March 29, 2004
Bush: Keep Funding Terrorists
The Clarke controversy is interesting and it may have a huge impact on the election, but I’m going to talk policy again. While we’re here in this column arguing about how lame President Bush’s counter-terrorism policy was pre-9/11, the Republicans are over in their column trying to abolish Social Security.
I’m going to summarize President Bush’s energy plan using the same criteria I used to discuss John Kerry’s plan. A significant amount of the more than $20 billion we spend on oil from the Middle East finds its way into the hands of terrorists and finances schools that teach young Muslims to hate Americans. Also, OPEC has recently threatened to decrease output while the US is simultaneously struggling to replenish its strategic reserve, causing gas prices to rise significantly. I believe we need a plan that makes the United States totally independent of foreign oil for its energy needs. The President’s plan does not meet that criteria.
President Bush's plan would deliver a reduction in (but not an end to) foreign oil usage through energy conservation, development of domestic oil sources, and development of alternative energy sources like coal and nuclear.
It also includes a boatload of provisions to deregulate power companies, facilitate US energy companies' development of foreign oil and natural gas resources, relaxation of domestic environmental and zoning regulations, fast tracking of oil drilling and hydro-electric damming leases, subsidies for oil exploration and extraction, and on and on. Really. Read the summary. It's an energy company's dream: unregulated, subsidized exploration and extraction.
Energy Conservation
The plan calls for more studies of the impacts of raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks "based on sound science." So there won't be any reduction of foreign oil usage there any time soon. The plan also calls for initiatives to ease traffic congestion and reduce idling of trucks at truck stops. As far as I can tell, there are no studies which estimate the amount of oil those measures will save. Probably the most effective conservation initiative in the plan calls for increasing the public's awareness of the energy savings gained from using Energy Star labeled appliances.
Increased Domestic Energy
The plan calls for government subsidies to enhance productivity at existing wells and improve technology for exploring new wells, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plan also calls for a review of drilling lease "impediments" in the continental United States and in Alaska, subsidies for offshore drilling, and investment in clean coal technology. To round out domestic energy development, the plan calls for licensing new nuclear plants and easing restrictions on hydro-electric dams.
Renewable Energy Programs
The plan calls for a re-evaluation of access to federal land for increasing biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar energy production, as well as more studies of the effectiveness of those energy sources, and to model the programs as public-private partnerships. Tax credits would also be implemented to encourage residential solar power systems, and there's some wacky scheme to award $1.2 billion in bid bonuses for biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar energy research in the ANWR. Last, the plan calls for more research into hydrogen and fusion power, and tax credits for the purchase of gas-electric hybrid cars.
Then there's a whole bunch of gobbledy-gook about enhancing our energy distribution system (which should be done, but has nothing to do with decreasing our dependence on foreign oil), and working through diplomatic channels to allow US companies to develop energy resources in other countries.
So in a nutshell, the President's plan is to develop more domestic oil, coal, and nuclear power, while continuing to study renewable energy and encouraging people to use Energy Star appliances and drive hybrid cars.
By any measure, this plan is not going to give the United States energy independence. It still leaves Americans with the choice of driving around in lime-green electric clown cars or funding terrorists at the pump.
Thank god there isn’t yet another topic about this over in the Republican column. I know that Democrats want the debate to be all Clarke all the time to avoid talking about other issues, but the shelf-life is about up on this particular tempest-in-a-teapot.
Posted by: Martin at March 29, 2004 11:28 AMThat’s right, Martin! In fact, this topic already has nothing to do with Richard Clarke!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 01:34 PMintresting take on the enviorment Martin and Chris:)
Last year I worked for a non-profit organazation as a fund-raiser, and the we worked a lot on wind power, which seems to be one of the only non-polutting energy sources out there.
there is enough wind in south and north dakota alone to power the entire nations homes. as soon as we can put a inferstructure together this seems energy source of the future
Posted by: martin at March 29, 2004 05:19 PMI don’t know, martin.
Maybe it’s because I’m a sailor and I’ve never been able to depend on the wind. I’m sure there are some pretty good models out there for predicting the wind, but the sailing community has yet to find them useful.
Do you have any links to data on how reliable that type of system would be?
Kerry’s plan includes an initiative he calls, “20/20”, which has as its goal making renwable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.) account for 20% of the country’s energy sources by the year 2020.
In my critique of Kerry’s full energy plan, I stated that 20/20 was one of the programs (drilling in the ANWR was another) that we should think about trading with the Republicans in exchange for Total Energy Independence.
I like Kerry’s plan because it will make the US completely independent of Middle East oil. It’s a “Big” plan to switch the US to a hydrogen power infrastructure using the nations vast deposits of natural gas and coal.
