Steve Buyer, apparently noticing increased gas prices, has introduced the Buzzword Buzzword Act of 2008 . . . err, “the Main Street USA Energy Security Act of 2008.” When I was drafting legislation, we used to joke that the most important thing was to have a good title for your bill. Since then, it seems like the worst bills have some of the best names. Buyer’s has some great buzzwords –
Main Street: “Hey! I have a main street close to *my* house!”
USA: (chanting) “USA! USA! USA!”
Energy Security: “These are scary times, I like security. And energy seems important just about now.”
What’s not to like? I’ll vote for it! Oh, wait, I have no idea what it does yet. According to Buyer as quoted in the article, it seeks to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to shift reliance to nuclear power plants and coal. The text is here. In addition, it apparently seeks to expedite the process for building refineries, including designating 3 closed military bases as suitable for refining. I don’t have any kind of familiarity with existing energy law, so I’m not qualified to say how Buyer’s law would change existing law. From reading the text of the bill, I see about $1/2 billion for nuclear development and a number of tax credits for energy producers, including nuclear, coal liquification, and, apparently, non-dammed, free-flowing hydro. There are some amendments to the tax credits for home owners using solar, wind, or geothermal.
Nels Ackerson, Buyer’s opponent in the 2008 race, offers a blistering assessment:
“The incumbent congressman’s energy bill is too little, too late, too narrow in scope, and too politically motivated to have any effect on gas prices,†Ackerson contended. “Let’s be honest, this is a weak bill put forward at the last minute in an election year. Its current co-sponsors are all members of his political party, and it has no chance of being passed.
“Hoosiers are being hit hard with gas prices passing the $4 mark. Providing relief and reducing our dependence on foreign oil are too important for political gimmicks. They deserve serious, comprehensive energy proposals.â€
. . .
Ackerson, though not opposed to drilling where oil can be recovered in an environmentally sound manner, does not believe a focus on increasing oil production is the answer.“We need complete solutions, including wind, bio-fuels, solar, safe nuclear and clean coal technologies, as well as conservation,†he explained.
Ackerson said he looks forward to debating Buyer on the proposed energy policy and other issues during the next few months.
I like the free-flowing hydro…
Anecdote about this. I spend a few days each summer in the White Mountains staying in the Appalachian Mtn. Club alpine huts (www.outdoors.org). The huts with solar or wind power have to watch their energy usage, but the one with a small hydroelectric system sitting in the stream makes more power than they know what to do with.
Drilling in ANWR isn’t happening.
Nuclear is probably preferable to coal. Both have toxic waste. Nuclear is way more toxic, but there’s less of it.
Yes to more solar, wind. Tidal power, etc.
Conservation is easier than any of the above.
Drilling in ANWR is of course too little, too late for 2008.
The time to do it was 1998. Unfortunately, that… so and so… Bill Clinton vetoed the bill.
Wonder what Hillary has to say about that.
To Buyer’s bill, I would add offshore drilling off of Florida and California. There is oil there in all likelihood.
Drilling in ANWR is dumb. Keep it for when we REALLY need it, at the very worst. $4 gas isn’t it.
Seems like there is some language in the bill about Florida and California. It seemed to have something to do with producers off shore from those areas being allowed to swap their Florida and California leases in favor of an Alaskan lease. I could very easily be wrong about the effect on that. I was reading fast and didn’t understand it very well to start with.
ANWR would take years to get going. If you’re for drilling, then best be about it sooner, rather than later. Sooner is still going to be nearly a decade.
Sooner is still going to be nearly a decade.
Which it would have been nice if Slick Willie didn’t veto the bill way back in ’98. It would be coming on line right about now.
Doesn’t bother me. I think high gas prices are just fine. I’m getting a chip for my car that will let me burn straght E85.
But you Democrats who are pissed at the prices have Slick Willey to thank.
What does the likely production of ANWR represent in terms of the percentage of world-wide production?
That doesn’t matter, Doug. What would matter would be the projected percentage of US consumption.
What does the likely production of ANWR represent in terms of the percentage of world-wide production?
Prices are set at the margin, not on average. More production is exactly what is needed.
More refining would help too. We burn more refined product than we make. That means imports of gasoline and diesel.
Well, except when we’re exporting diesel, like we are now. Damn Europeans and their diesel cars.
I’m going to start riding my bike to work a couple of times a week. There are a few days I need a car, but not all the time.
We have a refinery right up the road from me-doesn’t make a bit of difference in gas prices;-)
More production just means we run out of oil sooner. Oil does not renew. Why is it so hard to understand this?
Lowering the cost of gas and oil just lets everyone delay the changes that will be made someday. If we make the changes now, then maybe we can make it off oil before we run out everywhere, including Alaska. If we delay, then we’ll run out and not have another energy source. That will be a very, very bad day for everyone.
More production just means we run out of oil sooner. Oil does not renew. Why is it so hard to understand this?
Sorry, I am not accepting the Jedi Mind Trick you libs are trying to pull with this argument.
If it were up to you libs, ANWR will NEVER be developed.
It isn’t like libs are saying that ANWR is off limits until oil is $200 a barrel, or until 2050 or something.
Why is oil $127 a barrel? Because worldwide demand is up and worldwide production is down. One part of the equation is supply.
And if supply is never increased, because ANWR, the non-Gulf Coasts, and federal lands are off limits, supply is never going to increase.
First, I’m not “you libs”. Many of my views would get me booted head-first out of the “lib” party. :)
Second, yes, worldwide production is down, and yes, that drives the price up. Production is down because oil is getting harder to get to. Yes, we have many new technologies that will allow us to keep finding new reserves, but the existing ones are drying up.
