energy policy

Sat, 2014-07-19 08:07Don Lieber
Don Lieber's picture

Climate Failure: U.S. Passes Saudi Arabia As World’s Largest Oil Producer

Is President Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy a success? Or a climate failure?

A report issued recently by Bank of America declared the United States has now surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer. The daily output average for the first quarter of 2104 exceeded 11 million barrels, a significant increase from the previous quarters’ (Sept-Dec 2013) average of 7 million barrels, according to the International Energy Agency.          

The expansion of domestic oil production in the U.S. has been significant under President Obama, supported by his “all of the above” — or rather the American Petroleum Institute's “all of the above” — energy strategy which has overseen a four-fold increase in drilling rigs under his administration.    

News of the surge in U.S. oil production was reported almost concurrently with the release of another news item: global climate scientists have again reported historically high levels of atmospheric carbon.  As reported by Climate Central, June 2014 was the third month in a row in which carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere topped an average of 400 parts per million — a level not seen on Earth in at least 800,000 years.   

Dr. Pieter Tans, a senior climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, “As long as human society continues to emit CO2 from burning fossil fuels, CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans will continue to increase…..It is urgent that we find a way to transition to non-carbon fuels as our source of primary energy.”

Despite these warnings, Obama’s “all of the above” policies have in fact supported the increased development of key fossil fuel production sectors:  

Fri, 2014-06-13 08:25Sharon Kelly
Sharon Kelly's picture

Over $48 Trillion Energy Investment Needed by 2035, IEA Report Concludes

It will cost $48 trillion to keep up with rising energy demand worldwide over the next two decades, a newly released report by the International Energy Agency concludes.

That's a massive jump from the $16 trillion predicted the last time the report was fully updated in 2003.

“The headline numbers revealed by this analysis are almost too large to register,” the IEA World Energy Investment Outlook special report notes.

The costs of supplying the world with energy, the report finds, have already more than doubled since 2000. And the costs of fossil fuels are projected to rise, even without accounting for any increase in demand. By 2035, the world's energy will require a $2 trillion investment every year. The vast majority of the $1.6 trillion spent on energy last year – a total of $1.1 trillion – went to extracting fossil fuels, oil refining and building power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Over the next two decades, the world would need to invest over $20 trillion to replace production from aging, declining oil and gas fields.

To put that $20 trillion into perspective, the Iraq war cost the U.S. government $1 trillion over its nine years, according to White House estimates. That means the financial investment needed by fossil fuel projects over the next two decades would equal the cost to U.S. taxpayers of twenty Iraq wars.

An alternate plan, aimed at limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius, would add another $250 billion to the average yearly price tag, the IEA adds, and require a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and reduced spending on oil, gas and coal.

But this approach could ultimately be less expensive, because less will need to be spent compensating for the harmful effects of global warming.

Tue, 2014-05-27 12:17Anne Landman
Anne Landman's picture

Groundbreaking Anti-Fracking Ballot Initiative Clears Key Hurdle in Colorado

Fracking protest

The citizen-led anti-fracking battles in Colorado ratcheted up a notch May 22 when the Colorado Community Rights Network announced that Ballot Initiative #75, the Community Right Amendment (also known as “Right to Local Self-Government”), has cleared its final legal hurdle with the Colorado Supreme Court and has the go-ahead to start gathering signatures to get the measure on the November ballot.

Initiative #75 would give cities and towns the right to regulate or ban outright any for-profit enterprise that threatens the environment or the health, safety or welfare of its citizens. In addition to letting localities regulate drilling as they see fit, it would give citizens the right to ban pursuits such as hazardous waste dumps, factory farms or genetically modified crop farming within their cities' borders.

Currently, only the state has the authority to regulate oil and gas drilling in Colorado, but as drilling companies exploit more land for energy production, rigs are springing up next to homes, schools, playgrounds and shopping areas. Citizens are alarmed when they find out they have little power to stop it. 

Tue, 2013-12-03 09:58Sharon Kelly
Sharon Kelly's picture

Toxic Coal Ash Disposal Proves Costly and Hazardous, Duke Energy's Sutton Lake Contamination Questioned

A new report out from Wake Forest University concludes that coal ash waste from Duke Energy’s Sutton coal plant in Wilmington, NC is elevating levels of selenium pollution in nearby Sutton Lake. The lake, prized by fishermen for its largemouth bass population, has been contaminated, according to a study released today by Prof. Dennis Lemly, Research Associate Professor of Biology at Wake Forest, with high levels of selenium. Selenium has been linked to deformities in fish – including two-headed trout – and can cause a condition known as selenosis if people consume high enough doses in their food or drinking water.

Several conservation groups, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center, which joined the University in announcing the findings, filed suit against Duke Energy Progress, Inc. this summer, arguing that pollution from the Sutton plant's coal ash is “killing a regional fishing lake and is threatening a community’s drinking water.”