A lot of Democrats like to think of it as a cross between the Manhattan Project and FDRs PWA job “pump priming” programs. We will need our best and brightest to develop and commercialize hydrogen fuel, and we’ll need to employ hundreds of thousands of workers to create the infrastructure needed.
Independence from foreign oil is a military, economic, and security imperative. Kerry’s plan delivers. Bush’s plan does not.
Independence from foreign oil is a military, economic, and security imperative. Kerry’s plan delivers. Bush’s plan does not.
BTW, Martin. I consider that another example of how the President is still not making the countering of Middle Eastern terrorism his most important issue.
Recently, he delayed sanctions on Syria. Syria has WMDs, finances international terrorism, is occupying Lebanon, and was responsible for the deaths of 241 United States Marines in a terrorist attack in 1983.
Bush delayed santions (and insisted on a clause to continue the delay or even end the sanctions at will without the consent of Congress) because ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Exxon Mobil and others have recently signed contracts in excess of $34 million with Syria.
> I consider that another example of how the
> President is still not making the countering of
> Middle Eastern terrorism his most important
> issue.
Lee, I agree completely. Furthermore, I think that our continued dependence on foreign oil is a de facto tax on American energy consumption. If not for our dependence on foreign oil, we would not be paying billions of tax dollars in maintaining the security of those countries which supply our oil, and we wouldn’t be paying billions more in protecting ourselves from the terrorists that sprout up from within those nations.
There are tons of benefits of developing American energy independence. The only parties who get harmed by such a strategy are (a) the (mostly oppressive) governments of foreign oil producing nations and, of course, (b) the oil industry that profits from the extraction and transportation of that oil. Everyone else benefits.
There can be no doubt that the Bush Administration will never make any decision which runs afoul of the oil industry’s aims. Even if such a decision would benefit America’s national security and/or the taxpayer’s pocketbook.
Hm, your Syria report got me thinking: I wonder if there’s even more evidence of Administration irresposibility towards fighting terror in Cheney’s still-secret energy task force meetings. Did he, for example, meet with a Syrian oil minister or with someone with embarassingly close connections to the bin Laden family?
Okay, maybe I’m getting a little conspiratorial, but it’s interesting that the Administration’s biggest secrets, the secrets they are most willing to pay a political price for, are about their terrorism policies and their energy policies.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 11:06 PMKerry’s plans for a hydrogen based transportation system have some really serious technical problems. Hydrogen gas is not dense (hence the whole balloon thing). This means that it has a very low energy density (AKA not much bang for the volume and weight). Low energy density means that transport and storage will be verrrry tricky. Half the car would have to be gas tank. And since the fuel is already in gas form a leak would be much more dangerous than a standard gasoline leak (can you say Hindenburg) .
Also the fuel cells used to transform the gas into electricity will not operate at temperatures approaching freezing. So don’t plan on driving your car during the winter.
Then there is the problem of how to manufacture the hydrogen. It is a very energy intensive process.
I think our best bet for getting off the oil habit will come from cell phones and laptop computers. The market is really driving battery technology to new heights.
As for wind power:
When the wind doesn’t blow you have a problem. You need to store the energy for when it is needed. Also I would dispute the claim that you could run the country off wind power. Not to mention the noise pollution given off by a wind farm. It sounds like the mother of all helicopters. They have been know to crack window with their sound.
This sounds like I am against wind power. I am not! It is a good solution. It’s just not THE solution.
For the definitive web site on alternative power go to:
http://www.homepower.com
The homepower people have been at it for ever!
Hey Bob,
Those are all interesting points about the hydrogen powered car portion of Kerry’s energy plan.
To keep this in perspective, you have to start with the premise that the future economy and security of the United States will require total energy independence. I see today that Saudi Arabia is standing firm in it’s refusal to increase oil production despite the pressure the Bush administration is applying to OPEC.
With that as the background, you can see why many Democrats are referring to the creation of a hydrogen-powered transportation infrastructure as a new Manhattan Project.
Most of the points you make about the current crop of hydrogen powered concept vehicles are good ones. They are also all engineering problems. The kind of problem that Americans are very good at solving.
No one is suggesting you go out and buy a hydrogen car today. They aren’t available and you’d have trouble finding fuel. But with some resolve by automobile manufacturers, consumers, and a boost from the government (it is a matter of national security, after all), we can make the transition away from Middle Eastern oil in the next ten years.
As for your concerns about hydrogen production being an “energy intensive process”, there are many ways to produce hydrogen, ranging from solar power to natural gas to “clean” coal to urine, molasses and bacteria. Which one were you thinking of?
