Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOffshore Drilling Won't Help But 'Green Stimulus' Can
"Gas prices -- $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America," says the narrator in the TV ad that Republican presidential candidate John McCain played last week.
"Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"
Cut to crowd, chanting: "Obama, Obama."
Yes, this is a real political ad on TV, complete with "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." It is not The Onion.
Reality check: First, Senator McCain's proposal to "drill more in America and rescue our family budgets" -- that is, to open up environmentally sensitive offshore areas to oil drilling -- would take about a decade to produce any oil. That's according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Maybe by "family budgets" McCain meant rescuing families in 2018. Or maybe not. According to the EIA, the total amount of oil that this drilling would produce at peak 20 years from now would be less than 0.2 percent of world production. This would be too small to have any significant effect on the price of oil or gasoline, according to the EIA.
Last Sunday, on the ABC morning talk show "This Week," Senator McCain again mentioned "offshore drilling" as part of a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He got away with it, since the host didn't ask him how such a tiny amount of oil would have any significant effect on imports. He included a number of other things, too, but did not mention mileage standards for cars, mass transit, or conservation generally.
Fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles in the United States have barely changed since 1985. If we had chosen to raise these standards (for cars and light trucks) by less than one half mile (0.4 miles) per year, the average car on the road would be getting 32 miles per gallon. This would reduce our oil consumption by 3.3 million barrels per day, or more than 16 times what McCain's offshore drilling would get us twenty years from now.
Mass transit could also be greatly expanded, as today's gasoline prices have made people more than ready to use it. This would not only save a lot more oil imports than offshore drilling, it would also provide jobs and an economic stimulus at a time when it is badly needed. The U.S. economic downturn is just beginning: we built up an $8 trillion housing bubble during the decade from 1996-2006, and only about 60 percent of it has burst so far. At the current rate of house price declines, another $2 trillion in housing wealth will disappear this year. Consumer spending, which is 70 percent of the economy, is likely to decline and the labor market will continue to weaken. The prior stimulus package passed in February has given some boost to the economy for the first half of this year, but much more will be needed.
A "green stimulus" package would give the economy a lift while simultaneously reducing energy consumption. This would include not only mass transit but also tax credits for homeowners and businesses to make building improvements that conserve energy. These would include renovations such as solar panels and insulation. Sizeable tax credits in this area would also help the ailing construction industry, an important part of our economy that has collapsed with the housing bubble.
All of these measures make a lot more sense than drilling for very little oil in environmentally sensitive areas, while trying to blame Barack Obama for rising gasoline prices.
This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on July 30, 2008.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.
35 Comments so far
Show AllI am not saying everyone will be their own little power station to get off the grid. I meant fields and tops of buildings and have that clean power fed into the grid. That shuts down or stops coal and nuke plants being built and we all win.
Electricity is very cheap so the 10's of thousands for a home owner to get off the grid is out of the question. Now let me buy an electric or Air powered car and if I can recharge it using a small amout of power I can produce myself would be very nice in deed
As for living I have lived in everything from a tent to my 2500 sq foot house I have now in my new country, Canada
Oh, and here's another on Nanotechnology for solar:
http://www.understandingnano.com/solarcells.html
Hollow point,
Yes, I am aware of the fact that Big Oil and Coal have stifled the development of solar which is why it takes longer to get better. However, what you need to understand is that in reality, most people will be unable to install solar panels for their own energy needs much as I love the idea of cutting down on depending on the grid. Have you even lived in an apartment, condo, or even a townhouse? Even if you live on the top floor, you are generally not allowed to install solar panels on the roofs because the exterior is outside your permitted living space. And have you tried installing solar panels in a rental home that won't be yours to own? Yeah, I'm sure they'll let you do that, uh-huh. And what about those zoning laws your "lovely" BIG GOVERNMENT (either via Home Owners Association and/or local zoning rules) shoves on to most urban and some suburban areas against solar panels, wind mills, and even clothes lining for those who don't want to waste energy on lousy washers and dryers? If those laws can be reformed and Home Owners Association can be made to BUTT OUT, then maybe more people will have the freedom to install solar panels and/or wind turbines. Until any of that is done, then we have no choice but to wait for solar technology development to be adjusted for such hostile business rules. Ever heard of thin solar panels via nano technology?
http://www.physorg.com/news1231.html
You are correct about coal and nuclear cart-blanche subsidies BIG GOVERNMENT is giving to Big Coal and Big Nuclear.
