Commentary on Obama's energy policy:
more corn ethanol, 'clean' coal
Reported in http://www.thesunnews.com/611/story/1296600.html on February 3, 2010
The Obama administration apparently prefers a sampler plate approach to energy production. President Obama has piled his plate high with alternatives to fossil fuels – most notably corn-based ethanol and nuclear power, while retaining fossil fuels as the main course. To entice Congress to support this agenda, President Obama is serving a large helping of reduced dependence on foreign oil and job creation. However, he fails to address the net cost of these new “green” jobs in terms of higher energy prices, lower wages, and displacement of existing jobs (US Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy). The Energy Department and Department of Agriculture are offering incentives while the EPA is adding regulations. The Energy Department is supplying “$4 billion in carbon capture and storage, and it expects industry to contribute an additional $7 billion” for research and development of “clean-coal” demonstration sites. The Agriculture Department “proposed a new plan to provide financing for the conversion of biomass, or material made from plants or animals, to energy”. The EPA unveiled a requirement for the use of “36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, including 21 billion gallons from ‘advanced biofuels’.” No other administration has taken such an eclectic approach to these issues.
The Obama administration’s buffet of energy options are little more than the re-seasoned leftovers of previous administrations. Obama’s plan includes offshore drilling for oil and gas, a policy also supported by Nixon, Reagan, and both the elder and younger Bush. Nuclear power plants and “clean” coal are perennial favorites. Unfortunately, the US has no permanent storage site for nuclear waste and dim prospects for developing any in the near future since the Obama administration removed the Yucca Mountain Nevada site from consideration. “Clean” coal projects are not a new idea. In 1987, the Department of Energy described thirty-seven projects “underway or planned for clean coal demonstration facilities” ( Department of Energy - Timeline '71 - '80); part of George W. Bush’s energy plan drafted by a task force appointed by Vice President Cheney called for “major increases in future energy supplies including…”clean coal” development” (Vig, p 88). However, even if we bury the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, coal mining presents serious problems including grave damage to the environment and to human health (Smithsonian.com). Obama rounds out his list of alternative fuels with biofuels, another well-worn option promoted by Carter in the Biomass and Alcohol Fuels Act of 1980 ( Department of Energy - Timeline '71 - '80). Corn-based ethanol, like the other energy proposals Obama favors, has its own set of problems. Although EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson contends that, “new scientific studies concluded corn ethanol, when produced with energy-efficient means, could (emphasis added) have 20 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline”. Other studies “found corn ethanol resulted in large amounts of greenhouse gases throughout its production and use, especially when land use changes - such as cutting forests, which store carbon dioxide, to make room for corn - were taken into account”. Ms. Jackson did not mention other possible unintended consequences including higher food prices and environmental damage from fertilizers (Oregonlive.com).
Obama’s plan includes new requirements for the energy industry and new spending programs to promote his agenda. His plan also rolled out EPA standards established in 2007 under George W. Bush which require the US “to have 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, including 21 billion gallons from ‘advanced biofuels’. Presumably, some funding for this would come from the Department of Agriculture’s plan “to provide financing for the conversion of biomass, or material made from plants or animals, to energy.” The Energy Department plans to spend more than $4 billion on carbon capture and storage research and development; they expect industry to spend an additional $7 billion. This combination of standards, funding, and the expectation of industry investment in research and development of new technologies borrows strategies from every President from Nixon to George W. Bush. A significant part of the Obama administration’s plan continues policies established during the Bush administration through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Vig, Appendix 1).
Although the intent of President Obama’s plan is admirable – energy independence, less pollution, and more jobs, it lacks cohesiveness and a logical basis. Climate change is a widely accepted fact. Over the course of Earth’s history, the climate has changed. Many experts support the global warming hypothesis, but a conveniently overlooked body of research at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Institution suggests quite strongly that global warming is self-correcting. Global warming devotees might be surprised to learn that according to research finding published by Woods Hole researchers in January 2009, “One of the ‘pumps’ that helps drive the ocean’s global circulation suddenly switched on again last winter for the first time this decade. The finding surprised scientists who had been wondering if global warming was inhibiting the pump and did not foresee any indications that it would turn back on”. This does not mean we should ignore the problems associated with fossil fuels, but it does suggest that the current administration is using the global warming hysteria as a convenient crisis to further a poorly thought out and ultimately unsound agenda. Oil from any source, domestic or foreign, represents a short-term solution. Pushing for more nuclear power plants without first addressing radioactive waste storage is illogical. It is unwise to displace other crops and cultivate virgin land to expand corn acreage, inflict more damage on aquatic ecosystems through increased fertilizer application, and use already strained water resources to produce more corn and process it into ethanol, especially when there are better alternatives such as switch grass (Scientific American, 2008). “Clean coal” is an oxymoron. The time has long passed for political games for political gains. The overall long-term effect of energy production must be addresses beginning with the raw materials and ending with the waste products. President Obama’s plan clearly lacks such a comprehensive approach.
Websites Referenced
http://bond.senate.gov/public/_files/BondGreenJobsReport.pdf
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/ecocenter/Mining-the-Mountain.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/growing_corn_for_ethanol_boost.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=54347
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
No comments:
Post a Comment