« Can Clinton win? | Main | The State of the Union Stinks »
January 30, 2007
READ THE FINE PRINT: Is BUSH serious about decreasing gas consumption?
President Bush said in his seventh SOTU (State of the Union speech) that he wanted to lower gas consumption by creating new mandates for oil companies and new standards for automakers. Smartly, at least, he suggested such mandates in this direction would enhance our energy security and address climate change.
But an oil man by dynasty and trade, Bush may have a hard time selling his sincerity of purpose on reducing our gas consumption in the U.S. Consider his critics, as published in the Washington Post.
Twenty in 10:
Bush said he has a "goal of reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10 years." However, the fine print is this: Administration officials said that the goal is 20 percent below projected annual gasoline usage, not off today's levels. That's very significant for oil markets, where analysts look at the balance of rising supplies and rising demand. "If you made this type of reduction . . . U.S. petroleum consumption wouldn't be flat, but it would not grow meaningfully," said Frederick W. Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp., who said he applauds Bush's "balanced" approach.
Raising fuel-economy standards:
Bush advisers said that the president supports raising fuel-efficiency standards to take effect in model year 2010 for cars and model year 2012 for trucks. He also wants to change the way the standards are applied. Currently the fuel standards apply to the average of all the cars each carmaker sells in a year. Bush would make new standards for cars "attribute-based" -- creating many different standards based on, for example, size. And he would give carmakers some flexibility in how they meet targets. (These standards are scheduled to go into effect for light trucks starting in 2008.) And the fine print is this: The new system promotes efficiency advances for every kind of vehicle, not just for one model. The president does not want Congress to set a new miles-per-gallon standard, but the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that Bush's proposal could raise the fleet average to 34 miles per gallon by 2017.
New renewable-fuel target:
Bush said he will ask Congress to require oil companies to use 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. The administration said this would replace 15 percent of the projected annual gasoline consumption. The questions: How will that target be met? This year the ethanol industry will produce more than 7.5 billion gallons, almost all of it corn-based, passing the current target that had been set for 2012. But it would take more than last year's entire U.S. corn harvest to make enough ethanol to meet the target. Most industry experts say that there is not enough evidence that producing biofuels from other sources can be done on anything close to that scale. And the fine print is this: Bush changed the language on the mandate to say that "alternative," not just "renewable," fuels could be part of that volume. The only difference that makes by federal definitions is to add what are called coal-to-liquids fuels. One company has a proposal before the Energy Department for a $2 billion plant.
Doubling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027:
The president's proposal calls for resuming the purchase of 100,000 barrels a day for the reserve, a practice suspended after Hurricane Katrina. The reserve has 691 million barrels; it has room for 727 million barrels. But the fine print is this: The plan calls for spending $10 billion to add storage facilities, including the expansion of sites in Louisiana and Texas, and addition of a new site at a salt cavern in Mississippi. An additional $55 billion would be spent buying the fuel over 20 years -- at a price of just less than $69 a barrel, a hefty premium over the current price of $54.77 a barrel.
| By wjbailes | 06:14 AM
Comments
What you have in Bush’s statements and proposals on the various aspects of the energy situation is a classic example of obfuscation. What we have now is a very serious universal problem that relates to all nations and the basis is energy.
Modern culture has created a situation in which almost all aspects of life are now dependant upon some form of human modified energy to exist. This energy, presently is controlleable and therefore profitable. Our basis of energy presently is oil. Due to large amounts of capital required to utilize this asset, control gravitates upward to those who have capital.
The present somewhat smooth flow of energy control to commerce profitabililty is being threatened by three factors: The most obvious seems to be the present concern with the condition of our enviornment. The second being the projected problem of the change or modification of the present delivery systems affecting profitablity if implimented. And the third being the grand and seirious fear that the basis upon which a majority of our economic structure is built could be in actuallity free or at least of little basis cost.
Bush and his backers are constrained by economic forces that are based upon principles that do not relate to the common good as understood in such notions as spiritual values and universal common attainment. These values are and will be more exposed as this conflict for energy progresses.
Without resorting to anything extreme there is right now the ability and the processes to correct this major and ultimatly devestating problem.
The question is, who is going to do it?
Posted by: wade at January 30, 2007 08:49 PM