As long as the nuke, coal, industry continues to BRIBE the elected officials in America the playing field will never be level.
Frederick Johnson
You can alway wait for the next high tech improvment to do something. If that is the case then nothing is done since you are always waiting. Also why does it have to be cheaper? We have been doing it on the cheap now and look at the world.
there are thousands of SQ miles of space that does nothing in every country. Be it office rooftops or the right away of electric power lines that could be used for solar panels and are not are just two examples. I am not saying it will be the answer to all the problems but doing something is far better than nothing.
If a local gov or town council tries to stop solar cells or windmills and you want change you vote them out.
jakenewton,
Don't forget those BIG GOVERNMENT zoning laws. Algore encountered them while trying to install solar panels on his home and so too have countless homeowners. And then don't forget that more folks are going to be living in apartments, condos, townhouses, or at best rental homes. You cannot install solar panels there because you don't own the exterior of the building you're living outside your living space. There's a lot more to work out before solar becomes mainstream. Besides, I hear solar is getting improvements on the nano-tech side or something. So like computers, as the improvements come about, so too does bigger bangs for the buck. Maybe in 2 or 3 years, I'll see what they've improved like. And I'm guessing nano will replace silicon or something like that.
"What would happen if we put a solar panel on the roof of every home and building with access to a southern exposure, and then hooked them all up to the electrical grid with a meter that runs forward and backwards,"
That technology is avaiable but expensive. As I understand it, there is a government subsidy figured in to most actual installations. It would otherwise take a much longer time to get the investment back. That could change if rates go up of course.
UNTIL BIG GOVERNMENT BUTTS OUT AND REMOVES THE BAN ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP, GETS RID OF THE ZONING LAWS AGAINST SOLAR, WIND, AND ENERGY SAVING CLOTHES LINING, AND PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC/MASS TRANSPORTATION, GOD WILL CONTINUE TO SEVERELY PUNISH AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION !!!!
chatakha, you're right and I should have addressed population more specifically. My hope is that we can ramp down from our unsustainable energy use faster than famine or disease ends up ramping down the population for us, which it assuredly will. Best that some kind of global population control might be made to work, if we can manage it. Certainly worth a try since population IS going to be controlled one way or the other eventually.
I live in Boise ID where almost every day is sunny. What would happen if we put a solar panel on the roof of every home and building with access to a southern exposure, and then hooked them all up to the electrical grid with a meter that runs forward and backwards, depending on whether a person is providing more energy or using more energy, with the conventional power plant providing the remainder of the electrical energy needs. Is this possible with present technology. Would it cost less than a nuclear plant, or a "clean coal" plant. It appears that storage is a problem in converting to an all solar and wind system, but this would at least cut down on the energy produced by the conventional system. Previous posters are correct that the biggest problem is overpopulation with humans, but no one seems to want to tak about it. The other issue is that global warming is a bigger long term threat than high gasoline prices, so more oil and coal from any source is not the answer.
But, ezeflyer August 1st, 2008 11:14 pm, if we capped personal net worth at ten million, when I win the lottery, or hit it big in Vegas (if I ever bought a lottery ticket or went to Vegas), I'd have to share with the immigrants and the welfare queens! We can't have that!
:)
We are in a great big energy hole. It's going to take more discipline than we've shown as a society since World War II to climb out. The specific factual details are being argued constantly - we have 100 years worth of oil, we have thirty, it never will run out, whatever - the planet isn't going to stand for our continuing on this course.
Anything we do about energy isn't going to matter, if we help push the global climate past the point that permits the food production to support the population that makes such energy use a seeming necessity in the first place.
We're going to have to find the best mix of every option - solar thermal and photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, tidal hydroelectic, and yes, unfortunately, nuclear fission, coal, and using what oil we can get our hands on, to carry us through a very challenging transitional period away from reliance on fossil hydrocarbons.
