Scott:

What, then, is your reaction to Richardson's energy policy, which he announced at an NAF event a couple of weeks ago?

He uses the buzz-words to which you object, because he has to, but the content of the policy is to diversify energy sources as much as possible, so that global energy markets would have less ability to shock or cripple the U.S. economy.

I had my own problems with the policy, in that it doesn't go far enough, but it goes much farther than the conventional stupidity otherwise allows, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As I've said before, he gives me the impression that -- unlike a Republican -- he would do MORE once in office, rather than less, than he promises.

As the NYT article notes, we have been through much of this before. The oil shocks of the 1970s also gave rise to a clamor for subsidies to all sorts of energy independence schemes, many involving highly questionable technologies.

The lesson of the 1970s is that sudden spikes in energy prices are intensely disruptive, damaging to the economy and the people dependent on it, and therefore something to be avoided. This lesson could be ignored in our daily lives and government policy as long as energy prices seemed likely to remain low, but that is not the case any more.

The right questions about coal-to-oil technologies are: do they provide insurance against sudden, dramatic spikes in energy prices? Are they the most cost-effective means of doing so? And, what are their other costs?

My personal view of subsidies to favored technologies being promoted by large corporations like Peabody Coal is strongly negative, and is reinforced by the efforts such entities have already made to purchase politicians. Having said that, I should also point out that directing American energy policy only at the issue of greenhouse gases is neither necessary to address that issue nor practical politically.

David:

See my post on Richardson's energy policy. I think we are on the same page.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002140.php

I think it's important to prioritize a policy of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but the primary means to accomplish that goal should be conservation. We can't continue to fund regimes that aid and abet terrorism.

I would argue that, as mentioned above, policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil that do not also reduce our carbon emissions are misguided as they forget the fact that we all drink from the same barrel of oil. A spike in prices affects all consumers, even those that consume limited amounts or only domestically produced oil, as the price of that oil will rise to international levels. Relatedly, to those above and elsewhere decrying the economic damage spikes can do as reason for coal-to-liquids investment I ask, isn't this why we have, and are expanding, our strategic reserves?

Sound energy policies must be those that support and encourage conservation and (efficient) investment in alternative energy (i.e. investing in non-corn based bio-fuels) and that educate the public to the fact that there is no single solution to our energy/ emissions dilemma.

As a first start, as anyone in the energy sector will tell you, the administration together with the Congress must institute energy policies in which subsidies/ tax breaks/ regulations have a longer life cycle. Perhaps the single greatest impediment/ disincentive to private sector R&D in conservation and alternative energy technologies is that federal policy positions are continually in flux.

I would argue that, as mentioned above, policies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil that do not also reduce our carbon emissions are misguided as they forget the fact that we all drink from the same barrel of oil. A spike in prices affects all consumers, even those that consume limited amounts or only domestically produced oil, as the price of that oil will rise to international levels. Relatedly, to those above and elsewhere decrying the economic damage spikes can do as reason for coal-to-liquids investment I ask, isn't this why we have, and are expanding, our strategic reserves?

Sound energy policies must be those that support and encourage conservation and (efficient) investment in alternative energy (i.e. investing in non-corn based bio-fuels) and that educate the public to the fact that there is no single solution to our energy/ emissions dilemma.

As a first start, as anyone in the energy sector will tell you, the administration together with the Congress must institute energy policies in which subsidies/ tax breaks/ regulations have a longer life cycle. Perhaps the single greatest impediment/ disincentive to private sector R&D in conservation and alternative energy technologies is that federal policy positions are continually in flux.

These two policy goals are often not in conflict with each other. For instance, the most effective solution to both is energy efficiency and conservation.

Having seen the attempted hatchet job NBC tried to perform on Richardson on this week's MEET THE PRESS, I wonder if anyone out there is doing a study to compare how the Democratic and Republic candidates are being treated on the network talk shows?

Sorry for going off topic, but we seem to all be on the same page, here. Boring.

A carbon based BTU tax would bring on all sorts of alternative energies that are clean without lobbyists and industry picking the most dubious of winners to line their own pockets. Any economist running the numbers can tell you that the market place will do a much better job of picking winners.

The reason the coal industry needs these subsidies is because it makes no economic or environmental sense, just like the ADM subsidy for Ethanol.

Use the proceeds to cut social security taxes to counter the deep pockets of the energy industry.

This thing is all about money and has nothing to do with energy independence.

A carbon based BTU tax would bring on all sorts of alternative energies that are clean without lobbyists and industry picking the most dubious of winners to line their own pockets. Any economist running the numbers can tell you that the market place will do a much better job of picking winners.

The reason the coal industry needs these subsidies is because it makes no economic or environmental sense, just like the ADM subsidy for Ethanol.

