ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Energy

NEWS FLASH

Perry: U.S. Should Buy More Canadian Oil So ‘We Don’t Have To Buy From A Foreign Source’ | The New York Times today has a quick run down of the biggest applause lines Rick Perry receives out on the campaign trail in Iowa. The Times reports that the crowd at one of Perry’s speeches “perked up” when the Texas governor talked energy and oil. “Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Perry said, adding that buying so much energy from foreign countries is “not good policy, it’s not good politics and frankly it‘s un-American.” (HT: JerAHolden)

Green

What ‘War On American Energy’? U.S. On Track To Be Net Fuel Exporter For First Time Since 1949

Conservatives would have you believe that President Obama has led “nothing short of a war on American energy,” as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in May, repeating a common refrain. “Obama is waging war on American energy,” GOP presidential front runner Newt Gingrich agreed. Fellow candidate Rick Perry said Obama’s “draconian” energy policies don’t let Americans create energy “and sell it to the world.” “All of this killing of our energy supply,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), perhaps the industry’s biggest apologist in Congress. Of course, when conservatives say “energy,” they mean oil and fossil fuels, as they themselves have led a real war against American clean energy.

But like many conservative attacks on the president, the war on American energy is a fiction. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reports today, U.S. exports of fossil fuels “are soaring” and the U.S. is on pace to be “a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years”:

According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels.

That the U.S. is shipping out more fuel than it brings in is significant because the nation has for decades been a voracious energy consumer. It took in huge quantities of not only crude oil from the Middle East but also refined fuels from Europe, Latin America and elsewhere to help run its factories and cars. [...]

The reversal raises the prospect of the U.S. becoming a major provider of various types of energy to the rest of the world, a status that was once virtually unthinkable. The U.S. already exports vast amounts of coal, and companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. are pursuing or exploring plans to liquefy newly abundant natural gas and send it overseas.

This is, of course, good news, even though much of it has to do with the faltering U.S. economy, which has driven down demand for fuel. But the new data also demonstrates the absurdity of conservative energy policy, which starts with the (baseless) assumption that domestic fossil fuel production is too low and follows that it must be incentivized with taxpayer dollars and licenses to pollute and bend labor safety rules in order to increase output.

Meanwhile, U.S. oil production is up, despite Obama’s mythical war against the industry. American drivers have seen little benefit from this, however, because prices are set in a global market, where quickly developing countries are driving up demand and thus prices. So increasing production here would have negligible impact on prices as American refineries would just ship their product abroad where it could fetch higher prices.

Green

Slow Business Is The Job-Killer, Not Government Regulations

Economists have debunked the myth that environment regulations stall job growth again and again. Even as Mitt Romney calls to “tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed,” data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show regulations haven’t hurt the economy. In 2010, only 0.3 percent of layoffs were due to higher costs from government regulations/intervention. By comparison, lower business demand caused 25 percent of layoffs.

Past studies also confirm that regulations have virtually no impact on jobs. Richard Morgenstern’s landmark study found that over a decade of regulations on heavily polluting industries didn’t cause “a significant change” in employment:

According to the study, when jobs were lost, they were often made up elsewhere in the same industry. For every $1 million companies spent, as many as 11 / 2 net jobs were added to the economy.

Overall, the research shows that the GOP field’s hyperbolic calls to eliminate regulation would have minimal impact on the unemployment rate.

Climate Progress

Jon Huntsman’s Energy Plan Shoots Blanks

by Daniel J. Weiss

Presidential candidate, former Ambassador to China, and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman received attention for his willingness to accept scientists’ verdict that carbon dioxide and other pollutants generated by humans is responsible for climate change.

While 98 of 100 climate scientists agree that global warming is real, he is the only one out of nine Republican presidential candidates to say so. Nonetheless, his energy plan presented at a speech delivered on Tuesday in New Hampshire would increase global warming pollution.  The other elements of the plan increase fossil fuel production and consumption, and are based on lack of understanding about energy use and policies.

Let’s take a closer look.

Just a few short years ago, then Gov. Huntsman supported a cap and trade system to reduce the carbon dioxide pollution responsible for climate change. He even joined two other governors in ads for the Environmental Defense Fund that urge government action to reduce pollution. He noted that a program to reduce global warming would “bring new jobs and exports.” He concluded that “now it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse gas pollution.”

