 Email |
 Print |
 Post Comment
|
Share |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
President George W. Bush last month outlined energy proposals that emphasized the importance of energy independence and energy security. He highlighted a new proposal to cut U.S. gasoline usage by “20 percent in 10 years,” to be accomplished primarily by mandating higher proportions of alternative fuels and increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
| Related Stories |
| Divvying Up ‘Green’ Funds |
| Alternative-Fuel Vehicles on the Road: A ‘Real-World’ Guide |
| Green Fuels Mean Big Obstacles |
Friday’s release of a much-anticipated report on global warming from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in effect asks: Something must be done, so what can be done?
The report states in unequivocal terms that the climate is warming globally and that since the middle of the 20th century, human industrial activity — the burning of fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, land-use changes — is warming’s main driver. Since the last report in 2001, confidence in that statement has risen from “likely” (greater than a 66 percent chance) to “very likely” (greater than 90 percent).
The 21-page report only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it.
Indeed, energy is a planetary issue, but what can the United States do?
After all, the U.S. has long been overly reliant on oil imports, preferring low prices even if the consequences increase pollution and leave us vulnerable to economic dislocations. Despite repeated energy crises and oil shocks, the Department of Energy’s total research and development budget has dropped by more than 85 percent since the 1970s. Imported crude and natural gas contributed 65 percent of the U.S. supply in 2005. The General Accounting Office says that without dramatic change, the economy will be even more reliant on foreign oil in the future.
As such, perhaps nothing in January’s State of the Union address attracted more attention from industry than President George W. Bush’s vow to cut gasoline consumption by “20 percent in 10 years” — his “20-in-10″ plan.
In his hour-long speech last month, while President Bush focused largely on foreign policy and Iraq, he also outlined energy proposals that emphasized the importance of energy security and energy independence. The president reiterated earlier suggestions for achieving these goals: diversity of supply, expanded U.S. oil production and research and development of non-oil technologies.
The new proposal to cut U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in 10 years is to be accomplished primarily by mandating higher proportions of alternative fuels and increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks.
According to the White House, America will reach the president’s 20-in-10 goal by:
1) Increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — “nearly five times the 2012 target now in law.”
2) Reforming and modernizing corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light truck rule. “In 2017, this will reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons,” a further 5 percent reduction that, “in combination with increasing the supply of renewable and alternative fuels, will bring the total reduction in projected annual gasoline use to 20 percent.”
As noted, the 20 percent cut refers only to a cut relative to a projection of future gasoline usage in 2017. Therefore, according to independent strategic-consulting firm Oxford Analytica, “given the expected growth in gasoline usage between now and 2017, the Bush proposal would aim simply to cut back consumption toward current levels, not necessarily below them.”
Also, the White House document notes that Bush is hoping to expand what is currently a “renewable” fuels standard (RFS) — meaning biofuels — into an “alternative” fuels standard, thus allowing the use of fuels derived from coal or other fossil fuels, for example, which would reduce the climate benefits of the initiative. Even corn-based ethanol, while arguably a domestic source of energy, provides only limited benefits in terms of carbon reduction.
Bush’s call to increase automobile fuel efficiency contains “multiple safety valves,” which allows three separate executive-branch agencies to limit any fuel efficiency increase, “should they deem it necessary.” It further purports to instruct Congress to refrain from setting numeric targets for fuel economy, arguing that administration agencies can set such targets in a way that may be more impartial.
The other energy elements of the State of the Union address echo previous commitments to expand research for longer-term technological development.
Automobile emissions and gasoline usage are only one part of the overall U.S. energy picture, of course. Albeit still an important part of any energy or climate strategy, a focus solely on gasoline clearly is not a broad-based approach to either of these challenges.
The president has set respectable though modest goals with these new initiatives, which indicate support for the growing biofuels technology sector in the U.S. — a move that, politically, can satisfy a number of constituents. Moreover, they expand the standards to include fuels potentially produced from “clean” coal technologies.