The new report, which found that the coal ash pollution kills over 900,000 fish and deforms thousands more in Sutton Lake each year, is likely to bolster the plaintiffs' case in that suit.

The research also highlights one of the most fundamental problems with American energy policy: policy-makers and the public have been unwilling to recognize the true costs of the fuels we use to make electricity.

Sun, 2011-03-27 12:55Emma Pullman
Emma Pullman's picture

Koch Brothers Continue Their Canadian Takeover

On Friday, the Canadian government fell to a vote of non-confidence.  As Canadians prepare to head to the polls for an early May election, the oily architects of the Tea Party, mega-funders of climate change denial and bankrollers of major right wing think tanks including FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have made a timely infiltration into Canadian politics. 

Last week, we reported that the oily brothers had set up shop to lobby in Alberta.  But perhaps more disquieting than that is that, according to Environmental Defence, Alberta isn’t the only province being strangled by the Kochtopus.  The Koch brothers have officially registered to lobby in Ontario too.

Wed, 2011-03-16 18:43Joanna Zelman
Joanna Zelman's picture

Japan's Nuclear Crisis Highlights U.S. Energy Policy Problems

As the tragedy continues to unfold in Japan, the U.S. nuclear energy debate has been reignited.

The New York Times points out that some potential 2012 Republican candidates have already reaffirmed their support for nuclear energy. After citing his concern for the crisis in Japan, Donald Trump recently stated:

 “I’m in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. If a plane goes down, people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash, people keep driving. There are problems in life. not everything is so perfect. But we do need nuclear energy, and we need a lot of it fast.”

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour expressed similar sentiments, stating, “We need to study and learn and make sure that we continue to have safe reliable clean nuclear energy in the United States.”

But is there such a thing as “safe reliable clean nuclear energy”?

Tue, 2010-12-07 12:18Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Dirty Energy Is Playing Full Contact So Is Cleantech Ready To Do The Same?

This is a guest post by Mike Casey, president of TigerComm, cross-posted from ScalingGreen.com.

Cancun - When I started working on solar energy issues several years ago, I heard it repeatedly: “Everyone loves solar.” Back then, many people in solar and other cleantech sectors saw long-term meritocracy in the energy business. Public demand, technological advances and aninevitable price on carbon were going to drive cleantech to dominance over time. “Renewable energy,” it was often said, “will soon become just plain ‘energy’.”

From the gridlocked global warming treaty negotiations here in Cancun, however, the picture seems starkly different. The Congressional climate bill fight ended in disaster, the recession tightened credit markets, and the coal and oil industries bought themselves a new Congress last month. And that global carbon market many were counting on? The most optimistic note Thursday night from a top U.S. treaty negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, was “maybe next year.”

Fri, 2010-11-19 08:19Josh Nelson
Josh Nelson's picture

Koch-Funded Tim Phillips is Still Confused About Climate Change

This piece was co-written by Ryan Koronowski, Alliance for Climate Protection Research Director and Josh Nelson, Alliance for Climate Protection New Media Director.

This week, CNN’s “Parker Spitzer” spoke with Tim Phillips, the head of the front group Americans for Prosperity that’s funded by the oil company Koch Industries. Mr. Phillips was up to his old tricks. While acknowledging that he is not a scientist, he said that to believe climate science isn’t “far from settled” would be “arrogance.”

Thu, 2010-11-18 12:02Emma Pullman
Emma Pullman's picture

Toxic Tar Sands Coming to a Community Near You: Profiles From The Front Lines

Many Americans who have never heard of the Alberta tar sands soon will. The tar sands is one of the largest, dirtiest, and most destructive projects on Earth, and is likely coming to a community near you.  The oil industry is expanding facilities to process toxic tar sands oil in the U.S. through a network of refineries and pipelines.  With plans to triple refining and transportation of tar sands by 2015, there is no question that air pollution and health problems in communities from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast will increase.

Public health in several U.S. states is already under threat from dramatic increases in refining pollution, and massive pipelines are planned to cross the United States’ largest freshwater aquifer, which supplies one-third of U.S. agriculture.

Tar sands crude contains heavy metals, and refining tar sands releases polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons linked to pre-natal brain damage, and smog and ozone-depleting chemicals and compounds.  Exposure to these toxics is linked to asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases.  That says nothing of the devastating impacts on air, water, and soil.

With the environmental and health impacts of the tar sands well known, but no sign of an end to the environmental trauma, the Sierra Club’s latest report shows the personal side of the impacts of dirty oil in North American communities. Americans and Canadians are worried about Alberta’s tar sands expansion poisoning their water, destroying their farmland, and contaminating their air. 

Tue, 2008-06-24 09:38Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

Climate Change Leadership: The White House Policy We Want

“Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

– An Imaginary U.S. President


Subscribe to energy policy