Monday, October 23, 2006

Who's in Charge?

Welcome to Charge: the future of energy

by Daniel C. Sweeney, Ph.D

This week Samuel Bodman’s, George Bush’s Energy Secretary, chose Lee Raymond to head a group developing national energy policy initiatives. In view of Bush’s recent statements in support of alternative fuels and curbing oil imports, this is a rather remarkable appointment.

Raymond is the former president and CEO of Exxon-Mobil who during his tenure at the oil giant funded pseudo-scientific research purporting to disprove the existence of global warming and scoffed at the notion of lessening foreign oil dependence through the promotion of alternative energy sources. Exxon-Mobil has been virtually alone among the biggest international petroleum companies in its failure to diversify into alternative energy in one form or another, and also has been unusual in its stated insistence that global climate change studies are “junk science”.

Exxon-Mobil under Raymond’s leadership also issued statements to the effect that current conventional oil reserves total in excess of 3.1 trillion barrels, almost double the median number cited by leading oil analysts, and suggested that oil producers would increase production to over 50% above current levels. Exxon also dismissed the conventional wisdom to the effect that almost all oil producers have already passed the peak of production. Scores of countries would be boosting production in the future according to Exxon’s top management.

Obviously Exxon’s, and, by extension, Raymond’s position is consistent. If oil really is superabundant and likely to flow out of the ground in ever more copious cascades then why bother with alternative energy, especially if CO2 emissions really are no problem? Of course one could place a less charitable construction on the expression of these notions and infer that Exxon’s intention were to try to stifle renewables so that energy consumers were left with no choice but ever more expensive petroleum products, but that would be churlish even to suggest. Indeed in the Texas of Spindletop days one might be challenged to a duel or horsewhipped or otherwise ill used for contesting the statements of an industry stalwart and perhaps even today these are dangerous inferences to make.

One is reminded here of Dick Cheney’s secret energy meetings during the Bush Administration’s first term and one begins to understand the need for secrecy then and now. After all, individuals lacking in subtlety might suspect that some deep disharmony underlies George Bush’s assertions of energy independence and his appointment of a petroleum satrap heretofore committed to ever increasing growth in oil consumption. How does one square that circle?

We don’t pretend to know.

If Raymond and Exxon-Mobil are right on all counts—global warming and peak oil are both junk science and business as usual can go on indefinitely—then this is an excellent appointment, but then why not be more forthright? Why doesn’t George W. Bush simply state that lessening dependence on foreign oil is rank foolishness, and then strike all funding for alternative energy research from the D.O.E. budget? Why make any concessions at all to Greens and doomsayers and enviro whack jobs? Solidify the base, for God’s sake, and keep on message.

Still, we cannot refrain from speculating on the possibility of some fundamental discrepancy between Exxon-Mobil’s professed position and their own internal deliberations. What if they actually believe otherwise, that oil is running out and that global warming is real but let’s not say so because that’s bad for business?

That leads to further speculation. What is the plan if oil reaches $150 a barrel in ten years and the Greenland ice sheet melts and the U.S. is embroiled in two or three Middle Eastern conflicts simultaneously. How does one avoid appearing wrong oneself, and how does one deflect the anger of the citizenry elsewhere. That would require extreme adroitness at public relations jujitsu.

Homosexuals are always good scapegoats, but how does one blame them for an oil shortage? They don’t consume petroleum jelly in those quantities. Ah, we have it…. During the sixth century when homosexuality was declared a crime under the Code of Justinian the reasoning was that homosexual acts induced earthquakes! The precise causal relationship eludes us, but it seemed rather obvious to the jurists of that period. If Gays can produce such profound geophysical effects in the form of temblors, then mightn’t they disturb oil fields as well? Maybe that’s a stretch I think it represents the kind of out of the box thinking that will be required.

Anyway, President Bush is to be congratulated on a fine appointment. We’re sure that the conclusions of this new energy policy committee will soon be made available on a need-to-know basis.


WattHead said...

With leaders like these, what have we got to fear?!

Anonymous said...

