (Think the Cheney scandals.)

McCain has received over $1 million in contributions from oil companies, over 80% of which was received after he announced support for off-shore drilling in June. It really has you wondering about the game played in presidential elections because the candidates want money and are promising things they cannot guarantee. These lobbyists are better off sticking with congress. (http://prezoilmoney.oilchangeusa.org/)
Obama claims to not accept money from oil companies but he has received a lot of money from oil company executives. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

Sept. 27, 2008- An afternoon press conference held Friday revealed little novelty in each presidential candidate’s proposal on energy. Representatives from five campaigns- Bob Barr (Libertarian), John McCain (Republican), Cynthia McKinney (Green), Ralph Nader (Independent), and Barack Obama (Democrat)- discussed policies that overlap and offer no solution to the immediate energy crisis.

Research and drilling terminology were tossed around to no end as the campaigns vied for voter support. But these are medium- and long-term solutions.

Drilling off-shore, or even in a new location, requires large sums of cash and time to set up the equipment and the system.

Researching for alternatives will not yield realizable solutions until at least a few years into the future. Yet these candidates, minus Nader and McKinney, raise the notion of drilling as a solution that will instantaneously lower gas prices as they take their seat in the Oval Office.

These candidates either fail to understand the lag time or are catering to ignorance, omitting what the average American does not know.

Either way, it seems no one knows how to provide relief for rising prices.

Probably the most intimidating aspect of acting as a representative for Obama was answering the questions. Some of them intrigued me. For instance, Samema asked the position of the Obama-Biden campaign on coal utilization. Why does Biden say no to coal, while it is very apparent that Obama fully supports use of America’s most abundant natural resource (for energy)? After some research, I found that although Biden has disagreed with Obama on the use of coal in the U.S. there is more to his statements. Biden does not agree with the tactics used in China to develop coal plants. The technology over there is outdated, and so Biden does want coal technologies in the U.S. as long as they are CLEAN coal technologies. Biden has even connected coal with the use of hybrid plug-in cars, one repeated facet of the New Energy for America Plan-.“Where’s that [electricity] come from? That comes from a utility. What do utilities burn? They burn coal mostly.”

Also, Emily asked why oil companies weren’t leasing on land they already have, in response to the Use it or Lose it (if a company does not drill on their land, they have to turn it over to the government so it can be allocated to another company, etc.) tactic that constitutes New Energy For America. It’s actually a bit more complicated than I thought it would be because there are plenty of reasons I didn’t even consider. After some research, I found the following. First of all, the land may not even have oil under it. The federal government doesn’t even know if the land they lease has oil under it- they lease it out for oil companies to speculate this, and determine it themselves. And why does it come out to so many acres of unused land? Oil companies have to not only purchase the plot where the oil is to be drilled, but also all the surrounding land around it. Other reasons also prevent use of land. Shortage of drill rigs prevents oil companies from going in and drilling- apparently drill rigs are leased for years at a time too.

Hey guys, I want to apologize for what happened today. My brain seemed to have frozen when I was on stage. I have the information in my mind, but they just don’t want to come out when I needed them. So, to make sure that information wasn’t lost, here I am, making a fool of myself.
To answer Billy’s question, Alaska’s oil will not be going to New York, the cost of transportation will be too expansive. The oil will actually be going into a global market that will distribute oil around the world. In other words, we will be exporting and importing oil at the same time. It will do little to lower our oil prices because OPEC will be adjusting their oil output to make sure there isn’t too much oil in the market. The purpose of Alaska oil is the safeguard that if Middle East stops sending us oil or a hurricane wipe out the oil refineries in Gulf of Mexico, we can limit the oil crisis to a small rise in gas price.
To answer Evan’s question, fighting corruption in our country is easier than fighting terrorism oversea. The majority our imported oils came from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is a big target for terrorists in Middle East, and the Venezuela president is threatening to end its oil supply to US. What better to show them that we are not intimidated by producing our own supply of oil.
To answer Emily’s question, oil doesn’t come out of nowhere. Even if we don’t drill in Alaska, we still need to get oil from somewhere. If the costs of oil grow, many countries will be more than happy to sell their oil to US. Do u think they will care for their environment? If we don’t do it, others will. At least when we are in control we can put the damage to our environment at a minimum.
I really didn’t like Palin, she focused too much on resources in Alaska instead of other issues. And we all know that ANWR is a failed cause. Also, I’m sorry ___(I don’t remember your name). I still don’t know what you are asking. Now that I got everything out of my system, I’m putting a brown bag on my head.

I found this great article on New York Times Science Section discussing Presidential Candidates position on science issues.
Link: Presidential Candidates Position on Science Issues

And this picture was just for fun … (nothing to do with the above link)

The American Physical Society (APS) has launched a major report to “identify America’s most effective energy saving strategies”:

The report Energy Future: Think Efficiency differs from other energy efficiency reports in its emphasis on scientific and technological options and analysis. Based on emerging technologies, this report targets which research and development gives America the best return for its dollars.

The Energy Future: Think Efficiency examines and answers what works now, what can work soon, and what is feasible for the future.

• Go to report homepage
• Download entire report as PDF
• Download Executive Summary PDF