Therefore, according to Oxford Analytica, the “’20 in 10′ initiative could be viewed as a tentative step toward diversifying the U.S. fuel mix, and a smaller step toward reducing U.S. carbon emissions.”
Are tentative steps and modest goals enough at this point? Tell us what you think: What would you suggest relative to fuel consumption, efficiency and costs?
| Share | |
|
|
|
|
Follow Discussion
Recommend 
 |
 |
 |
 |
See More Comments
See Less Comments
|
||||
|
||||
|
Advertisement
 |
Browse IMT by Date
Browse IMT by Date
| Also Featured in IMT |
| Expert’s Corner |
| How Food Companies Can Trim the Fat |
| The food industry is struggling to cope with market fluctuations. In this Expert’s Corner, Jonathan Daiker, a partner at CFO services firm the Interlochen Group, identifies strategies to stabilize costs and boost profits. |
| Sites We Like |
| Harvard Business Review |
| IEEE Spectrum |
| Lifehacker |
| Popular Science |
| Shopfloor |
 |
20%? It should be a target of like 50% so we might actually see 30-40%. If President Bush is sincere about his stated goal, incentives should be created to incourage investments in wind, hydo, and alterative fuels. Let’s face it, the gas prices in the U.S. are still the cheapest in the world, so why cut back? Why? Because the world is running out of fossel fuel.
The issue of reduction of the use of fossil fuels should cause one to took long and hard at the major BIG users on an incident basis.
Compare the amount used on a daily basis by interstate trucks and jet liners to that by automobiles. I am sure that these transportation giants are not the only conspicous consumers, but….
Airlines, since deregulation, do not have to show a public need for a given route on a daily basis from location to location. They establish the flight, rearrange gate assignments and post the flight, drop ticket prices and hope they fill it. It seems that conventional free-market wisdom would tell us this is good and we will benefit as travelers from more choices and rate based on competition, BUT with every benefit
comes drawback.
The drawbacks are hard to project and even harder to tie to their root cause, but increased demand for fuel from foreign oil and greenhouse warming are increased by more planes in the air than are needed to serve a planning public and provide adequate profits for the operators.
The failure of profitable operation also presents other drawbacks not related to fossil fuels. The same sorts of deregulated trucking routes by major and minor carriers result in less than capacity trailers moving in the interest of keeping promises made to shippers and consignees. Generally these trucks are not covered by mileage or pollution standards. We tend to stick those standards on privately owned autos and trucks. We are picking the lowest hanging fruit to posture to place blame instead of the lowest hanging fruit that could result in real reduction.
We are doing little to promote true hybrid autos and trucks, the gas/electrics with 50-60 mph platforms. We have fixated on a politically rewarding promotion of ethanol and biodiesel that makes the farm lobby, the construction lobby and the union lobby happy…it does nothing about the root problem of consumption, we just make ourselves feel good because the oil coming from foreign sources may be less, with the accent on MAYBE.
True reduction will unfortunately only come from controls on usage and the unbiased review of what is necessary to keep the economy moving and growing. It is extremely difficult to ever suggest government control of anything, but we have successfully shown we cannot do it privately so what is left?
The global warming issue has consistently left out of the equation, the historical temperature swings this planet has endured over millions of years. We are looking at a very brief milli-second of the planets existence and drawing conclusions. If fossil records are to be believed, where I sit today was once an ocean, once a swamp, a savanna, totally covered in an ice cap and finally a prairie…who the hell was driving the SUV that melted the ice! Man is taking far to large a credit for climate change than this bumbling, mildly intellegent creature comes close to deserving. We truly understand so little and take so much credit and truly do so little.
The IPCC panel selected by the UN, and we know how successful and that august body have been through it’s history, knows something is happening….ice is melting…that takes premier knowledge now doesn’t it! We all know the best way to solve any issue is to form a committee, then you are sure that nothing other than meetings and the presentation of opinion will follow…but no solution.