The Mustache (as Grist.org has taken to calling Tom Friedman) had a column in the NY Times this week about Senator McCain’s failure to show up for all 8 of the votes in the Senate for a bill to renew the tax credits for wind and solar power. Due to strong Republican opposition to the bill, it has stalled, and we are now facing a situation where these tax credits will expire at the end of the year. If this happens, it will be a major setback for attempts to build a meaningful renewable energy industry in our country.
McCain, who has faced significant criticism this year for his voting record (or lack thereof) on the environment, continues to emphasize his green credentials, even showing majestic images of windmills in his campaign commercials running this week during the Olympics. However, as Friedman points out, not only did McCain not vote all eight times on this issue, but for one of them, “he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.”
With that said, Senator Obama has proved only slightly more genuine on this matter, having missed the most recent vote on July 30, but making the previous three. However, given how the candidates have been wasting their time bickering over tire pressure and off-shore drilling lately, it is funny (and sad) to see that not only are they not voting to support their positions, but their campaigns are using almost identical windmill footage to promote those “policies.”
The Mustache really puts it best by stating:
Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive - and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency - we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid - so bloody stupid - that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power - when you didn’t.
On the Internet, it is especially easy to be a critic from afar, breaking down or building up different things with emotions and imagery rather than critical thought and analysis. This seems to be the case with recent allegations that the Pickens Plan is merely an elaborate attempt by T. Boone to distract people from his real goal of “drain[ing] the Ogallala Aquifer.”
It is no secret that Pickens has had a controversial plan to pump water out of the Ogallala Aquifer and transport it to population centers in Texas, such as Dallas. While we are opposed to recklessly drawing down limited resources, like the Ogallala Aquifer, for short-term development, this fact alone does not mean the Pickens Plan (the proposal to shift 20% of our energy generation to wind) is some sort of massive bait-and-switch.
The main problem with their argument is that the Ogallala Aquifer plan is related to the $10 billion wind farm project that Pickens is currently developing in the Texas Panhandle, which is going forward regardless of whether the Pickens Plan is implemented. Pickens’ local wind and water projects are related because recent changes to the state law in Texas (advocated by Pickens) allows for alternative energy and water transmission to share the same right-of-way. The water issue, that some websites and bloggers are wringing their hands over, is a discrete issue within Texas that is not directly related to the overarching policy shift the Pickens Plan proposes.
With that said, we really have no idea what is truly in Pickens’ heart with respect to the Pickens Plan. Like all people, only an individual can know their true intentions. But an objective look at the evidence indicates Pickens is being sincere. As we noted yesterday, Pickens doesn’t even claim that his plan is primarily intended to save the environment. Instead, his stated purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. And the fact that he is “rich” and a “Bush supporter” is not evidence of duplicity. Will he make a profit if his plan is enacted? Of course, since he is the biggest developer of wind power in the country. But there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Rather, it is the very alignment of profit and national interest that has created the current environment where a proposal like the Pickens Plan or Gore’s 10 Year Plan are actually contemplated. It’s not like we just realized this year that global warming and dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing. Instead, it is that fuel prices have finally gone up enough to make it profitable to pursue alternative sources. This alignment of profit and public interest is our best chance to make a real shift in the way we power our country. To dismiss attempts at change because they have a profit interest related to them is to miss the biggest opportunity we’ve had in a generation to improve the environment and our country. Not to mention, those criticizing the Pickens Plan based on the Ogallala Aquifer issue are making a moot argument since these are two distinct issues.
Our favorite wind farmer, T. Boone Pickens sat down with the LA Times last week for a great interview. We will paraphrase some of the highlights of that chat and add our own analysis here:
Regarding the source of our high gas prices:
Pickens says, of the 85 million barrels of oil used by the world each day, the U.S. accounts for 21 million. Quoting him, “that’s 25% we’re using, with [only] 4% of the population and 3% of the reserves.” Pickens uses this fact to illustrate that it is not Exxon-Mobile or speculators to blame, but instead simply a situation where demand is outweighing available supply.
Regardless, the wildly disproportionate consumption of oil by the U.S. compared to our reserves further indicates the silliness of thinking we can drill our way out of this problem, as Pickens often notes, despite our politicians’ pandering on this issue.
Regarding Al Gore and climate change:
Pickens indicates that while he believes that human caused climate change is occurring, that issue is on “page 2.” For Pickens, our dependence on foreign oil, to the tune of $700 billion per year, is on “page 1.”
Fortunately for good environmentalists and good patriots alike, for the most part, these two interests remain generally aligned, thereby permitting a win-win situation where we could both get off foreign oil and decrease the effects of climate change with the same plan.
