This article was published by the Loveland, CO Reporter Herald on 9/20/08


Guest Column/Energy Policy


The U.S. Congress has passed only one significant energy bill in the last eight years, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That Act, a compromise hammered out only after years of politically-driven haggling, was and still is unsatisfactory to many on both sides. Since then, several states, including Colorado, have adopted programs aimed mainly at reducing the threat of global warming by reducing the use of fossil fuels. This year the runup of crude oil and gasoline prices and the Presidential campaign have brought other concerns to the fore—energy prices, dependence on imported energy, and whether and how to increse domestic energy production. Consequently, numerous “energy policy” solutions have been proposed recently.
Both Presidential candidates announced their energy policies earlier in the campaign; both are available on the internet. Space does now allow me to analyze them here, but both are seriously flawed, I believe. More recently, a bipartisan group of Senators--originally termed the “Gang of 10”-- announced a program that called for a limited amount of drilling offshore and several proposals to subsidize alternative energy, hybrid vehicles, etc. That group has now been joined by ten other Senators, including Colorado’s Ken Salazar, making it the “Gang of 20.”
Just this past Tuesday, on a party-line vote, the House of Representatives hurriedly passed, without substantive debate, a 245 page bill (HR 6899) titled the “Comprehensive Energy Security and Consumption Act.” That bill is being called a sham and a hoax, rightly I believe, because it would permanently block drilling in the areas where the most oil and gas can be found, and it contains other counterproductive measures. It is clearly designed as an attempt to influence the coming election. The Senate is expected to reject it, so it now appears no energy legislation will be passed this year.


Instead of a hastily-chosen politically-compromised approaches—some good and some bad-- the U.S. critically needs an energy policy that is more comprehensive, realistic and rational than any approach yet proposed. All our elected representatives and leaders--the next President, the Congress, and state governments--must put the nation’s welfare ahead of politics and work cooperatively to deal with the energy challenges we face. The first step should be agreeing on the proper objectives.
So far, most proposed energy programs—none of which constitute a truly comprehensive policy-- have one or all of three stated objectives: a) quickly curtail the use of fossil fuels to reduce the threat of global warming, b) increase our energy security by reducing or eliminating dependence on imported energy, and c) reduce energy costs. But reducing the threat of global warming is the basic objective of all of them. All three objectives are likely to prove unachieveable for many years, if ever, and the last two serve mainly to mask the drastic and painful measures all the proposals would require. Moreover, missing from all the proposals is an essential objective--maintaining an adequate supply of energy while the transition to new sources is being made.
The world faces two enormous challenges concerning energy. One is to supply the huge and fast-growing energy needs of all countries soon enough to avoid global economic chaos and strife. The other is to produce all that energy without doing too much harm to the earth’s environment and climate. Clearly, these two challenges conflict, and most current approaches tilt heavily—too heavily I believe-- toward the second.
Any energy policy that strikes an acceptable balance between these two conflicting challenges must cope with five fundamental realities, which also conflict:
1. The global population will grow for years to come, and that, along with rapid economic development in many nations, will inevitably increase the global demand for energy.
2. No nation can develop its economy and mitigate the adverse effects of growth unless it has a strong economy—and it can’t have a strong economy without an adequate energy supply.
3. Almost 90 percent of the energy now used worldwide comes from fossil fuels—and, realistically, that can’t be changed significantly for many years.
4. Because the total worldwide resources of all fossil fuels, especially crude oil and natural gas, are dwindling as time passes, replacements for them must eventually be developed. However, global crude oil production will peak and begin to decline many decades before the oil reserves are depleted, so it’s much more urgent that adequate supplements be developed, soon enough, for the essential products now made from crude oil.
5. For a long time to come there will be no way to produce adequate amounts of the essential forms of energy without doing some damage to both the environment and the climate.

Any energy policy that ignores any of these realities cannot succeed. Their importance and inherent conflicts will require many very difficult and expensive decisions and compromises, both here and worldwide. Success is not guaranteed. There are no silver bullets now and none are likely ever to be found. The guiding principle should always be that energy is the lifeblood of modern civilization. No nation can thrive without a plentiful supply of energy. Thus energy sufficiency is much more important than energy independence.

All efforts to meet the energy challenges will also be constrained and shaped by other important factors. These include the enormity of U.S. and global energy use, the need for adequate technology, the need for massive amounts of capital investment, and, very importantly, enough time to carry out the selected approaches.

The most serious flaws of most of the proposed programs are:

· They are based on the questionable premise that the threat of human-caused global warming warrants quickly changing our entire energy structure—sources, distribution, and uses--regardless of the undetermined costs and other consequences.

· They greatly underestimate the amount of time and money needed to produce immenese amounts of suitable forms of energy from new sources, and they overestimate the reduction in energy use that can be obtained by conservation and efficiency measures.

· They propose to restrict the capability to find, produce and use energy from the current major sources—fossil fuels and nuclear power--before adequate replacements can be provided.

· They ignore the fact that whatever the U.S. does to reduce global warming will be overwhelmed by what other nations, especially China and India, do or don’t do.

The first three flaws will hasten the advent of much higher energy prices and worse, crippling shortages. It should be obvious that energy shortages are far worse than high prices. And the fourth flaw will cause the economic and other sacrifices the U.S. will suffer to go largely for naught.
Most recent energy proposals, including those made by both Presidential candidates, the “Gang of 20,” and the House of Representatives, appear to be guided more by environmental motivations and/or political expediency than by sound scientific, engineering, and economic analysis. Particularly bad are the proposed “carbon cap-and-trade” programs of both Presidential candidates, Barack Obama’s proposed “windfall profits tax” on oil companies, and the provisions of House Bill 6899. Such proposals will hasten the decline in domestic energy supplies without compensating benefits.
Clearly, federal and state governments must play major roles in forming and guiding the nation’s energy policy. However, they should avoid imposing measures that are unneeded, counterproductive, inequitable, or punitive, such as extreme environmental limitations, subsidies that benefit only a few, and punitive taxes. The energy program adopted by the current Colorado administration includes too many such measures, I believe.
No knowledgeable person believes we can “drill our way out” of all our energy problems. However, developing all of our own energy resources is a step in the right direction and there is no valid reason to wait. A sound energy policy must include doing many things at appropriate times, so a carefully-phased program is necessary. Thorough planning is essential—not the “Ready, Fire, Aim” tendency of many special-interest groups and politicians.

T. L. Gore
Loveland, CO

Bio: Retired chemical engineer with many years experience in managing technical, planning, and economic activities for a major oil company.