You're forcing the choice between 2 extremes :

either there is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will strike tomorrow


we will never have a shortage of oil

Does it really need to be said that the truth lies in between these 2 extremes (and for at least 10 more years it will be firmly in the no shortage of oil category)

I can appreciate that you have doubts about this guy. However appreciate that there are actually people who

-> look at the sunlight absorption graph for CO2 concentrations and conclude immediately that whatever is causing global warming, it isn't CO2.

(increases in CO2 concentration will cause increases in heat takeup of the athmosphere until the concentration reaches 260 ppm. Currently we're at 330 ppm (going to 350) and further increases will not occur until 1200 or more ppm, and that will never happen)

-> look at history and conclude that co2 concentrations have been more than double what they are now, without mass extinctions

-> look at the total energy needed to actually warm the earth and conclude that it's not humans doing this (it's a few dozen orders of magnitude too much energy to make this assertion realistic), the only thing the famous UN report claims is that what humans are doing isn't helping. It is NOT the cause.

BG Automotive Group said...

Please read-Americans need to know!!!!!!!!

NHTSA Hearings 8/4/08

I just returned from the NHTSA hearings held on August 4, 2008 in Washington D.C., regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for NEW Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFÉ) for years 2011-2015.

IMPORTANT FACTS: You will not believe what you are reading.

1) The 414 pages DEIS analysis was based on an average gasoline price of USD $2.16/gallon for 2011-2020. A calculation approved by the NHTSA administrators/managers. Would you believe it???????????

2) The new CAFÉ rules were also established, negotiated and pre-approved by the NHTSA’s management and clearly with the influence of domestic automotive companies and their lobbyists. We have now established fuel standards for 2011-2020 that are presently and already met throughout the rest of the Western world today (see below).

As one guest speaker said today “are they on another planet?”

NHTSA “NEW Fuel Standards” (2011-2015) decision:

Automobiles are to achieve 31.2 mpg by 2011 and 35.7 mpg by 2015. Light trucks are to achieve 25 mpg by 2011, and 28.6 mpg by 2015.

The NTHSA is also setting a goal of 35 mpg on average for 2020.

America needs to know:

The European Union is currently establishing standards, with a goal of reaching 48.9 miles per gallon for new passenger vehicles as early as 2012. The current EU standard already requires more than 40 miles per gallon about 15% higher than the U.S. goal set for 12 years from now.

Japan currently has a standard of about 40 miles per gallon. Japan aims to further improve fuel efficiency by 17% by 2015, reaching 46.9 miles per gallon.

China has a current average of slightly under 35 miles per gallon. Chinese fuel standards are on target to reach the government’s goal of 35.8 miles per gallon by 2009. China will not only meet, but exceed, the goal just established by the United States for 2020 — more than a full decade earlier.

Australia is targeting 34.4 miles per gallon by 2010.

Canada is targeting 34.1 miles per gallon by 2010.

Under the current administration, purchasing an electric vehicle is becoming more of a necessity rather than an alternative.
BG Automotive Group, Ltd.

Anonymous said...

With the ups and downs of oil pricing it seems that OPEC has a lot to say about who's in charge. But in the following article, by visualizing the quantity of emission vehicle users are generating we can somehow take back our control of the oil price and demand.
Joshua M. Pearce, Sara J. Johnson, and Gabriel B. Grant, "3D-Mapping Optimization of Embodied Energy of Transportation", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51 pp. 435-453, 2007.

Anonymous said...

The link does not seem to work so:

Anonymous said...

I am spreading the word about an IDEA that will change the way you and I use energy. This idea or concept is called AME (Atmospheric Molecular Engine). If you want to read more about how AME can revolutionize energy, you can go to and read up!

The people behind this idea need your help in getting this concept off the ground. This idea is currently competing with other green energy ideas in a contest sponsored by Pepsi, Inc.

Please take a few minutes of your time and visit the following website and vote for this idea:

You can vote by connecting to your Facebook account or by completing their very simple registration. Go back every day this month and vote once until 5/31/2010. That's right! You can vote once per day! Help spread the word by telling your friends and family to help this concept get off the ground. You can also post this concept to your Facebook page, or email a link to loved ones.