We're going to have to live differently, all of us, post growth, post consumer goods cornucopia, post eating food that has been trucked a thousand miles, or shipped halfway around the world. We're going to have to drive less, in more efficient cars. Gas prices probably should not be allowed to decline very far from present levels, to encourage that. Hey, it costs me too, but it also modifies my behavior in the one true foolproof way, right in the wallet. I'm not sure how we sell that to the yahoo commuting solo three hours a day in one of those Expeditions or Sequoias though.
Look at present world demand for oil. In ten years it's going to be even bigger, regardless of what America does, because our relative importance is declining with the rise of east Asia. And ten years is about when any offshore development begun now will start to pay off, when we're REALLY going to need it. It might make the difference then between whether we keep our electrical grid running, or food production at necessary levels, or not.
Our goal has to be a national super-project, like Manhattan and Apollo projects combined, to develop commercially scalable hydrogen fusion power, which would make things like turning seawater into hydrogen to run fuel cells a viable net energy proposition, along with desalinization of seawater to make up for part of the coming water shortage in the American southwest, and around the world.
We still have the best universities in the world. We're still, some of us anyway, the smartest bunch of folks who've ever set themselves up a country. We could handle such a project. Having a big positive goal like that could unite us. If we'd started during the Carter administration we'd be there by now, telling the Saudis and Hugo Chavez what they could do with all the stinky goo they're pumping out of the ground. And if I ran an oil company, I wouldn't see this as a threat. I'd see it as the next big thing, like an abacus manufacturer being given the an opportunity to get in on the ground floor at IBM, or a buggy whip manufacturer being offered cheap stock by Henry Ford in about 1906.
It seems to me that we've given up. Maybe the reason is that our leaders aren't some kind of awful aberration, but a perfect mirror of our true values as a society.
" If we had chosen to raise these standards (for cars and light trucks) by less than one half mile (0.4 miles) per year, the average car on the road would be getting 32 miles per gallon. This would reduce our oil consumption by 3.3 million barrels per day,"
Confusing efficiency with frugality. Better mileage would tend to lead to driving more miles. The savings claimed is dubious on that point alone.
If you want to make it so people would use less, then you could tax it or ration it.
exciting MIT discovery just out about solar power
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
"50.5 Billion divided by 17 billion = $2.97 profit per GALLON."
Flawed analysis. Much of those profits were made overseas.
ezeflyer: "Please don't insult our intelligence."
After reading some of the horse shit you write, I don't think that's possible.
marc melchiori: "I say Pat Buchanan - he's a somebody!"
ANOTHER cute pseudo-intellectual!!!
OK CUBA discovered hugh oil just off its shore and just inside its water boarders. BIG US OIL CAN'T GO THERE. Then all of a sudden the US has to drill offshore? I wonder what angle those drill rigs will be pointed?
anybody but obama or mccain - are you sure anybody?
I say Pat Buchanan - he's a somebody!
Surrender August 1st, 2008 6:40 pm said:
Anybody but Obama or McCain!!!
Please don't insult our intelligence.
Restoring and broadening funding for Planned Parenthood would help reduce demand for resources better and more cheaply than bandaid remedies.
Capping personal net worth to say, 10 million would be the definitive way to redistribute the money-power.
I concure...we have to do a little bit of ALL the above....
I think we are a bit more environmentally conscious than letting the Russians or Chinese drill it and sell it to us...might as well get it ourselves...
Anybody but Obama or McCain!!!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/_Obama_shifts_says_he_may_0801.html
This just posted:
Mass Institute of Technology
mimicing photosythesis - storage cheap AND SOON!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm
Its going to take an amalgamation of all our sources of energy to get out of this hole and move to sustainable alternatives or cleaner technology.
A calculator and statistics will tell anyone that is interested that of course we are going to have to drill a bit offshore, extend wind technology, etc.
It will take a combined effort and it will take more time than they say.
Europe is discovering that solar power concentrator technology, which can overcome storage / demand mismatch, works well, and can expand quickly with just a little encouragement from governments. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2303970.htm
The future lies here, while damnation lies ahead for continuing extractive fossil fuel usage. Algal production of oil is also showing some promise.