Regarding how we can enact the solution:
Pickens states, “I think that if Congress would do something like Eisenhower did in the Interstate highways - that is to say, an emergency, which it is. It’s like war, and we need to address it in a non-partisan way…. We have the vast resources of wind and solar, but the naysayers say wait a minute, solar isn’t there yet. Don’t worry about it; I have enough faith in America….”
This is where Pickens exhibits his most optimism, and we, and others, have the most apprehension. Congress has shown a complete inability to move towards a solution and there is a little indication that they are getting their act together.
Regarding the development of the transmission lines and infrastructure necessary to move wind energy generated in the middle of the country to the east and west coasts:
Pickens says, “let the government do it. If they don’t want to, industry will do it. Industry will be quicker; you know that. We can get it done a lot faster…. You would be surprised how much you can get done in 10 years.”
However, if the task does fall on the private sector, the federal government would still be required to create the regulatory environment necessary to make the project economically feasible.
Regarding people who say we should shift our vehicles to electricity instead of natural gas, as Pickens proposes:
Pickens indicates that he is in favor of the electric car, however the technology is not there yet to allow it to be a real solution. Instead, natural gas should be the bridge that we use in the short-term to get to a point where we can find a real lasting solution for clean cars. Basically, Pickens is saying we have a present danger, and need an immediate solution. In the long-term, he thinks we will transition our cars off of natural gas.
Describing this, he states, “You have to kind of accept that. You get people that say, well, I want to go to the electric car quicker. Well, the 700 [billion dollars per year] keeps ticking on you on the electric car. We’re not there on the electric car. Am I opposed? No I’m not opposed. I’m for electric; I’m for anything that gets that number down.”
And regarding leadership:
“What’s been missing for 40 years is a plan. We’ve never had a plan; there’s no energy plan. And it all comes to the fact that it’s a leadership problem.”
One of the major problems with our national power grid is antiquated and inefficient transmission lines. This is one of main issues that must be addressed in order for recent proposals, like the Gore and Pickens Plan, to be viable solutions. The State of Texas took a big step forward last week in addressing these concerns by giving preliminary approval to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines. The proposed lines will substantially increase the ability to transmit electricity from outlying regions that produce much of the state’s energy to the urban centers.
Specifically, this would allow existing, as well as proposed wind farms in West Texas to deliver their renewable electricity to the population centers. It is becoming more and more clear that the State of Texas is the leading example on how to effectively provide leadership and direction in the quest for clean energy generation and development.
We have spent a lot of time lionizing T. Boone Pickens over the past week for his proposed Pickens Plan. Now we want to dig a little deeper into this plan to see what types of problems it might contain. The most common critique we’ve seen is related to the part of the proposal that would shift natural gas use from electricity generation to powering automobiles. Although Pickens recognizes that the shift to natural gas in automobiles is not going to be a permanent solution, there do seem to be some other legitimate criticisms. Mainly, these criticisms have to do with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than dependency on foreign oil.
Specifically, while natural gas vehicles have fewer emissions than those that burn petroleum, this savings may be overshadowed by the fact that natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient means of generating electricity. Additionally, natural gas is a very reliable source of energy, while winds can be fleeting. By removing natural gas from the grid, some of these valuable benefits will be lost. As a result, some have argued that instead of using wind power to replace natural gas on the grid, maybe it would make more sense to only implement the part of the Pickens Plan that calls for massive wind power development and disregard the proposed shift to natural gas vehicles. This would allow us to use the new wind energy to replace dirty coal instead of relatively clean natural gas.
Of course, this would leave unsolved the question of what to do about our vehicles. However, as some companies are trying to demonstrate, if cars can instead be shifted to electric power, focusing on how we generate power for the grid may be the right path. Since electric cars are fueled by plugging into the grid, where that electricity comes from and how it was generated is a major component of what determines that car’s emissions efficiency. By focusing on how to make our grid power as clean and efficient as possible (i.e., through a massive wind energy development), we could be indirectly creating the conditions necessary to shift our cars off of petroleum and on to a cleaner source.
Regardless, whether the Pickens Plan should be implemented in full, or just in parts, it is clear that there is enormous value in him merely providing a concrete proposal. By articulating a specific plan, Pickens has given policy makers and the public something concrete to debate and analyze. Just framing the proposed strategy in specific terms now allows us to better discuss the proposed path and consequently, move us much closer to actual action.
The more we learn about the Pickens Plan, the more we are impressed. The video clip above is of Pickens giving a quick 5 minute overview of our oil problem and his proposed solution. The crux of that solution is to replace the 22% of the energy that is currently being generated through the burning of natural gas with energy produced from the high wind corridor that sits in the middle of America. That natural gas resource would then be transfered to power automobiles, thereby dramatically reducing our consumption of oil.
According to Pickens, the key to this plan’s success will be having the right leadership, and having the ability to get the entire country on board and to “march in the same direction.” It seems to us that Pickens has provided us the answer, whether we implement it is now up to us and the leaders we choose.