Read more

Climate Progress

Romney Energy Plan Doesn’t Give a Mitt About Foreign Oil, Clean Cars, Jobs

by Daniel J. Weiss

It’s understandable, though indefensible, that Texas Governor Rick Perry’s energy plan is little more than Big Oil’s wish list.   What’s much more surprising is that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s energy proposal differs little from Perry’s Petroleum Pollution Plan.

Like Perry, Romney would continue our dependence on foreign oil rather than develop 21st century vehicles that use little or no petroleum, while giving big oil $4 billion annually in big tax breaks; hee would oppose regulations for mercury, smog, and cancer causing pollutants; and he would let other nations develop the clean energy technologies of the future rather than restore America’s manufacturing might.

The Romney energy plan “Believes in Big Oil” rather than believing in American ingenuity and innovation.  It’s no surprise that Romney has received more big oil campaign cash than any other candidate for federal office, according to Open Secrets.

Romney claims that he believes that “government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry.”  Yet in an op-ed this Monday, Romney advocated ending a federal loan program to help companies develop and produce ultra-efficient cars, signed into law by President Bush.  This program has provided $9 billion in loans to five companies, and created 42,000 jobs in nine states.  CAP research identified another 13 pending loan applications for projects to build hybrid vehicles, advanced batteries, and super-efficient engines.  Nine of these projects would create another 11,000 jobs. (We could not identify job figures for the other four proposals.)

One of the companies with a pending loan application –Next Autoworks – plans to build cars that go 40 miles per gallon with a modest sticker price.  Its plant in Louisiana would create 1,400 jobs.

Meanwhile, Romney completely ignores efforts to make vehicles go much further on a gallon gas to reduce imports. The Obama administration, auto companies, the United Auto Workers, the state of California, and a variety of environmentalists reached a tentative agreement to require cars and light trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.   This proposal would reduce oil use by 24 billion gallons of oil by 2030.  Romney seems oblivious to the implementation of these fuel economy standards signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Read more

Climate Progress

Perry’s New Campaign Ad: “I’m Rick Perry and I Approve of Climate Destruction”

Rick Perry released his first paid campaign advertisement for the 2012 election in Iowa today. Talking exclusively about energy jobs, Perry grins as he explains his plan to open up every crevice in the U.S. to oil, gas and coal extraction — all while stripping the environmental protection agency of its ability to keep the environment clean.

Yes, that’s an inspirational plan all right.

Perry’s campaign doesn’t even bother throwing in an obligatory wind turbine or solar panel to show half-hearted support for an “all of the above” strategy. Nope. This is Perry’s “Drills Gone Wild” fantasy.

Amazingly, this ad is being released in Iowa, a state that gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind.

Economy

Perry And Paul Sought Energy Subsidies They Claim ‘We Don’t Need’

During this week’s Republican presidential primary debate in Las Vegas, both Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) slammed the very idea of subsidizing any energy source. “Quite frankly, the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy,” Paul said. “So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.” Perry added later, “we don’t need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion.”

But as it turns out, both Perry and Paul have sought federal energy subsidies with gusto, as the Washington Post noted today:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) pressed the energy secretary in 2008 to approve a federal loan guarantee to help an energy company hoping to expand a nuclear facility in Texas. NRG Energy was among the many firms vying for a slice of $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees set aside for nuclear production, according to letters obtained by The Washington Post. That led to a rush of appeals from Congress members and other elected officials, including Perry and Paul, hoping to win support for their projects.

Perry and Paul both said “their earlier advocacy for a specific Texas project does not contradict their fundamental beliefs.” But for Perry at least, this is just the latest in a long line of instances where he embraced federal spending that he claimed to oppose.

For instance, he railed against the 2009 stimulus package, before using it to balance his budget. He claimed that he was against a bill meant to save teachers’ jobs, and then accepted the funding anyway. He even said he was a “vocal opponent” of No Child Left Behind, after trumpeting the money he received under the law.

Instead of energy subsidies, “Perry cites Texas’s ‘enterprise fund’ for emerging energy companies as a model.” That fund — in addition to not creating the number of jobs Perry says it has — has basically been a slush fund for him to dole out money to companies that donated to his campaigns.

Climate Progress

Rick Perry’s Failed Attempt at Crafting an Inspirational Energy Plan, Plus Hilarious Must-See “Bad Lip-Reading” Version

Rick Perry’s campaign released a new video on his energy plan this morning, trying to to drum up inspiration for his “drill-anywhere-burn-everything, climate-be-damned” energy policy.

