Recently the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a “2014 Priority
Issues Survey.” In addition to the obligatory Tea Party bashing: “help the
Democrats protect the progress we have made from Tea Party radicals, deliver
the positive changes America needs and help Democrats win a Majority in the
U.S. House of Representatives!” and the fundraising requests to “help protect
House Democrats against Republican attacks”—there is a section on energy.
Section VII,
asks: “Which of the following will help America achieve energy independence?”
It offers five options that do little to move America toward energy
independence—which isn’t even a realistic goal given the fungible nature of
liquid fuels. Additionally, most of the choices given on the DCCC survey
actually increase energy costs for all Americans—serving as a hidden tax—but
hurt those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale the most. The proposals
hurt the very people the party purports to champion.
The survey
asks respondents to “check all that apply.”
-Raising gas mileage standards for all new
cars and trucks
This choice
presumes that making a law requiring something will make it happen. Sorry, not
even the Democrats have that kind of power. Even the current Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025—finalized on August 28, 2012 and called “the largest mandatory fuel economy
increase in history”—will be tough to hit.
The CAFE
standards mean that a carmaker's passenger vehicle fleet average must achieve
54.5 mpg. To meet that, and produce the big pick-up trucks and SUVs Americans like
to drive, the manufacturers must also produce the little itty-bitty cars with
mpg above 60 and the more expensive hybrids (not one of which was on the top ten best-seller list for 2013)—or have
a loss leader like the Chevy Volt to help bring down the average.
Suggesting a forced raising of gas mileage standards implies that auto manufacturers are in collusion with oil companies and are intentionally producing gas guzzlers to force Americans into buying lots of gasoline.
With the price
of gasoline wavering between $3-4.00 a gallon, most people are very conscious
of their fuel expenditures. If it were technologically possible to build a
cost-effective truck or SUV that had the size and safety Americans want and
that got 50 mpg, that manufacturer would have the car-buying public beating a
path to its door. Every car company would love to be the one to corner that
market—but it is not easy, it probably won’t be possible, and it surely won’t
be cheap.
When the new
standards were introduced in November 2011, Edmonds.com did an analysis of the potential impact: 6 Ways
New CAFE Standards Could Affect You. The six points include cost and safety and
highlights some concerns that are not obvious at first glance.
Achieving the
higher mileage will require new technologies that include, according to
Edmunds, “turbochargers and new generations of multispeed automatic
transmissions to battery-electric powertrains.” The National Highway Traffic
Saftey Administration and the Environmental Protection Agencyhave estimated
that the average new car will cost $2,000 extra by 2025 because of the proposed
new fuel-efficiency standards.
Additionally,
new materials will have to be used, such as the proposed new Ford F-150 made with
aluminum, which is predicted to add $1500 over steel to the cost of a new
truck. Aluminum also complicates both the manufacturing and repair processes.
Edmunds reports: “Insurance costs could rise, both because of the increased
cost of cars and the anticipated hike in collision repair costs associated with
the greater use of the plastics, lightweight alloys and aluminum necessary for
lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. (Plastics, lightweight alloys and
aluminum are all more difficult than steel to repair.)”
Another concern
is safety. “The use of weight-saving materials will not only affect repair
costs but could make newer vehicles more susceptible to damage in collisions
with older, heavier vehicles, especially SUVs and pickups. Their occupants
could be at a safety disadvantage.”
Instead of
increasing costs by forcing a higher mpg, a free-market encourages
manufacturers to produce the cars the customers want. The Wall Street Journal story on the Ford F-150s points out: “In
2004, as the auto market soared, Ford sold a record 939,511 F-series pickups.
That amounted to 5.5% of the entire U.S. vehicle market. But four years later,
gas prices rose above $4 a gallon, sales of pickups began tumbling.” Then,
consumers wanted small cars with better mileage. I often quote an ad for
Hyundai I once saw. As I recall, it said: “It’s not that complicated. If gas
costs a lot of money, we’ll produce cars that use less of it.”
In response to
an article in US News on the 5.45-mpg CAFE
standard, a reader commented: “ALL CAFE regulations should be repealed. Let the
market and fuel prices decide what vehicles are purchased. The federal
government should not be forcing mileage standards down the throats of the
automaker or the consumers. This is still America, right?”
-Develop Renewable Energy Sources
There is
nothing inherently wrong with the idea renewable energy. However, the cost
factor is one of the biggest problems. When I do radio interviews, people often
call in and point out Germany’s renewable energy success story: “The share of renewable electricity
in Germany rose from 6% to nearly 25% in only ten years.” While that may be
true, it doesn’t address the results: “Rising energy costs are becoming
a problem for more and more citizens in Germany. Just from 2008 to 2011 the
share of energy-poor households in the Federal Republic jumped from 13.8 to 17
percent.”
Germany has
been faced with a potential exodus of industry as a result of its high energy
costs. For example, in February, BASF, the world’s biggest chemical maker by
sales, announced that for the first time, it “will make the most of its capital
investments outside Europe.” According to the Financial Times, Kurt Bock, BASF
chief executive explained: “In Europe we have the most
expensive energy and we are not prepared to exploit the energy resources we
have, such as shale gas.”
Throughout
America people are beginning to feel the escalating costs of the forced
renewable energy utility companies are required to add as a result of Renewable
Portfolio Standards that more than half of the states passed nearly a decade ago.
But the cost
is not where I take issue with the DCCC’s inclusion of “Developing renewable
energy sources” in its survey. The survey question is about achieving “energy
independence.”
In preparation
for writing this column, I posted this question on my Facebook page: If the
goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? The
first answer posted was: “Smart grid and fast ramp natural gas turbines.”
Another offered: “High efficiency appliances and lights. I am a LED FAN!” Yet,
another: “Solar, tidal, water.” Bzzzzzzt, all wrong answers.
All of the
above suggestions are about electricity. The U.S. is already electricity
independent. We have enough coal and uranium under our soil to provide for our
electrical needs for the next several centuries. Add to that America’s newfound
abundance of natural gas and we are set indefinitely. By the time we might run
out of fuel for electricity, new technologies will have been developed based on
something totally different, and, I believe, something that no one is even
thinking about today.
Developing
more “solar, tidal, water” or wind energy won’t “help America achieve energy
independence.” Nor will a smart grid or natural gas turbines. High efficiency
appliances or LED light bulbs won’t either.
-Encouraging consumer and industrial
conservation
Consumers are
already feeling the pinch of higher energy costs—both electricity and liquid
fuels. When possible, people are restricting driving by taking a stay-cation
rather than a traditional vacation. Many people who can afford the option are
switching to more energy-efficient light bulbs.
As the BASF
story above makes clear, most industry is energy intensive. In the story about
the Ford F-150’s use of aluminum, the WSJ says that the new manufacturing
process requires “powerful and electricity-hungry vacuums.” Industry cannot
stay in business without profit. Therefore, in interest of preservation, energy
conservation is virtually an instinct.
The cost of
energy drives conservation.
Including this
question in the survey is a red herring that would lead the respondent to think
conservation is a big issue.
-Investing in energy efficient technology
When the word
“investing” is used in reference to a government document or program, it always
means spending taxpayer dollars. In a time of ongoing economic stress, we don’t
need to borrow more money to spend it on something of questionable impact on
energy independence.
Remember, much
of the “efficiency” numbers bandied about refer to electricity, which has
nothing to do with energy independence. Energy.gov states: “Every year, much of the energy
the U.S. consumes is wasted through transmission, heat loss and inefficient
technology…Energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways
to … improve the competitiveness of our businesses and reduce energy costs for
consumers. The Department of Energy is working with universities, businesses
and the National Labs to develop new, energy-efficient
technologies while boosting the efficiency of current technologies on the
market.” Among the “solutions” presented on the page are “developing a more
efficient air conditioner” and “a new smart sensor developed by NREL
researchers that could help commercial buildings save on lighting and
ventilation costs.” Nothing is offered that will actually impact energy
independence.
-Increasing offshore drilling and oil
exploration in wilderness areas
Respondents
are discouraged from selecting the one item on the list that could actually
lead to “energy independence” by the inclusion of the words “offshore” and
“wilderness areas”—as if those are the only places drilling could take place.
Yes, we should
increase exploration and drilling—and, while there are risks, it can be, and
has been, done safely in offshore and wilderness areas. But there are vast
resources available on federal lands that are either locked up or are under a de facto ban due to the slow-walking of
drilling permits.
Instead of
phrasing the choice “Increasing offshore drilling and oil exploration in
wilderness areas,” if the goal is energy independence, the option should have
read: “Release America’s vast energy resources by expediting permitting on
federal lands.”
While the
options on the DCCC survey, even if a respondent checked them all, will do
little to “help America achieve energy independence,” the survey didn’t include
any choices that could really make a difference in America’s reliance on oil
from hostile sources.
Some
selections that would indicate a true desire to see America freed from OPEC’s
grip should include:
-Approving the Keystone pipeline;
-Revising the Endangered Species Act so that
it isn’t used to block American Energy Development;
-Encouraging the use of Compressed Natural
Gas as a transportation fuel in passenger vehicles and commercial trucks;
-Expediting permitting for exploration and
drilling on federal lands;
-Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge; and
-Cutting red tape and duplicative
regulations to encourage development.
The fact that
not one of these options that would truly make a difference was included belies
the ideology of the Democrat Party. Its goals do not include energy
independence. Instead it wants to continue the crony corruption that has become the
hallmark of the Obama Administration as evidenced by Secretary of Energy Ernest
Moniz’s April 2 announcement that: “the department would
probably throw open the door for new applications for renewable energy project
loan guarantees during the second quarter of this year.”
Like the
Ukraine, until there is a change at the top, the U.S. will likely remain
dependent on the whims of countries who want to use energy as a weapon of
control. The goal should be energy freedom.
The author
of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive
director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational
organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible
Energy (CARE).
Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding
energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy,
news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements,
and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for
energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment