September, 22 2008, 02:43pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x115
Offshore Drilling and Automobile Fuel Economy: The Relative Impact on Oil Production
WASHINGTON
Last
week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that lifted some
restrictions on oil drilling in America's outer continental shelf. The
bill was supported by many Democrats but was criticized by many
Republicans for not going far enough and for not opening up enough
areas to drilling. Senator John McCain supports lifting all
restrictions on drilling in the outer continental shelf. He argues that
increased offshore production will reduce dependence on foreign oil, in
addition to lowering gas prices.
However, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that
even Senator McCain's proposal for comprehensive drilling would have no
impact in the near-term, since it will be close to a decade before any
oil can be extracted from the coastal areas in question. The EIA
estimates that actual production would not begin until 2017 and would
not reach peak production until 2030. Further, the EIA projects that
this will only increase domestic oil production by 200,000 barrels a
day (0.2 percent of projected world production), an amount too small to
have any significant effect on oil prices.1
It is interesting to compare the potential impact on oil prices of the
proposal to remove restrictions on offshore drilling with the impact of
the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This
legislation included regulations designed to increase production of
renewable fuels and increase energy efficiency. Most significantly, the
measure raised the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for
automobiles. Under the legislation, the minimum CAFE standard for
passenger vehicles must average at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by
2020, up from the previous minimum standard of approximately 27.5 mpg
at present.2
CAFE standards were first implemented in 1975 at 20 mpg and increased
to 27.5 mpg in 1985. The CAFE program had the direct effect of reducing
national oil consumption by compelling automakers to produce more
fuel-efficient cars. The Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
estimates that without CAFE standards, gasoline consumption (and crude
oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels a day greater.3 Currently, our consumption of oil is estimated at 20.8 million barrels a day.4
Figure 1 shows the relative impact on oil production of lifting
drilling restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf, compared with the
impact on oil consumption of increasing standards of automobile fuel
efficiency.
FIGURE 1
The Relative Impact of Offshore Drilling and Increasing Fuel Efficiency Standards in 2030
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 should have a similar
impact on fuel efficiency and oil consumption, also lowering
consumption by approximately 2.8 million barrels per day by 2027, the
year when the EIA projects that peak production could be reached from
drilling in the currently protected offshore area.5
If this is the case, then the increase in fuel economy standards
contained in the recent legislation will decrease oil dependency by an
amount fourteen times greater than any comprehensive offshore drilling
effort.
Senator Obama has proposed a slightly more ambitious fuel efficiency
schedule which would increase mileage standards at the rate of 4
percent a year. This would lead to somewhat greater energy savings,
especially if the increases are continued beyond the 2020 date. In this
case, the mileage standard will reach 52 miles per gallon by 2027,
which will raise the average for all cars driven to just less than 42
miles per gallon by that date. In this case, the savings in oil
consumption would be equal to 4.2 million barrels a day by 2027.6 This amount would be 21 times as large as the impact of opening up the protected offshore areas to drilling.
While Senator McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, his running mate Governor Sarah Palin strongly supports lifting
the restrictions on drilling. The EIA has estimated that drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have no effect in the
near-term. Production would not begin until 2018, and in 2030,
production would plateau at 710,000 barrels a day. This amount of oil
is projected to decrease the price of oil by about $2.00 a barrel,
which would bring down the price of gasoline by less than 5 cents a
gallon.7
In conclusion, the increase in CAFE standards signed into law by
President Bush will have four times the impact on oil dependency as
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and fourteen times the
impact as drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. The addition of
Senator Obama's conservation proposal to the increased CAFE standards
would have 21 times the impact of opening up drilling in protected
offshore areas and 6 times the impact of drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The impact of opening drilling in either area
will be zero for close to a decade. Even when these regions attain peak
production in close to twenty years, the potential impact on gasoline
prices will still be negligible.
________________________________
1.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030. Washington: GPO, 2007. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html. Accessed September 8, 2008.
2. White House. Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Washington: White House, 2007. https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html.
Accessed September 9, 2008. The current 25 miles is a rough average of
the 27.5 MPG requirement for cars and the 22.2 MPG requirement for
light trucks.
3. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington: National Academy Press, 2002. https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=3. Accessed September 9, 2008.
4. Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Rank Order - Oil - Consumption. Washington: CIA, 2005. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html. Accessed September 11, 2008.
5.
This calculation assumes that the efficiency of the fleet of cars sold
increases at the rate of 0.85 MPG per year between now and 2020. It
also assumes that each year a car is on the road it is driven 10
percent less (e.g. 2005 cars are driven 10 percent less than 2006 cars)
and that it is pulled off the road altogether after 20 years. It also
assumes a baseline where gasoline consumption rises by 10 percent from
9 million barrels per day in 2008 to 10 million barrels per day in
2027.
6. This calculation makes the same assumption about the rate at which cars are pulled off the road.
7.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf. Accessed September, 9 2008.
By Matthew Sherman and Dean Baker
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular