G.W. take 6

From his 2006 State of the Union address

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative – a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment … move beyond a petroleum-based economy … and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

and

America needs more than a temporary expansion

and

I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as ..., ... and alternative energy sources.

Be assured (the cornucopia) or beware the precipice (Cassandra)? President Bush, in a followup, takes to the road.

John Dickerson of Slate writes:

Bush put his case in a very Bushian way, presenting it as a pain-free alternative to the awful status quo. Only the corn stalk will suffer as we remake a huge sector of the economy and convert to clean, politically innocent fuel sources. None of us have to trade in our SUV's, drive less, or turn down the thermostat. The president says that in six years cars using the new ethanol will be competitive with gas-burning ones. By 2025, he pledges, America can reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil by 75 percent. His aides argue that technology makes this all possible. It sounds too good to be true, and almost certainly is.

The New York Times editorializes:

Last night's remarks were woefully insufficient. The country's future economic and national security will depend on whether Americans can control their enormous appetite for fossil fuels. This is not a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress. It is the key to everything else.

The Times claims that Brazil is oil-independent because of its development of ethanol; that claim begs the question of how much energy was needed to produce that ethanol and other concerns. Further, the Times worries about global warming. This is a distraction from the main point. What happens when our economic security is compromised? Will people die? How and how many?

The New Republic looks at (subscription req'd) the administration's position on Peak Oil:

In its analysis of Bush's State of the Union adress, Deutsche Bank's North American branch reaches a similar conclusion. Bush, the analysis says, "should talk about making a dependence on oil, as opposed to Middle Eastern oil, a thing of the past. ... We should lessen our demand and conserve what is left. By inference that will reduce dependence on the Middle East. There is one simple way of doing this, and that is to raise gasoline taxes in the U.S."

But it is very doubtful that the Bush administration will do what the energy experts and bankers advise. The political costs are too great.

Charlie Rose on PBS interviewed the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. (transcript). The first 20 minutes of the one hour program has to do with oil addiction. Prince Turki Al-Faisal believes that the market will 'of course' take care of things once the oil starts running out. For more from the camel's mouth (no offense intended), here's an interview with 'the Greenspan of energy', Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi.

Since cartoons are on everyone's mind these days and for a lighter side to crude, see this.

Oil sands salvation

There's a lot of oil in that there taiga. But it's hard to get out.

Regarding yesterday's CBS 60 minutes piece on the The Oil Sands Of Alberta see the following analysis: Tar baby: Oil sands and peak oil.

connecting the dots

In an editorial, the NY Times looked at our vulnerability to natural gas embargos and nuclear proliferation, concluding:

Clearly, becoming less dependent on foreign sources should be among the West's - and most especially America's - most urgent priorities. But not in the way that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seem to prefer, which is to try to drill our way out of dependency - an utterly impossible task for a country that uses one-fourth of the world's oil while possessing only 3 percent of its reserves, and whose once-abundant supplies of natural gas are now severely stressed. A much better answer would be a national commitment to more efficient vehicles and to the rapid deployment of new energy sources like biofuels.

So the solution somehow lies in efficiency and in biofuels. Why doesn't the paper of record further investigate that supposed solution? The questions are very simple.

1. With finite supplies of fossil fuels (the earth is round, Mr. Friedman), how much time does efficiency buy us before we seriously feel the inevitable oil shortages?
2. Can we produce enough biofuel to replace oil? As we've seen before, there are major problems with biofuels as a solution. It took hundreds of thousands of years to transform solar energy into fossil fuels through geologic processes. Do we really expect to compress that into a real time replacement of our fossil fuel consumption? As John Mac used to say, Get Serious.

This week there was an explosion in a coal mine in West Virginia costing the lives of 12 hard-working men. Did anyone tie that to our dependence on fossil fuels?

to a watchdog

The PBS series, NOW with David Brancaccio, aired a piece on global warming this week; in it, one climatologist, Dr. Alley, says:

It’s not the end of humanity; it's not the end of civilization.

My feedback to NOW:

There are some of us who believe that oil depletion could quickly lead to the end of humanity and the end of civilization. Please go beyond your look at influence-peddling by the oil industry to the subject of Peak Oil. One person who has been trying to get the public's attention on this is Congressman Barlett (R-Maryland): http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/531 .

One compelling analysis is the too-real Olduvai Theory by Richard Duncan.

For a view from abroad, see this BBC piece, a Crisis for Humanity?