Use the proceeds to cut social security taxes to counter the deep pockets of the energy industry.

This thing is all about money and has nothing to do with energy independence.

David N,
I saw some of potatohead's interview with Richardson.
I thought Richardson came off quite well. Russert seemed almost desperate to score a point on Richardson, and frustrated that he couldn't.

> With sequestration and coal burning technologies
> being where they are, the climate impacts of
> coal-to-liquid fuels would be at least as
> detrimental as those of oil. Plus, subsidizing
> these fuels in the U.S. would do nothing to
> address the oil addiction from we're suffering
> from, which is global.

Thats some pessimism, soooo, if you apply the “US (+EU?) only” subsidizing argument to biofuels and top that of with the recent UN reminder* that biofuels take up agricultural land were some would like to see cheap food grow and earlier reminders that burning down forest to make room for biomass aint all that smart CO2 wise**, then the question becomes:

Is the optimistic transport fuel vision based on the technological promises of biofuels + carbon to liquid (+ gtl (Hi Iran, Russia) + carbonated H2 + electric) to optimistic or are these things just the bumps in the road of a newish (on this scale) technology?

If this road is to bumpy, then were does this leave the new America vision? This is the vision cited by Pierre Noel in his 06 new America appearance. See
http://www.newamerica.net/files/PN_EnergySecurity_Final_061026.pdf page 13?

I am not saying one should just give up, but watching “a crude awakening: the oil crash” to see the the scale and worst case impact of the problems in the coming decades is always refreshing. It should be the mandatory bonus material to an inconvenient truth.
Promo: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
Description: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0776794/
Pirate copy, you didn`t get this link from me!: http://www.mininova.org/det/691087

And if you do give up, there is always some hope, second world war museums scattered across Europe still have moterbikes than ran and may still run on wood.

Of course the more proven technologies are not in energy production, but in conservation. But since conservation is for sissies like wall mart, you cant make big (k-street big) money of it, and politicians calling for it can still expect an oh-so well informed anti-communist lynch mob (Oh right, its anti-oil producing-muslim mob these days).... let just keep driving our cars to the mcdonalds to get meat from soy fed CO2 farting cows prepared to taste worse than even the worst vegy meal modern food processing could produce, packed in plenty of plastics after a long day at the office of doing nothing but read e-mails that would be accessible from everywhere in the world without spending a morning and and evening stuck in the metropolitan traffic in stress over the the other drivers instead of the fellow passengers in public transport.

If one gives up there is a long term consolation price to fight for: leaving enough fossil fuel in the ground to fight a conventional world war with and then recover from, recover from say a pandamic or colonize something far away from this planet.

*) Full rapport: http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6636467.stm
others: http://esa.un.org/un-energy/Documents/Publication.Media.html
**) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31biofuel.html
Seriously, people had to try burning forest to really figure out it hurts the climate

I am rather surprised nobody mentions underground coal gasification, which was widely tested in the US during the "oil shock" of the 70's and is the subject of considerable interest in Australia these days (google on "chinchilla ucg" for more details). This technique seems to supply a cleaner fuel than oil and with the enormous coal reservbes of the US, Europe, Australia, China and India, would considerably cool down the competition for oil

We need:
1. vastly greater effficiency
2. Solar photovoltaic and heat collectors
3. Wind and water electric generation
4. Elimination of subsidies for coal, oil and nuclear
5. Increased gas tax - with a deduction for nominal usage
6. Increased funding and use of rails for transportation and freight
7. Turning food into fuel is insane, and unsustainable

As we've seen, when we use less fuel the cost goes down. So there's a pendulum and equilibrium effect that follows oil shocks as well as efficiency gains. More efficient cars have led to more driving - the cycle has to be broken.

Technologies have to ramp up quickly to become cost effective enough to become cheaper than fossil fuels.

The US has put too much pressure on world resources and the planet can't handle the impacts of everyone trying to live like americans. The key is to be able to offer solutions that maintain or increase quality of life for all, not for it to seem to be penalization or backsliding.

There's a positive solution, but it will be extremely difficult to get there.

One of the most promising and environment friendly possibilities going is the the combination of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles with a Smart Grid system (two way) in which the otherwise wasted energy in off-peak hours is stored in the the batteries of the PHEV's. Electric energy is used during peak times. This technology would vastly reduce the need for the environmentally unfriendly CTL plants by stressing a V2G (vehicle to grid) system. Here is a link for the interested:
http://www.plugincenter.com/files/documents/Michael_Kintner_Meyer.pdf

The beauty of this is enhanced by using technologies that are variable in reliability like wind and solar. Power can be stored or used whenever it is generated or needed in the batteries of PHEV's.