planet earth looks blue

 It’s Monday, and Obama’s green plan has begun.  His first move was to sign a memorandum for the EPA to look at California’s application for tighter auto and fuel efficiency laws, a move that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at least in sunny California.  The Bush administration rejected the move previously, siding with the auto industry, saying that it would be too confusing to have to create cars for two different sets of emissions codes.  Republican George Voinovich, the Senator from Ohio, leads the opposition today arguing that it is unfair to have any more expectations on an already failing auto industry.  Isn’t the GOP in favor of state’s rights? 

If California is able to raise the bar on their standards, at least 17 states are expected to follow.  Once again, the west coast is leading the way to a more sustainable future.  And is clean air such a bad idea?  A study that came out last week concluded that American’s can expect another five months of life on average due to the efforts of the Clean Air Act over the past thirty years.  And wait - there’s more.  Obama also said that he wants the average fuel economy for both cars and trucks to be raised to 35 miles/gallon by 2020.  If the auto industry is able to do this, we would use about 10% less oil, the equivalent of 2 million barrels a day.  

So where’s the too good to be true part of President Obama’s green efforts?  The will of the rest.  With the auto industry complaining about making the effort, claiming that they already make fuel efficient cars, how are we going to make any progress?  With people still debating over whether global warming is real or not, how can we step beyond an argument and into action?  

The potential $825 billion stimulus package is loaded with money for research and development into all arenas of energy efficiency.  Although the whole concept of spending so much money has all of us a little nervous, flipping through our thinning wallets, it is an investment in our future.  If we all took the time to research the energy and greenhouse gas dilemmas, we may all come together, unified, and agree that its an investment we can’t afford not to make.  

Gazprom, Russia’s juggernaut business, is slowly cutting off the Europe’s life force, natural gas.  As the third largest company in the entire world, in charge of 20% of the world’s natural gas reserves, Gazprom, led by Alexey Miller, is a force to be reckoned with.  It has close ties to the Kremlin, as its profits have helped bring flowing capital into Russia.  Medvedev, Russia’s current President, is himself a former Gazprom chairman.  

Gazprom supplies Europe with about 40% of its natural gas, through the conduit state of Ukraine.  But Ukraine has failed to pay the company as much as $600 million.  Ukraine denies the charges, siting Gazprom for demanding a ridiculous price hike from $179.50 per 1,000 cubic meter to $250.   The market rate being $418, Russia’s energy beast argues that they have been too generous to Ukraine in the first place.  Last month, Gazprom’s profits increased by 85% for the first half of 2008, increasing on an annual income of $61 billion the year before.  I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to be generous, if that’s what its called, to keep the gas running through Ukraine’s pipelines.  It is winter after all.  

Eight countries so far (including Ukraine) are affected by the energy crunch, reporting drastic decreases in their gas pressure.  For now they are calling on other suppliers, or using reserves, but this can only last so long.  So, the question is, what is Gazprom trying to do here?  Are they just getting their due?  Logically, the American and British oil companies got away with a twisted argument, declaring they had to raise prices to a breaking point, so why can’t Gazprom if they are so all-mighty?  Are their political overtones to picking on the Ukraine, a much poorer, former Soviet satellite, that has sided too much with the West, much to Putin’s chagrin.    And, what happens if the two parties can’t come to terms?  Perhaps now the rest of Europe will turn on the Ukraine, a much easier state to sway than the great Russian bear.  And then they won’t be accepted into NATO and the EU.  Sounds like a grand plan.  

2009-01-06 

Since the ban on outer continental shelf drilling has ended, and drilling isn’t a hot topic now that gas is down to $2/gallon, the US Interior Department thought it was a great time to lease 2.9 million acres of ocean to natural gas and oil companies.  And while environmentalists have their heads turned towards the west, they made this move off the coast of Virginia, just a month before the official end of Bush’s term.  One last hurrah for the oil president?  

Because of the skyrocket oil prices this year, Bush had repealed the presidential ban on offshore drilling that his father put in place.  And why did the former, wiser Bush ban drilling in the first place?  Because its a fools game.  Drilling will call up an influx of toxins into the ocean, releasing Neptune’s box of mercury, lead, and arsenic into the water, and into the blood stream of all life in the ocean, and eventually into the life stream of us land dwellers.  The seismic tests that the oil companies have to run  drive sea mammal life crazy.  Just this summer near Madagascar 100 whales beached themselves, leading Exxon-Mobile to actually suspend their drilling efforts there.  Where they leased the ocean in Virginia there are 300-400 North Atlantic Right whales left in existence who will be affected when they migrate through the area.  Aside from the environmental issues of putting our energy baggage on the ocean, there is the problem of cost.  One oil rig alone costs half a billion dollars at this point  because the demand is so high.  Not to mention the price of the infrastructure needed to build offshore, and then actually transport oil back to land is going to cost several fortunes.  In the case of the Virginia waters, this is all for a potential 130 million barrels of oil, and a little over a trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  In the US, we consume about 20 million barrels of oil a day.  So all that effort, money, and damage for six and a half days of energy independence.  

I wonder what could be done if the capital and manpower were put into developing real energy independence, instead of chasing a high that is never going to last.  And we know its not going to last; we know it going to hurt us in the future.  Sounds like the bad decision making of an oil-addict.  

The good news in all of this is that because it is so difficult, expensive and time-consuming to drill offshore, Obama has plenty of time to put in another presidential ban on offshore drilling.  So hopefully we can stop wasting our time on something worthless, and put our energies into innovation.  Maybe there’s that kid right now, in the seventh grade, with an open-mind, a great imagination, and the desire to change the world.  Wouldn’t hurt to invest a few of those energy dollars in his education.  

2008-12-21