|
Resources >
Appolo Feedback:
On Outer Continental Shelf Drilling, Apollo Nation Not Impressed |
July 3, 2008
Apollo Feedback:
On Outer Continental Shelf Drilling, Apollo Nation Not Impressed
Though what to do about energy invites multitude of views
When we focused last week on Senator John McCain’s proposal to end a 26-year ban and drill the outer continental shelf, asking whether the Republican nominee’s focus on high gas prices was a bid to set the message agenda on energy, our readers responded en masse. More than 250 responses arrived here, more than 30,000 words from across the country. So many of you have views, in fact, that we’re publishing Apollo Feedback as a series of three postings this week. This is part one.
Public Transit
As for me, I'd up the gas prices and get back on public transportation. Of course, it's a no brainer hereabouts (Boston), and, in fact, when I began “Asphalt Nation” I sold my (then, new car) but I can't understand why it isn't the clarion call du jour. Good luck.
Jane Holtz Kay
Boston
Global Warming As Reality
Senator McCain is part of the Bush "oilogopoly." I support Senator Obama who seeks alternatives to "old" fossil fuels. McCain is an old fossil and we need Obama who thinks beyond old ideas and cares about ending the destruction of the ozone layer. Global warming is reality and the future of all creatures, including human beings, is bleak if we don't stop thinking about profits for oil companies and transnational corporations who are destroying the environment.
Timothy T. Alstrum
East Hartford, CT 06118
Whose Plan is More Focused?
You make an excellent point in your observation. Senator Obama's proposal for a $150 billion investment in a 10-year clean energy program is really no more distant and unfocused than Senator McCain's call for drilling in the outer continental shelf, where we will see no production for at least 10 years. It is truly a critical moment, and so far the loudest voices I hear are for ramping up production of conventional fuels. We are suffering from a lack of vision, both in our leadership and in ourselves.
Where are the calls and incentives for car-pooling ride-sharing, tax breaks for more efficient vehicles, increases in the reach of mass transit? There are plenty of short-term solutions out there, but no politician or citizen wants to talk about changes in lifestyle, which are not synonymous with sacrifice. It is paradigm shift to focus on the health of ourselves and the planet.
Kevin Carroll
Chicago
Who Gets Hurt?
I agree with Apollo Alliance on the development of renewable energy sources. It only makes sense to develop new technology via new energy sources, renewable and cheaper energy sources. What confuses me is that the development of any type of new energy source that will work for the masses and reduce the cost of gas will be "years" out and, at first, very costly as any new products are in the beginning.
America has one of, if not the cleanest and environmentally friendly form of developing and drilling for oil and natural gas in the world. We should be leading this effort in protecting Mother Earth.
It is my belief that if we all work together allowing for the drilling of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power while creating an agreement for the government-supported development of renewable energy sources, the price of energy would come down dramatically.
If all new development of our oil reserves, such as ANWR, which will only take a 2,000 acre piece of land out of millions would be allowed to be developed under the agreement that it could only be sold and refined for gas or use in the USA would bring down the price of gas quicker. The information of how long it would take to bring this oil to market is not 10 years it would be on in the market place in less than 2 years.
Only by working together within all energy sources will the answer be found immediately and fairly. The development of renewable energy is the most important challenge that we have for the future. But our dependency on foreign oil cannot be ignored. Not allowing the development of current energy is very unfair to those who the high price of gas and heating is hurting the most. It allows, once again, for the rich to get richer and the middle class poorer. There is no denying the economic effect this will have on those who can afford it the least.
Terry Stalker
Anchorage, Alaska
Public Education
We have an opportunity to bring to public attention some of the almost available solutions. Note Honda just leased its Clarity hydrogen fuel car to a market in southern California. Yet, I watch the major news broadcasts every night and wonder why nothing seems to be said. It is just possibly a major breakthrough, a real working car. Why is that? Instead we hear about GM with its future rollouts after 2010. Or we may hear about the Prius. It is as if we are ignoring some of the major advances. For example, MIT Technology Review always has some focus on advancements in alternative energy. While Senator McCain talks about a prize for a new efficient battery, there are several scientists who have already experimented with several possibilities.
I wish Apollo Alliance would keep the public up to date on the research and possibilities. I bet we could bring many alternatives closer to reality, much sooner if we were made more people aware. Talking about gasoline prices now does not lead people to see what they could be doing in the near future.
Gina Vaughn
Hawaii Big Island
Community Design Is Answer
You are missing a huge part of the solution. By far the largest way to quickly reduce oil consumption is by getting people out of cars and onto trains, bicycles, and walking. Cellulosic ethanol is not a sustainable solution and is not even possible when you consider that we currently burn over 20 million barrels of oil each day in America. You would need a mountain of green matter to the moon and back to even begin to meet that kind of demand.
This means they would be mowing down forests, striping fields, and basically destroying the earth in another way to try to feed all the cars. The process of making this type of fuel itself uses a lot of energy, probably most of what is produced, and then it still has to be distributed by thousands of trucks using more of the fuel, etc. It is not possible, and makes no sense.
Plus, as we start to get low on oil we won't have enough to continue making chemical fertilizers and will need all the agricultural waste to make compost and natural fertilizer for our food crops for us to live on. So in the end there really isn't any such thing as agriculture and forest waste, and nowhere near the tons and tons needed to try to have that replace oil.
The only feasible solution is to rebuild America the way Europe is now. Compact, walkable cities attached to a massive, multi-layered train system (powered by electricity such as wind, solar, geothermal, ocean/tidal).
The Netherlands’ brand new high-speed system opens this year and will be powered 100 percent by wind. The expected doubling of the American population has to have new buildings and cities built to accommodate them all, so it hasn't been built yet, and means this is our opportunity to completely change the direction of land planning and transportation policy by redirecting them away from road expansion and sprawl to rail building and transit oriented development (mixed use urban places surrounding rail stations).
Amsterdam is a great example of a city where something like 80% of the people ride trains and bicycles or walk. And they live a great life!
Changing our land planning and transportation policy will save several hundred times more energy than all the other ideas out there, for less cost, and is available now -- no research needed! America can mobilize and make big things happen. We have done it many times before.
I just returned from giving a talk at a city planning conference in China. Right now they are embarking on a massive rebuilding of their transportation for the entire country: They are currently building over 5,000 miles of brand new high speed trains - 200mph like the French TGV. This will be all done in 2 years! In addition they are currently building 36 complete new metro systems each as large as DC's. The Shanghai system will be the largest in the world when it’s complete, larger than New York's and London's.
They are also going on a massive building campaign of infill development and new towns and buildings surrounding all the new train stations. In 5 years China will be transformed; driving and congestion will be drastically reduced, the air will be cleaner, people will get to their destinations faster and more efficiently, and most importantly their oil use will drop drastically.
We need to be doing the same here in America and we need to do this on the scale and speed China is if we are going to save America. We are drowning in our car/road/oil addiction lifestyle and need to change it. It is already happening here, but on a small scale at a snail's pace. We need to put the entire country behind this the way China is. Living a walking/train lifestyle is by far better than constantly being stuck in traffic.
Here is a recent interview I did laying out some of this:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/thint_andy_kunz.php#ch03
Andy Kunz
Congress For The New Urbanism
Chicago
Cellulosic Ethanol
I have a couple of issues I think are important to the need for developing new energy sources.
- We need to stop building grain ethanol plants and convert some of the existing plant to cellulosic ethanol. The technology is available and should be push as hard as possible. I wrote a paper while at SERI in 1984 that stated that corn ethanol in excess of 4 billion gallons per year would start impacting the food chain. That mark has passed and food prices are increasing at a high rate. Yet we are still building corn based ethanol plants. It needs to stop now!
- As far as offshore drilling for oil to increase domestic supplies of crude oil: It is a good idea from a security point of view, but will have no impact near term or long-term on the price at the pump. The oil companies will always sell their crude at the world price and they will not produce enough oil off shore to change the world price.
Larry J. Douglas PhD
Entropy Associates
On Energy, McCain and Obama Are Not Similar
Suggesting that Senator Obama and Senator McCain are similar on energy and clean tech ignores major differences: Obama supports a cap-and-trade system in which credits are auctioned, generating revenue that can be invested in alternatives to carbon, rather than given away. Obama, while not anti-nuclear, doesn't want to waste billions on old models of nuclear reactor that are more costly, slower to build, and aren't even much better than natural gas in terms of life-cycle carbon footprint. Obama isn't hostage to the "drilling is always the answer" loons of the far right, who would trade the entire ecosystem that supports life on Earth for a few barrels of crude.
Americans of good conscience, who want a future for their children that
includes breathable air, drinkable water, and a planetary climate that
vaguely resembles the last hundred years, should speak out strongly
against McCain's capitulation to lobbyists from the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.
R.M. 'Auros' Harman
East Palo Alto, CA
Fair
Thank you for your latest email. Quite educational! And seemed relatively unbiased. That's refreshing, though I'm a diehard Obama fan!
I was a bit taken aback that US wind development is "second only to Germany." Given that our nation dwarfs Germany, and that we have so much more open space for harvesting wind power, I'd like to think that we were far ahead of Germany! This only shows how stunted US growth in alternative energy sources has been, and that Mr. Bush's administration must go.
Laurel Tucker
Claremont, California
Editors Note
Several writers remarked about our non-partisan views, and non-profit restriction with regard to supporting either presidential candidate. By law we are prohibited from doing so. By inclination, the Apollo Alliance seeks to recruit supporters from across the spectrum. Our principles and values lie firmly in the idea that a clean energy economy is unfolding in the United States, and that the government has a responsibility to work with private business to scale it up to yield millions of family supporting green-collar jobs and widely shared prosperity.
Thanks For The Message
It's great to see National Apollo starting a steady drumbeat and building momentum with these weekly e-mails. If I might offer a few points of feedback:
- Fascinating and very useful analysis of how the two candidates are responding to the gas price issue. Really got me thinking about how Obama's got to get creative in order to get ahead of the gas prices. Well done!
- Opening with a quote from the Cold War era definitely broadcasts that you believe "our audience is older and wonky, or at least should have majored in contemporary American politics" I just googled that quote, because I didn't know much about it -- and learned that I was about 12 years old when Reagan said it in 1987.
- Not choosing sides in a battle between Obama and McCain is, in my opinion, weak sauce. But putting aside my political opinions, and taking up for a moment the notion that Apollo is non-partisan, I think you still gotta recognize that the overwhelming majority of the audience on your list serve will be Democratic and Progressive leaning, if not downright radical. To justify a neutral stance, you gotta do more than just point out that the two candidates are similar on energy policy. You gotta remind people, first of all, that Apollo is non-partisan, and explain why it's important for Apollo to be that way. To say that Apollo isn't taking sides, especially when you point out that McCain paints big long-term investments in renewables to be "distant and unfocused," will be alienating to some of Apollo's core constituency.
To be clear, I'm not alienated. I wanted to give you this feedback because I care very deeply about Apollo's success, and wish only to be helpful by taking you up on your invitation to share my thoughts.
Ian Kim
Oakland, California
Take A Side!
Thanks for the factual and well written summary on McCain and Obama re: Gasoline vs. renewables/new energy research and implementation. But I can't understand how you can actually say that "The Apollo Alliance takes no side here." Are you concerned about backlash from folks who are complaining about gas prices? The path that Obama has laid out, while perhaps not flawless, is clearly a more responsible direction for everyone. There is a huge danger that Americans with short attention spans -- most of us -- will hear McCain's posturing and think he's got the right idea. It’s critical that we all take a stand for the truth, and help Obama dispel McCain's myths. That means you too, especially you, with your internet readership. Take a side, the right one, for everyone's sake!
Keyan Mizani
I'm confused. Near the end of your piece you state clearly that Mr. McCain's plan for offshore drilling would not provide more gasoline for 10 years, and that the Apollo Alliance doesn't think such drilling is the answer. Although you don't say it, such drilling would make our coastlines ugly and put them at risk of oil spills. The piece also says that McCain is attacking Obama's long-term investment plans in energy research and job creation that sound a great deal like the Apollo Alliance plans. And then you say the Apollo Alliance is not taking sides here. Why the heck not?
Pete Jacobsen
Please take a side and tell us what you really think! Senator Mc Cain will increase the pain and keep the country on the path of the insane. And if you can't see that Senator Obama is the only hope. Please remove me from your list of subscribers. The country and democracy cannot afford anymore complacency
Jacquie Chandler
Tahoe, California
I find it hard to read "we take no side, here" in your message. I believe it is essential to expose the fraudulent reasoning of McCain's position. The long-range development of a reasoned plan, such as the Apollo Alliance has always maintained, is the way to go. People have to be educated about this, and the message has to be repeated, until it penetrates deaf ears and thick skulls.
The US, a culture of addiction, instant gratification, complacency, and denial, needs to be firmly - and repeatedly - dunked in reality. There are no quick fixes. Arctic exploration, which you say would take 10 years to get to the point of production, would give us (at present rate of usage) perhaps a month's worth of oil supply. It would devastate both Arctic biodiversity and the way of life of American citizens (and Canadians) of native cultures, predating our rapacious invasion by thousands of years!
Isn't that something to take into account? Can we, in our white-skinned arrogance, persist in such greed, once we really know the human and ecological costs of such endeavors?
On the contrary, The New Apollo Program is a durable, workable plan, with benefits spread over a very wide spectrum of the economy. A 'quick fix'? No, but a real solution to real, manmade problems, certainly!
I wonder what Bracken Hendricks, your founder, has to say about all this? I'd like to know.
Nye Ffarrabas
I'm disappointed in this article and its statement of how Apollo views the gas price question. Whether you want to be honest and profound in your analysis of the issues and the candidates' positions is fundamental to the value and integrity of the Apollo organization.
In my view, this article is dishonest and superficial. It contradicts the vision and forthrightness that Apollo has stood for on energy questions since its inception. I think it is essential that you take all candidates to task on energy issues, whenever they trivialize, obfuscate and lie.
It is important to explore and explain the differences between the candidates' positions, which are significant, rather than minimize them. It is also important to explore the voting and policy statement history of all candidates, to show where and when those candidates have supported, and differed from the path that Apollo has advocated. I expect more honesty, courage and truth from Apollo.
Derek Roff
Albuquerque, NM
Planet Earth
What planet have you been living on for the last eight years? How can you begin to believe any of McCain's energy policies. McCain is burying his head in the Saudi sand like his mentor. All that offshore drilling will produce the first gallon of gas in 2025 by his own admission. It is unbelievable that the Alliance has no position with respect to the candidates, even after Obama has publicly aligned his position with Al Gore. Remember the Kyoto Protocol? When we had a chance to avoid this problem by being responsible, Al wanted this great country to not just sign the agreement but to be the leader of new greener world. But we got Bushed. Maybe the Alliance needs a reality check and you could start by posting this comment.
Wayne
New Jersey
Reduce Oil Dependence
I totally agree with Apollo's emphasis on the urgent need for action to reduce our dependence on either fossil fuels or nuclear power. This is the only truly viable response to rising oil prices even if it means we have to drastically change our driving habits until other transportation options can kick in. Actually, I mean, especially if it means changing.
Today's Christian Science Monitor notes that US automakers are already feeling the change. I live in Charlotte, NC. We're already sandwiched between two nuclear power plants, one to the north and other to the south, and fighting Duke Energy's plans to build a brand new coal-fired plant nearby. We have a rudimentary transit system. If it weren't for the many wonderful trees, the air here would be unbreathable from the glut of cars. I think we need Senator Obama in the White House, not McCain, but am grateful you are holding the line in terms of what we really need to do as a nation.
Jane Silverman
Charlotte, North Carolina
Hydrogen
Recently I've heard and read alot about hydrogen generators that can be hooked up to most cars. It's been said that these generators will greatly increase the car mileage of 60 mpg. Do you know if there is truth to this? I live in Rutland, Vermont. And we're greatly concerned about the price of gas and heating oil here. No one here is looking forward to the price of heating their house this coming winter.
Rob Perry
Alternative Electric Power Not Answer
It is a fallacy to include alternative electric power technologies as a means of reducing oil prices. They are important and must be adopted to reduce CO2 emissions and global warming but they do to reduce our dependence on oil. The only renewable energy technologies that really come into play are those that produce substitute liquid fuels such as ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. But the most effective way to reduce oil prices is to reduce consumption. This must be our number one goal.
Paul Notari
Drill Deep Sea? No Way
I am appalled by the idea of the US government pursuing increased domestic oil drilling rather than putting its whole weight into helping Americans transition into and accepting a new way of life. McCain is misleading the public by giving them false hopes. Any increase in production in the US will not be returned in lower gas prices. Oil companies will be selling their product on the open market and the demands from countries such as China are only going to rise. It's supply and demand. We Americans know exactly how this works and shouldn't let them pull the wool over our eyes. We can't be complacent any more!
Christina Berg
Beverly, MA
Cut Imports
The main thing that the US and the West needs to do is to eliminate our dependence on oil imports. This can certainly be done by temporarily drilling off our shores. But it will only be a temporary solution to a longer range problem. How will the environmentalists accept that interim step?
Olga Fagan
Link Gas Prices to Vehicle Efficiency
Make gasoline prices at the pump scalable based upon vehicle efficiency. Therefore encouraging auto buyers to seek higher mpg numbers when shopping for a car. For example, an SUV owner would pay $4.00/gallon; a sedan owner would pay $3.75; a motorcyclist may only pay $3.00 all dispensed from the same pump.
The economic stick/carrot approach would be realized each time the consumer fills up. Logistic considerations would of course play into the program's launch, ie. VIN identification requiring radio frequency transponder embedded. Pumps would be retrofitted with a RFID reader, and some already have these for quick payment).
A. Winters
Millersville,PA
Put Leasing in the West on Hold
The Apollo Alliance is the best thing we've got going. It's so good to have a rational approach to respond to energy industry hyperventilating.
I'm in Colorado, where the BLM is in a big, big hurry to lease some of the most beautiful and environmentally important and sensitive places in my state to companies that are itching to drill for natural gas. Bad, bad news. As is other companies' itch to get at the oil trapped in shale under some other beautiful, environmentally important places here. Everyone knows it'll be at least ten years before any of that gas or oil would be useable. Alas, everyone also knows that a lot of people need jobs and that that drilling would provide quite a few.
We've got to keep pressure on Congress to support subsidies for alternative energy sources instead of for oil companies, so workers will have good jobs building for the future instead of roughnecking in wilderness areas and destroying them. Keep spreading the message -- it makes way better sense than present government policies!
Carol Bowles
Bush Not Up To Task
President Bush has been a total failure on energy and the environment, with the price of oil going up and quadrupling from $30 a barrel to $135 per barrel, and gas tripling from under $1.50 to over $4.00 per gallon.
It was good for his oil buddies that donated a lot to him , but bad for the rest of us. McCain would be an improvement, with some changes and some flip-flopping. But Obama would be even better. We need to get better mpg on cars and more hybrids and use more alternative sources, like wind and solar. If we could get less dependent on oil from countries we don't trust, it would help a lot in many ways.
Steve Babin
Gimmick
Senator McCain's call to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling is little more than a campaign gimmick. It would not affect gas prices for years, since such drilling is not something that can be done overnight. I believe the Senator is trying to exploit voter anger over high oil prices to gain votes. He does not tell us that it will not help in the near future. I'm sure that the big oil companies like the idea, and they can be expected to funnel some cash to McCain's campaign. But it really solves nothing, and would not make a significant impact on future prices.
Bruce Webber
Fuel Cell Question
Why isn't there more discussion about the fuel cell? Shouldn't this be our form of energy for future travel?
Tom and Renee Moher
High Gas Prices Work For Something
While high gas prices are painful, they're the incentive the average American needs to change his or her buying habits. When low gas prices incentivized Americans to purchase bigger and bigger SUV's a few short years ago, I realized just how short-sighted (I'm being polite, here) the average American is.
While I have little respect for politicians with a four-year horizon I have no respect for Americans with a four-month horizon. Did you really think a barrel of oil was going to stay below $30 for the long term? Even after all the articles about peak oil had been published? Serves you right! Pay for your gas guzzler now! Buy a more efficient car, next time!
As for our government: Wanting to drill for more oil seems like wanting to prolong the pain - and pushing out the inevitable. It's -again- short-sighted! Use the money instead to promote electric- or hydrogen cars.
Most of our oil consumption is in transportation. Probably 80 percent of all personal transportation could be done in electric- or hydrogen-fueled vehicles at competitive prices with today's technology. It does take incentives to get this going, though. High gas prices are one of them. So in that regard, I welcome high gas prices because, sadly, the average cannot be educated otherwise.
Martin Mesmer
Pass The Renewable Incentives
I live in Greenville, South Carolina where GE has a large turbine manufacturing plant. They supply rotors, blades, etc. for many wind farms across our nation and internationally. In today's paper there was an article showing that lack of governmental underwriting was causing a lull in national implementation of wind power. This would not affect GE as they have international contracts. But it illustrates how important government assistance is in the infancy of this industry. Certainly we can afford to wean the oil companies of some of their assistance and send it to wind and solar companies who will be better able to supply us in the long haul.
Catherine Hackett
Greenville, South Carolina
Offshore Drilling A Distraction From The War
One thing that the GOP won't be talking about when McCain gets in gear on energy policy: the financial cost of invading Iraq in order to secure a larger piece of the global petroleum reserves.
By the time we're done in Iraq--whenever that might be--the US will have spent well over $2 trillion on the invasion and occupation. That's not counting the human costs, either. When he speaks so highly of the war, McCain doesn't mention that it has put a considerable hidden cost on the taxpayer for all that petroleum we're supposed to be getting in return.
I really doubt that Americans are interested in this fact while they're being distracted by fairy tales about offshore oil reserves and federal gasoline tax holidays. The only thing that's sure in this mess is that the price of gasoline will certainly weigh heavily on low and moderate-income Americans, and will surely alter their consumption of the stuff.
Jon R. Koppenhoefer
Grid
Please take a stronger stand on the DOE recommended national high voltage grid. This is the "home run" strategy that we desperately need!
Mike Vallez
Renewables Work
Renewables are the only sane answer. But here is my prediction. ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, and BP were just given no bid "service contracts" in Iraq. What I feel is going to happen is that gas prices will continue to rise, making the crunch so bad on the American people that the price of gas will become practically the only issue in the upcoming election. And then, voila’, Iraqi oil will start to flow. Gas prices will fall, the Iraq war will therefore be justified, and McCain will have a good shot at the White House where he can continue the insane policies of the present insane administration.
Do I think that the price of gas is connected to controlling the population? Absolutely! The only way to be free is through renewables. A solar power generating system connected to the grid can feed excess energy back into the system. We can, each household, become an energy generating plant. Fuel-efficient cars can be produced. Mass transportation, with high-speed rail systems can be created. The technology is there. We lack the political will.
Bette Andresen
Obama’s Voting Record
Obama has a 95% voting record with the League of Conservation Voters and McCain has a big fat zero. Also McCain will not agree to a mandatory cap and trade system. They may talk in generalities and sound the same but it’s the details and the record that counts.
Betty Bickel
The New Apollo Program and Obama
At least I know that I heard Obama mention in one of his primary speeches refer to a new "Manhattan Project" bringing together the best minds we have to focus on renewable energy technology. I believe he even refered to the new Apollo Program. Thus I feel he is much more attuned to a dedication of the necessary resources to wean the US off its oil addiction. I have yet to hear similar words from McCain.
Leon Rechtman
Atlanta, GA.
Carbon Tax
A carbon tax! That will make renewable energy competitive and make conservation -- which also produces jobs-- urgent. The revenue would be returned to taxpayers either per capita or by revoking the payroll tax or aimed at those hurt most by the tax. But all would be returned. More information? www carbontax.org or reply to me.
Bill Shore
Executive Secretary
Nature Network
914-922-1542
A Scam
McCain’s demand for more off shore drilling is phony. The oil industry has hundreds of lease sites that it has never drilled on. This is a Republican election scam.
Wilbur Rhodes
Kittery, Maine
Powering Cars
We can use cleaner energy technologies to power our vehicles, but whatever we use to recharge we do it with homegrown power. Not one dollar goes overseas. This will create a surge in income for everyone in green energies as well as automakers while reducing demand for petroleum.
Pure electric cars are 90 percent efficient while fuel-based cars including hydrogen and gasoline are in the 28 percent range. I don't think in this day and time we can afford to waste so much of a precious resource as energy by using the inefficient vehicles of the past. Even if that energy is produced by coal, the reduction in air pollution from the increase in efficiency of battery electrics and the way energy is produced in power plants is much more efficient in converting fossil fuels to electric than internal combustion engines. We all need to refuel at home and push our legislators and the automakers to embrace this technology
Edward Ellyatt
Fort Myers, Florida
No More Drilling
Senator McCain is all wrong about more drilling. I have read that it takes 10 years (or more) from the time oil is drilled until it is in gas pumps. We need new sources of energy now! How much research is being done on solar and wind power? How much research is being done on biofuels? Brazil has not been dependent on oil for 20 years now because of fuel made from sugar cane. Why can't we do the same thing? My apartment is green and we get free hot water from solar panels on the roof! All of our lights are energy-efficient. So it can be done. American must realize and accept the fact that oil will run out some day and then what?
Melissa Miller
Concord, California
McCain Panders
Although I understand that it is your position to not take sides in this, I believe that John McCain's solution are not only to appeal to voters, but also to pander to the oil industry. He gets a great amount of money from them and has shown over and over his alignment with Bush's alliance with big business, over what is really good for America. I agree that what he says sounds good and appeals to those ignorant of what is really going on -- but it is merely that -- buzz that sounds good with no solid plan or real solution behind it. There is plenty of offshore drilling already and it is vastly underutilized, just as the refineries are being underutilized. So, to make it sound like those pesky democrats are keeping the US from retrieving it's own oil is just a whitewash. The oil companies could be doing alot more right now with what they already have. They just got a war in Iraq, a long standing war, with an army now protecting their work their to retrieve Iraq oil that Sadaam was on his way to giving to other corporations, not theirs. So, they have all they need and now they have John McCain on their side. Barak Obama is looking for real solutions, solutions that align with the Apollo Alliance view, solutions that are truly sustainable.
Katelon T. Jeffereys
Performance Enhancement Co.
Phone: 206-763-9880
Obama is Right
Obama is right. All of the talk from Senator McCain is a gimmick to promise short term fixes at a long term expense. The reduction in demand and obligation of businesses to respond to market forces with more efficient products in every way will make us nimble and help the country to reach its rightful glory.
The reduction in gas prices will not reduce demand but increase it as people eager to fill up their tanks and go after their business as usual stopping them form thinking deep and long term about the real problem facing the earth and the USA. This is the greatest country in the world and if we don’t choose right – Obama -- we can throw the entire world into chaos for a long time and make matters worse.
Mark Sheikhrezai
Phone: 650-888-7518
No Urgency to Rising Gas Prices
I see no urgency in rising gasoline prices. I'm probably a very small minority (like, perhaps a group of one!) in that I am glad that gas prices are going up. I would like to see Americans walking and bicycling more and then we wouldn't be so fat.
Of course, cars do exist, but couldn't neighbors carpool when shopping? Couldn't people wait until they have a list of things to buy in a particular neighborhood or area and do it all at once? Or make it a circular trip?
I have very rarely owned a car but I did buy one in March. It's helpful. But, at least to me, it's a luxury, not a necessity.
Marcia Cooperman
Portland, Oregon
Wise Up To Nuclear
Your organization seems to be top down with its communication. It was difficult to identify a path to use to talk back. To say I'm distressed by nuclear power options would be an understatement. You Ivy League folks know better, of course. "The safety has become soooo much better." Unless you're stupid, you know that the resources required to build nuclear are inherently non-green.
Paul DeBacher
How To Green Jobs
Okay here we go some more. More talk and buzz about green jobs, but not much about how. Not just from you. Everybody seems to be all talk and nothing doing.
We need heavily publicized green job boards, and additionally I think that we should find a way to promote and subsidize one way or another green jobs re-training for those who want to or have to change careers. This should be a huge priority. We need to make some noise.
Companies that are retraining employees into green positions and start-ups that are willing to train should both get tax subsidies for the process. Students in school who want to major in green technologies should get breaks on their costs. Take it out of the oil subsidies.
This whole process is going nowhere until there are immediate incentives to encourage change. Nothing is more encouraging or attractive then money and money saved and taxes saved, well sex but I can't see that here, yet. Probably wouldn't be legal anyway. So. Money. Either as a goad or a carrot, or both. It would be good to approach the candidates with ideas like that. What's happening there?
All the ideas I'm hearing about gas prices are either short-term gimmicks with long term bad consequences, or big oil taking advantage of a situation they are creating. Maybe that's why all this is happening: so they get their way. Sounds like the way they operate: Coerce us into to going along with their program while they have us cornered, and get rich in the process. All they have to do is dummy up and keep on keeping on. Unless someone with real cojones steps up. The Democrats in Congress are such sissies that they'll probably fold under the pressure and do something stupid, again, and let big oil have its way. Why should big oil change their ways when it works so well.
Obama is right. Real change is the only real answer.
Ron MacQuarrie
Stoked Surf School
San Clemente, California
Email: scsurfer@cox.net
Ethanol
Particularly important from my perspective, however, is number one to limit the focus on ethanol. It has been demonstrated and proven that the power generated is rarely worth the price involved.
Instead, I am attempting to raise awareness of another idea that could have far reaching implications. I am part of a personally funded project to redesign tidal dam and lagoon technology to make it cost effective. Are you aware that at the present moment, the UK is considering building such a project along the Severn River in Wales that would produce up to ten percent of the entire UK energy consumption annually? This is a huge impact and needs more careful consideration in the states.
Gabe Atiya
Offshore No Solution
It would be at least 10 years before oil is produced from off shore. For one, there are no support systems in place. If you were an investor would you invest in drilling platforms at who knows how many $millions, service boats, and helicopters? I don't think so considering where we might be in 10 years. To find new crude within the US wouldn't be impossible. My father spent his life in oil production in Louisiana. He always told me they were leaving so much oil in the ground because the prices didn't support developing the technology to get it out. McCain is just making noise, psychological or otherwise. What that psychology says to me is "I can't think of anything else because my generation knows only plentiful oil and gas."
And speaking of gas, I have a gas lease in East Texas which I would love for someone to produce; been waiting all my life for that. They know gas is there, it is just too expensive to get out, or they are waiting for really high prices.
Anne Kerrville
Texas
A New National Purpose
Mr Obama's ten-year, $150 billion clean energy strategy is very much in line with what many of us have been advocating for some time. But, simply tying it to gasoline prices is going to wear out quickly when the public's focus shifts, as it will. It won't have the legs to carry such a major national effort forward to conclusion until Obama places it before the public as the long-term priority it must be to succeed.
Some have suggested likening it to President Kennedy's ten-year challenge to put a man on the moon. That's all very nice, but the need to explore the universe, while a very laudable thing for a technologically leading nation to do, it doesn't compare to the urgency of getting this nation off of oil and coal energy forever. Until that is brought to pass we are all hostage to innumerable geopolitical entrapments just to save our access to all of the foreign oil we slug down every day.
No, we need a Manhattan Project style effort that brooks no nay saying, and presents itself to the nation as the central war effort to free us once and for all from the politically undermining effects of our own insatiable thirst for oil. And it has to focus narrowly on non-polluting, non-greenhouse generating, truly renewable sources and methods of energy production. No slight of hand solutions will do, such as turning perfectly good food into fuel, instead of giving it to people who are starving. The burned byproducts of ethanol may be a bit less greenhouse producing, but they are as carbon monoxide laden as anything one burns. Burning anything made of carbon must be banned from all consideration.
The run up on gasoline prices has gotten the attention of many who nevertheless pay no heed to pollution dangers, so the selling of a project has a big task ahead. I don't advocate puffed up intelligence and lies, as we have been victimized of late. Simply lay out the whole truth of how we have left ourselves so vulnerable as a society and a body politic by shamefully neglecting such a vital element of our political-economic survival.
I hope Mr. Obama has the guts, and the staying power to prevail over all of the interests who profit from us not having a solution. McCain's ideas are the kind of sham proposals they will accept. Obama has to show in simple terms how his approach will solve the problem permanently.
John Wright
Los Angeles
Big Difference Between Candidates
John McCain has been going around the country campaigning to put our nation on a course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 while Obama has said nuclear 'might' be an option if they can overcome safety and disposal of waste issues. And aside from the gasoline tax reprieve endorsed by McCain and Clinton, McCain himself admitted offshore drilling would have only a 'psychological effect', won't actually reduce gasoline prices.
Barack Obama labeled the gasoline tax waiver as a gimmick and that the US can't drill its way out of the problem. Obama ardently supports long- term extension of efficiency and renewable energy tax credits which McCain opposes. Failure to extend these credits for the long term will cost the US nearly 200,000 jobs.
Scott Sklar
President
The Stella Group, Ltd.
Arlington, Virginia
Transit Needed
I think it's about time for Congress to take part (if not all) the $billions being wasted on the wars and repurpose them to rebuilding the infrastructure of this nation. National mass transit funding would go a long way to reducing our nation's dependency on oil to commute, travel, etc. Not to mention reducing the cost of getting from here to there. If we have a 10 year window, I'd venture to guess that we, as Americans, could go a long way to making light rail, bullet trains, subways, etc. a reality in that time, not to mention the jobs that creating that kind of infrastructure would demand.
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. In this corner of our country, many residents don't even own a car. I don't (or won't as soon as mine is sold). With so many city-, county- and metro-wide options for mass transit, many more people in this area are opting to be automobile-free.
I realize this is not an option in most of our great country. Urban sprawl, lack of new routes, and lack of funding have kept most of this country a slave to their cars. I think the time has come to reconnect with mass transit as a national endeavor.
Julia Johnson
San Leandro, CA
Leaving Oil in the Ground
It would be at least 10 years before oil is produced from offshore. For one, there are no support systems in place. If you were an investor, would you invest in drilling platforms at who knows how many millions, service boats and helicopters? I don't think so considering where we might be in 10 years: less dependency on oil.
To find new crude within the US wouldn't be impossible. My father spent his life in oil production in Louisiana. He always told me they were leaving so much oil in the ground because the prices didn't support developing the technology to get it out. And we aren't talking about a wildcatter, but one of Standard of New Jersey's production companies.
McCain is just making noise, psychological or otherwise. What that psychology says to me is "I can't think of anything else because my generation knows only plentiful oil and gas." And speaking of gas, I have a gas lease in East Texas which I would love for someone to produce. Been waiting all my life for that. They know gas is there. It is just too expensive to get out, or they are waiting for really high prices.
Anne
Kerrville, Texas
Was Jim Kunstler Right?
I get really crazy when I see all the environmental groups going down the same delusionary path as our so-called "leaders." We do not have sufficient time, money, energy, components - or the will to develop alternatives to the degree needed - not that we mustn't do all we can.
We are facing what Jim Kunstler called the "Converging Crises" of the 21st Century" - climate change, peak oil, and economic collapse. They are all happening much faster than anyone expected, and in different order. Many expected the economic collapse to occur as a result of the other two, but the insatiable greed of the boys at the top caused it to hit first. This makes dealing with the other two much harder.
The American people have to face the face that the cheap energy ride is over and that major lifestyle changes are necessary. We will never again have the mobility or gadgetry to which we have wastefully become accustomed. No fuel can replace oil to that degree.
Gas should be rationed for essential purposes. There should be one airline run by the government for essential services only - but our government is incompetent. We need major investment in Amtrak and bus service. The Oil Depletion Protocol devised by geophysicist Colin Campbell and written up in a book by the same title by Richard Heinlberg should be instituted. But the countries of the world are too busy fighting for "more" for them to do anything that sensible.
The remaining energy should be used to develop alternative energies and whatever infrastructure will be needed for essential services in a new, locally based economy. We need major local permaculture projects in order to rebuild the soil destroyed by the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides if we are to have enough food. And everyone should be growing as much food as they can. I presume you've seen "The Power of Community" about Cuba's Peak Oil experience. We need major reeducation projects to learn about the many edible wild foods in our areas. www.ofthefields.com
We need relocalization to learn to meet basic needs locally, to learn to re-create communities of mutual help instead of the insane "me-first" rugged individualism.
But no one wants to talk about these really "inconvenient truths." Everyone's got his/her head in the sand - the oil sands - and the chaos has already begun. There will be huge die-outs as trucks bringing food fail, storms drown or droughts shrivel crops, forest fires rage, fresh water becomes scarcer and scarcer, and "me-firstism" sets everyone against each other.
If you're afraid of scaring people, the longer you wait, the worse the response. People can't sink into despair but need a vision and direction for getting active in creating a new world. Read "The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future" by William Kotke.