BTW, Miami University and BMW did independent collision tests on hydrogen cars and found them to be as safe or safer than gasoline filled automobiles. Can you say Ford Pinto?
The transition from Arab oil will be hard. It’s a “BIG” idea akin to developing the atom bomb and putting a man on the moon. It will be a massive undertaking. There will be unforseen hurdles in addition to the problems we already know must be solved. But it will be well worth it to attain total energy independence for this country.
The process I was thinking of was electrolysis. It is the only process (that I am aware of) currently capable of producing the required amount of hydrogen. I have been following (and experimenting with) alternative energy for 30 years. Pie in the sky proclamations of startling new discoveries have never panned out. From the billion-dollar boondoggle of hydrogen fusion to biological solar cells, nothing has made it out of the lab. Electric vehicles and nuclear power are current technologies capable of solving the majority of our problems today. Even if we were to do a full court “Manhattan project” push it would take more than a decade to produce a usable nuclear/electric replacement for the oil infrastructure.
Maybe I am a bitter old man who has seen to many alternative energy dreams fail. But I think you may be experiencing irrational exuberance during and election year. Until you have worked in the science and engineering field and been personally responsible for taking an infant technology and fielding it to a population, you will never understand the difficulties or the time required.
I find it interesting that Kerry is proposing a technology that couldn’t possible exist till after he leaves office.
PS: Don’t assume I am supporting Bush’s plan. His is even worst that Kerry’s. Bush’s Oil industry bribes, cronyism and invasion mentality make me think he off his medication.
Maybe I am a bitter old man who has seen to many alternative energy dreams fail. But I think you may be experiencing irrational exuberance during and election year. Until you have worked in the science and engineering field and been personally responsible for taking an infant technology and fielding it to a population, you will never understand the difficulties or the time required.Posted by: Lee at April 1, 2004 08:31 AMHaha! Bob, I think you’re a little pessimistic. Most good engineers are. :)
I’m a software engineer and my wife is a chemical engineer. We both have had the same experiences creating and developing new technologys. I know how easy it is to get discouraged.
But if independence from foreign oil is something that needs to happen (and I think it is), then the sooner begun, the sooner done.
“But if independence from foreign oil is something that needs to happen (and I think it is), then the sooner begun, the sooner done.”
I agree! I just don’t think hydrogen is the answer. The whole project reminds me of the multi-billion dollar boondoggle of hydrogen fusion. Plus I would like an “Energy infra-structure of tomorrow” that doesn’t require me to a go to a “Hydrogen Station” run by an oil company to fill my car up.
Plus I would like an “Energy infra-structure of tomorrow” that doesn’t require me to a go to a “Hydrogen Station” run by an oil company to fill my car up.
I’m not sure what alternative you have in mind, but I’m willing to throw a bone to the oil companies if they’ll transition away from foreign oil.
Bob, I’m not married to the hydrogen solution, but I am adamant that we need to be independent from foreign oil.
Bush’s plan doesn’t even attempt to address the problem, so that leaves Kerry’s plan which focuses on hydrogen-powered fuel cells for vehicles.
This is an issue where I’m willing to put aside quibbling over the little things and focus on solving the problem. Kerry has a viable (though apparently not optimal, in your opinion) plan. Bush does not.
It may supprise you folks but we conservatives believe in energy independence too. Bush’s plan does leave a lot to be desired but I’ve heard the same retoric from Democrats for decades. They give it lip service but still go to thier parties to bash conservatives in thier SUVs.
Friends and I have started a biodiesel production plant which we hope will reach the 1 million gal/year level in a year or two. We are all conservative Republicans and went so far as to try and get some Dems to join us in the venture. You would think they would have been glad to join in. But have so much hatred in thier hearts they couldnt see past it. Just a sign of thier hypocracy I guess. They even wrote editorials in the local liberal rag accusing us of grandstanding.
Posted by: Jeff Kish at April 6, 2004 12:08 PMIt may supprise you folks but we conservatives believe in energy independence too.
I’m not sure why you think that would surprise the folks on WatchBlog, Jeff. I think most rational people believe that dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a problem.
Bush’s plan does leave a lot to be desired but I’ve heard the same retoric from Democrats for decades. They give it lip service but still go to thier parties to bash conservatives in thier SUVs.
Well, that’s just not true. Carter reduced our dependence on foreign oil by 87%. he was a Democrat.
And I’m not sure which Democrats you’re talking about driving SUVs to conservative bashing parties. Most of my Democrat friends go to BBQs and bars, and some Bush bashing does take place, but it sounds like you also have some problems with Bush.
I’ve never heard of biodiesel. What is it?
BTW, I own a Honda Civic hybrid.