We are sitting on an estimated 100 years worth of oil ...why not drill it and in the intervening time we'll find a long term solution...
Reality check: "Go green" means anything Congress wants it to mean. It means clean coal without the clean part. It means paying more in oil than they get back in ethanol. It means paying more in oil than they get back in nuclear, but the companies make it up on the subsidies. It means more hydrogen research, because hydrogen costs billions and just doesn't work too well as a storage medium. Translation, anyone can use batteries now, and compressed air will outdo hydrogen power storage soon.
99 times out of 100 green research means funding the same old wealthy folks who don't know a thing about research. How will you know, who will tell you in time that your government's off on another high-roller junket? They can hire an ad agency to promise you everything's going fine. Is that what you want?
I promise you that in your lifetime the U.S. government will do zilch for new mass transit invention. There is no incentive, for example, to reinvent the 18th century railroad cowcatcher so that subway train wheels don't cut people in half. That's because such an invention has zero chance of ever being sold to a megacorp. "Not invented here!"
There are some really duh! inventions that aren't being made, ever, never, hundreds of such inventions in many fields. Some foreign government will get it, and take over the green business. Americans can go shovel sulfur.
Thanks Mark. Agree with your emphasis on renewable alternatives.
One of my first observations about the way big energy propaganda downplayed major policy shifts towards alternatives (solar and wind in particular), was the basis of their economic projections on source "replacement"... investment costs, time factors and quantity of new alternative generators needed to become a significant contributor to our needs.
What they fail to add to the dialog is that technology changes as demands for innovation increase. Their calculations incorporate technology projections that are virtually static over time.
However, generator efficiency will increase, competition and local production will drive down investment costs, new high voltage DC will increase transmission conservation, solar energy conversion will take new forms... and the most important aspect of technological advancement will be in the arena of storage.
The calculations that are used to advocate against renewable alternatives completely discount energy storage from wind and solar generation. Big energy can then point to an area of contention, that alternatives can only compete when demand is very high and when production reaches near capacity. That eliminates a significant part of the daily cycle and leaves maximum production from wind and solar significantly dependent upon weather conditions.
Storage is key. If excess power generation from wind and solar can be stored for used during high demand periods, then the economies of renewable generation suddenly become much more competitive... in fact, they can become very inexpensive in comparison. Hydrogen can be stored.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01hydrogen.html
A post on today's NYT site briefly suggesting how we can approach storage. As to transportation, the development of a hydrogen infrastructure may be no more difficult than installing a next generation wind turbine or solar array stationed across the country.
the remaining $0.03/gallon is plenty of profits, for anyone except the fatally greedy...that would still be about $2 billion a year in profits...or about $7 per American per year..not bad for selling something that belongs to YOU ANYWAYS!!
Here is a surefire great idea to reduce the price of gas by almost $3/gallon. and I can back it up with numbers.
the top 6 oil companies in the USA had total combined profits of $51,500,000,000 (52.5 Billion dollars)for the last QUARTER.
the USA consumes approx $17,000,000,000 (17 billion gallons)of gasoline each quarter.
50.5 Billion divided by 17 billion = $2.97 profit per GALLON.
that means they were overcharging you almost $3/gallon during the last quarter.
If the USA nationalized the oil industry, and didn't need to produce obscene profits, the pice of a gallon of gas cvould be reduced by $2.97 to reach the break even point.
they would still make a combined quarterly profit of $1/2 billion or $2 Billion a year...or about $7 per American per year...plenty of money for everyone, except for the cronically GREEDY!
ta da!!
Go Socialism!!
Stop all subsidies. You can't promote anything while oil, gas and nuclear get enormous tax credits, subsidies, and outright "outsourcing" of their insurance and disposal costs to taxpayers.
How about a mandatory 65 MPH speed limit? I thought there was a shortage.
http://g2bgreen.com/now-comes-the-air-powered-car
Mark Weisbrot's excellent columns on economics and on our current devious policies in South America (especially with regard to Hugo Chavaz, but now spreading to include the demonization of presidents Correa of Ecuador and Morales of Bolivia) can be found at www.cepr.net.