Wanda Ballentine
Eagan, MN
Research
The emphasis on research and development of alternative energy sources, when put in context with high gasoline prices (and the desire to drive prices down) recognizes that there are really only two ways to reverse the current upward trend: Increase supply, or reduce demand. Since at best the former merely postpones the inevitable absolute and irremediable absolute shortage (and indeed, actually hastens the day) we surely should be concentrating on the latter.
Alternative energy sources, if translated into replacement for gasoline, do that, and we should be doing all we can to develop them, especially concentrating on renewables (or perhaps better stated, inexhaustibles) like wind, solar, geothermal and tide/wave. But there is another obvious and yet terribly neglected immediate opportunity: significantly reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled.
What if we recognized that loss of energy availability is vastly more likely to damage or even destroy western civilization as we know it than any military or terrorist threat, and decided it was therefore a wiser place to spend most of our "defense" (translation: war-making) dollars? What might we do?
Well, for starters, we'd recognize that every big city that really works well today has a rapid intra-city transit system, and most are connected to other metro areas by highspeed rail. We'd then notice that of the 150 or so major projects world-wide building or improving either of these only two or three are in the U.S. So, we could start subways in cities from Seattle to Atlanta, San Diego to Schenectady, and build bullet train routes north and south, east and west, that would suck people out of their cars for both local and intercity travel. The economic/political force for that might quickly balance and eventually surpass the economic/political force driving our military spending, which could sustain the change in federal spending over time.
We'd also start looking for ways to persuade folks to leave their cars home. There are many cities where auto miles could be drastically reduced if we simply got more folks sharing rides! And, we'd be including in our entire education system, starting with kindergarten, training in how to use less and use wisely.
If we focus only on finding new energy sources, without really addressing ways to control demand, we're almost certainly, even if initially successful, pass the buck to our grandkids. Since I've passed my biblical allotment ("three score and ten") that's selfishly tempting, but I really want us to be better than that.
Joe Smith
The New Energy and Tax Credits
Renewable energy is not alternative energy any more; it's the new energy economy and I am proud to be employed in the solar sector. Our company is still managing to install more solar PV systems than any company in the USA since 2005 despite the inability of Washington, DC to extend the tax credits. However, if they don't get it done soon, my job and the security of my family are at stake, as well as my plan to drive a solar powered electric car if we can't get Congress to pass a simple economic stimulus bill by passing HR 6049.
That is the future we can implement in just a few years, if we put our minds and money to it. Solar powered homes and solar powered electric cars (or plug-in hybrids) will offset a huge percentage our our carbon emissions. This what an Apollo project can accomplish. We have the technology today all we need is policy to mandate it. Look what happened a few years ago to the electric car, imagine where we would be today if we had not lost that decade of progress in developing this technology. We lost this precious time because policy changed lifting the mandate that forced the automakers to bring an all electric zero emissions vehicle to market.
We know it can be done because it has been done. The plug-in hybrid is a decent alternative, but I'd like to see the resurrection of the all electric models we saw less than ten years ago; Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, GM EV1, Ford Ranger and Chevy S-10 pick ups, you get the idea.
Tom Kunhardt
Corte Madera, California
Opposes Drilling
I’m against the proposal to open all the US offshore and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. This additional drilling will do much more damage than good to our economy as well as the environment for these many reasons.
The world either is close to or recently past “peak oil” where the global supply can no longer meet the global demand. Due to huge increasing demand – that we cannot control – from countries like China and India, oil prices will continue to rise dramatically whether the US drills offshore and in the Arctic Refuge or not, and drilling won’t have any effect for at least 10 years.
To break the oil habit, stop global warming, and clean the air (for less child asthma) in many smoggy cities, everyone has to invest much money, time and effort as soon as possible to research and implement ways to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil and coal. Additional oil drilling will only slightly delay these needed changes.
Americans will have to face the fact that oil prices will continue to rise and should until they reach their proper level of $12 to $15 a gallon. The sooner we start adjusting our transportation and heating infrastructure to cope with this by adopting innovative alternatives to oil (and coal), the better off we all will be. Destructive oil drilling merely delays these needed beneficial changes and adjustments, as well as further polluting the environment.
Andrew T. Fisher
Evanston, Illinois
Small Vehicles
There are many small vehicles quite suitable for commuting that can be purchased right now and which will probably and typically double miles per gallon from existing vehicles that people own. Good example is my 1991 Isuzu Trooper SUV which gets 19 mpg city. I know that I could go buy a vehicle that would get double that right now and be suitable for the trips to the grocery store, church, and so forth. But I'm not doing it because I've been retired since July 2004 and only put 4,500 miles on the Trooper per year. So I'm not driving it much. It was paid for a long time ago and it is quite affordable.
I'm spending probably $1,000 per year on gas currently which for my tax bracket and income I can do in the near term. At such a time that a plug-in hybrid is available I will most likely make the big move to park the SUV and buy the plug-in hybrid and then triple or quadruple my mpg.
I'm seeing many, many more Prius’s on the road and now more Scions, and the other smaller vehicles so some people are certainly getting the message and getting with the new program. Some folks are bound and determined to keep driving their war chariots. I think we ignore the cries of blues and poor me at the gas pump. Folks have a choice right now. We don't need to wait for extraordinary new technologies and breakthroughs.
Russ Clark
.
|