Complete with orchestral music fit for a Lord of the Rings movie and supportive quotes from media pundits, Perry’s campaign attempts to spin his climate-killing energy plan into a hopeful vision for the future.

In cinema, high-budget drama doesn’t mean the director can weave a good story — or bring in good reviews from critics. Perry does neither. Here’s what others are saying about Perry’s energy plan:

“The numbers that Perry…[is] offering for job creation in the energy sector are unrealistic.” — Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations

“I appreciate you endorsing my energy ideas.” — Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann

“A long-standing jobs and energy proposal that resembled a wish list for the oil and gas industry…he offered no specific in the speech to support its two major claims.” — Richard Oppel, Jr, New York Times

The Perry energy plan is both scary and laughable.  Watch the hilarious video below for an alternative version of the Perry campaign’s attempt at inspiration:

Read more

Climate Progress

Drills Gone Wild: What To Expect From Rick Perry’s Energy Plan

http://genegessert.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/macondo400x571.jpgby Daniel J. Weiss

Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) plans to unveil his energy plan at a speech in Pittsburgh tomorrow.  Based on his description in Manchester Union Leader and other comments, the Perry proposal bill is a Big Oil wish list masquerading as an energy plan.  It would allow so much more oil drilling on federal lands and in waters that it is “drill, baby, drill” gone wild.

By gutting health safeguards from air pollution, it is a recipe for more premature deaths and hospitalizations, with few additional jobs, and no investment in the fast growing clean tech sector. The Perry Petroleum Plan looks backwards by reviving the Bush – Cheney plan developed in secret with big oil companies rather than providing a path to cleaner, more efficient energy production and consumption — the road our economic competitors are racing on.

Perry implored during Tuesday’s presidential debate that we must “get America independent on the domestic energy side.”  He must not know the Obama Administration has already made significant progress to reduce dependence on foreign oil.  The Energy Information Administration reports that domestic oil production is up ten percent while imports are six percent lower from 2008 to 2011.  Meanwhile, domestic oil use is down two percent, with additional oil savings due to new, improved fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.  Over the next decade, the growth in U.S. domestic oil production will outpace the progression in oil demand.

Read more

Security

Former Top Bush Security Adviser Unwittingly Outlines Potential ‘Devastating Impact’ Of Bombing Iran

Appearing on Fox Business yesterday, former Bush administration National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley described a harrowing threat to energy security posed by Iran: the Islamic Republic closing the Strait of Hormuz where the Persian Gulf goes out to sea. The strait is a crucial transit point for oil tankers from Gulf kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, but Iran controls one side of the bottleneck.

While omitting the elephant in the room, Hadley effectively outlined one of the likely disastrous effects of an attack on Iran. In town for a war game organized by an advocacy group that emphasizes energy insecurity, Hadley told Fox’s Eric Bolling:

HADLEY: [I]f you think about it, most of our oil comes from states that are unstable and in the Middle East or states like Venezuela and Libya and Iran that bear is no good will.

BOLLING: Sir, I have pointed this out in the past, a scenario that could happen. They tried it in the past. Iran could close off the Strait of Hormuz, that very, very short world oil choke-point, cutting off not one or two million barrels a day but 17 million barrels a day. A very easy put them to do. What would happen to the price of oil and the American economy?

HADLEY: The price of oil would skyrocket. I am sure you would see more than 200 barrels — dollars a barrel for oil. The economy would be in severe straits. Our military will tell you that in time there will be able to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but it wouldn’t have to be closed very long to have a devastating impact on our economy and the global economy. It’s not just the United States. But the United States is particularly vulnerable because we are struggling and it is of course where we live so we care about it.

Watch the video:

Leaving aside that Canada and Mexico export vastly more oil to the U.S. than “unstable” Middle East states or enemies, Hadley and Bolling put forward a scenario where Iran decides unprovoked to close down the Strait of Hormuz. While that’s unlikely, other plausible situations exist where Iran would likely be very tempted to close down the transit point for about a quarter of the world’s oil: in retaliation for a strike. This, too, is not a certainty, but military analysts have noted the distinct possibility and the Iranian military itself has said it would react to an attack by closing the Strait.

In short, if you want to avoid “skyrocket(ing)” oil prices and “a devastating impact on our economy and the global economy” due to an Iranian closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the best way to do it would be to not attack Iran.

Older

Switch to Mobile