My views on the ANWR are more strategic than envriomental. Oil demand has not slowed, and at some point, real wars will be fought trying to capture oil. Not like the gulf wars, but wars where people attack the country with the sole purpose of planting their own oil wells there.
When that happens, I’d feel a little better that we have a large reserve in Alaska that hasn’t been depeleted. At the same time, I’m hoping the increased cost will spur innovation that will help us survive the transtition off of oil when it is forced on us.
Put me in the “not bitching about gas prices” column. Sure it hurts right now. It appears to be hurting enough to change behavior. After that behavior change, it will hurt less.
T, don’t you have a Prius? You’re living the change, or something. What Obama says.
And it isn’t like a Prius involves any sacrifice whatsoever. It’s as big as a Camry.
It’s a little on the pricy side (they’re selling for over $25k these days) but not outragously so.
You do have to wonder how much money Toyota makes on them, even at the higher prices they’ve been charging lately. Toyota admits that the hybridization costs $4k per vehicle.
But that’s a big improvement from when they started in ’97, when it was more like $10k per vehicle.
GM says the Tahoe hybrid system costs $10k per vehicle.
The problem with the bigger vehicles is that the hybrid system is used more as a horsepower boost than as a significant fuel savings feature. By the time you figure the premium to buy it vs the paltry fuel economy boost, it’s hard to justify. I think the sales numbers bear that out.
We first moved toward improved fuel economy in our household by going with a Honda Civic for my wife in 2003. I continued to drive the truck at about 14 mpg. When we bought the Civic, I thought the Prius was butt-ugly. Within about six months, the look started appealing to me. Most of the wife’s miles are highway, so there’s not that much difference between the two.
The top Prius with financing runs right at about $30k. I’m realizing about $3k/yr fuel savings over what the truck was burning. The dealer threw in an upgrade to 100k mile/7 year warranty for like $700.
Hymotion makes an add-on battery for the Prius that lets you run electric for about 40 miles before needing to go hybrid, and plug in at night. No price on that yet, probably $5k at current production volumes, and it voids the Toyota warranty. I would probably pay $3k for such a thing if it weren’t for the warranty concerns.
At current prices or upwards, the market will supply all sorts of similar innovations that people will line up for. Throw in real tax incentives to knock down the price, and I think our energy outlook improves dramatically. Then the danger might be eroding prices due to decreased consumption, and a return to complacency.
In India, they’re developing vehicles that run on compressed air. They’re also developing much smaller vehicles. The bad side is that there will be so many more of them, due to them being cheap. So total consumption will probably increase.
Pretty much all cities are seeing mass transit ridership at record levels. More people will be telecommuting.
The point about never drilling in ANWR is well-taken. I’ll always be against it from a wildlife conservation standpoint. But the pains we are going through now are same pains we would be going through in five, ten, or fifteen years if we were able to boost production enough to get past this rough patch. The difference is that if we did it that way, it would just allow us to burn that fuel now in inefficient vehicles without doing necessary conservation. Then, at that future point when the pain of high prices returned, we wouldn’t still have the present level of reserves that will continue to be needed for heavy transport and air travel.
We can burn it quicker and cheaper now. Or we can pay more now, conserve, and have some left for later.
We can burn it quicker and cheaper now. Or we can pay more now, conserve, and have some left for later.
Yeah, but the stuff that’s left over is in places that you’re never going to agree to drill in anyway. So the argument is pointless.
If it is in the ground but inacessable, it may as well not exist.
In any case, I agree that it’s time to conserve. It may be painfull, but it is necessary. Time to stop whining, and just do it.
And if you need to bike more and eat less, well I guess we’re going to fix the obesity problem too. Bonus!
I did me some blogging on ANWR oil production back when Congress was seriously mulling it over in ’05. The short of it is: it ain’t going to get us to energy independence:
After running all of those numbers through, assuming 7.446 billion bbl/year consumption in the US (numbers gleaned from a now-defunct Energy Information Administration, and reflect 2004 usage), one arrives at the following conclusion:
And if the Magic Oil Fairy came down and extracted all the “technically recoverable” oil from ANWR for us, it would still just give us an extra 1.38 years of oil.
. . . based on 2004 usage statistics.
Buyer’s a tool.
Bah! That above post should be “a now-defunct Energy Information Administration web page.”
Feh!
I’ve already lost 50 pounds since January. Biking to work now that the weather is nicer will help get off the last 20 or so pounds. I’m grateful I live near the Erie-Lakawanna Bike Path. My ride into Griffith will only take about 15-20 minutes, or double the drive time.
My wife and I have really started to look at our driving habits in a new way. After working out at Omni, she initially wanted to go out to lunch about 12 miles away. I talked her into eating at a much healthier place that was less than one mile away and on the way home. If more Americans will just change some of their habits even a little bit, it will make a big difference. And we need to change those habits for good this time!
ANWR drilling would only reduce gas prices about 50 cents per barrel, according to a Department of Energy study in 2004.
ANWR drilling would only reduce gas prices about 50 cents per barrel, according to a Department of Energy study in 2004.
Where do you get off saying “only”?
50 cents here, 50 cents there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
Put a national referendum together, and tell voters that ANWR will “only” save them 50 cents per gallon, and I predict that it will pass overwhelmingly.
I mean, where do we get off asking the Saudis to increase production when we won’t do it ourselves?
That’s $0.50 per *barrel* not per *gallon*. A barrel makes about 19.5 gallons of gas. That’s a savings of about $0.025 per gallon.
Sorry, yes, per barrel, not gallon.
Clearly, if it were 50 cents per barrel in ’04, when oil sold for $35 dollars per barrel, it’s impact will be much greater when oil is $135 per barrel.