article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (9) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
February 27, 2006

The Next Conservative Energy Policy

by Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett

Last week President George W. Bush and high-level Administration officials fanned out across the country to promote the President's latest energy initiatives, which were first outlined in his State of the Union Speech. The President was half right and half wrong about oil in this prominent speech. "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," he said. However, we can't "break this addiction through technology" alone. Two words conservatives should champion were missing from his speech: conservation and efficiency.

"Delayed gratification and self-sufficiency are traditional conservative values. That is why the next conservatism should champion policy changes to use less, not more oil through conservation and energy efficiency."

- Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett

Current U.S. energy policy and the President's Advanced Energy Initiative are too modest and overly focused on the goal of increasing domestic production of oil and alternatives to support increasing oil consumption. This is futile and self-defeating because U.S. oil production is in permanent decline and world oil production will follow - perhaps disastrously soon.

American Shell Oil scientist M. King Hubbert identified "peak oil" in the mid-1950s. He discovered oil field production follows a bell curve rising to a maximum capacity, or peak, when about half of the oil is extracted, after which production declines. U.S. oil production peaked in 1971 and has declined every year since. The U.S. has only two percent of world oil reserves. We contribute eight percent of world production. But we consume 25 percent of world oil production. We're pumping our reserves four times faster than the rest of the world. U.S. natural gas production has also peaked. The United States is now the world's largest importer of both oil and natural gas. From importing one-third of the oil we use before the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, we now import about two-thirds of the oil we use.

Hubbert was right about the U.S. What about the world? Oil production is declining in 33 of the world's 48 largest oil-producing countries. Experts agree global peak oil is inevitable. Many predict it is imminent. Oil prices have not predicted peak production. Neither high oil prices nor technological advances have reversed production declines after peak. Despite periods of high prices and new technologies, world oil discoveries have steadily declined for 40 years.

With U.S. oil production declining, increasing oil consumption will make America more dependent upon oil imports from foreign sources such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela. Increasing oil consumption will increase competition and potential conflict with other energy consumers, such as China and India. Increasing oil consumption will make us less prepared and capable to overcome the inevitable challenges of global peak oil.

Peak oil will cause a crisis in transportation because there are no ready liquid fuel substitutes of comparable quality or quantity. We can't fill gas tanks with coal, wind, solar or nuclear fuel. A February 2005 report commissioned by the Department of Energy, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, concluded that a crash program to produce liquid fuel alternatives at the maximum feasible rate must start twenty years before peak to avoid significant supply shortages. Oil prices haven't promoted those alternatives. In the Wall Street Journal on January 10, 2006, Marc Sumerlin, formerly Deputy Director of President Bush's National Economic Council, noted that investment in alternatives to oil was stymied by $20/barrel futures market prices for oil between 1986 and 2003 and fears of a repeat of the 1998 plunge down to $10/barrel.

$70/barrel oil and $3.50/gallon gas will seem cheap after global peak oil. In its September 6, 2005 report, Oil Shockwave, the National Commission on Energy Policy & Securing America's Future Energy projected that a sustained four percent global shortfall in daily oil supply would raise oil prices above $160 per barrel. Prices that high would inflict a ruinous worldwide recession.

Technology and alternatives are important. However, unless we also use less oil, we won't reduce America's oil imports. Delayed gratification and self-sufficiency are traditional conservative values. That is why the next conservatism should champion policy changes to use less, not more oil through conservation and energy efficiency. Conservatives should recognize that unless we have a national energy conservation program with the commitment, breadth and intensity of the Apollo moon mission and the Manhattan Project to create the atom bomb, our country is unlikely to achieve the goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025" and even less likely to break our oil addiction.

Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Republican, represents the Sixth District of Maryland in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (9)
 
No image available
March 8, 2006
Congressman Bartlett, not new to energy issues, has been trying to get us to understand that we have to devlop viable alternatives, conserve and use energy efficiently while we still can.
Comment 1 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
"Waste not, want not" is always good advice. But isn't the goal to provide as much cheap energy as possible, to as many people as possible, without subsidizing sociopaths in the process? Even if the price of crude oil drops to $10 a barrel again we would still be dependent on thugs, zealots, and dictators for much of our energy. Continued economic progress for less devolped parts of the world depends on using more energy, not less. An all-out effort to apply technology to the creation of cheap, abundant, and clean energy is not only in our own economic self-interest, it is the only way to improve the living standards in the third world. It is also the only way to de-fund the collection of Wahhabi-wackos, third-world thugs, and forthing-at-the-mouth, "born-again" Marxists that control so much of the world's oil supply. Conservation makes great sense as an interim policy for the devolped world. In the longer term, a cheap and abundant substitute for oil must be found.
Comment 2 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
Hubbert second prediction is prophetic, but not scientific, we should take care not to permit the environmental movement to be unduly represented by those with an irrational argument however much we agree with the conclusion. The mere fact that Hubbert guessed right once does not scientifically support the dire apocalypse for which his name has become the synonym. We should conserve and find alternatives, for reasons based in hard, repetitious, and rigorous science, of which Hubbert is but the poorest example.
Comment 3 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
Presidents speech.
"The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and 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".
Comment 4 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
Bush gave a speech at Johnson control and in his speech he did use the word efficiency once. Johnson controls is developing better batteries for hybrid vehicles. The president felt was nessary to visit this company that is a innovator in energy conservation. Your statement is misleading, by implying that the president is not concerned about efficiency.
The cold hard facts are that real changes will be driven by market pressure.
Comment 5 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
Stuart is probably right about efficiency gains "lowering the entry bar so that more people use more of the energy".

From personal experience, I can unequivocally say that my family's energy usage has significantly dropped due to those same efficiency gains.

What I'd like to see is solid evidence to show that the increase in energy consumption due lowering the entry bar outweighs the decrease in energy use by those who were consuming more before the efficiency gains came. Can anyone comment/cite specific solid documentation about this?
Comment 6 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
Good comments, Wayne. One more point to add to the discussion: We need to stop promoting the idea that increases in efficiency (no matter what the process) will "help reduce energy use". Just the opposite has happened. Every quantum leap in energy efficiency, no matter what the area, has resulted in lowering the entry bar so that more people use more of the energy. The result has always been a net increase in usage. This won't change.
Comment 7 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
I certainly agree that we need a national energy program similar to the Apollo and Manhattan projects. I think an energy program is of much higher importance than they were.

However, I would call it an energy program not just an energy conservation program. Conservation is important but won't solve the problem. You can't save your way out of a problem.

I do differ with the statement that " you can't put coal, solar, wind, or nuclear producdts in your tank. They can all be used as a source for liquid fuel that can be used in current engines. We need to put the technology in place, quickly.
Comment 8 of 9
No image available
March 8, 2006
I enjoy reading Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's remarks as much as I do watching him give presentations over TV. Washington must think he is a voice crying in the wildnerness and seems deaf to his prophetic but well substantiated appeals.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 9 of 9
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
American Wire Group OutBack Power Systems IntertechPira Financial Research Associates, LLC Intertek Solar Electric Power Association
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo