I'm really excited to announce that, starting today, Environmental Action and ExxonMobil have teamed up as part of a new direction for our work. Thanks to a generous gift from ExxonMobil, we've come to realize that global warming isn't the worst thing in the world, and in fact there are a lot of upsides to climate change.

For starters, no more winter coats! And, if you invested in property out in Utah, you'll soon own prime beach-front real estate. And that's just the start. But, we're not doing it alone - we want to hear from you. Should we put pressure on the auto industry to make less efficient cars so we can speed up the process? There are a lot of ideas out there, and we want to hear yours.

I know I've slagged on ExxonMobil before, but that was before they made their very generous gift. And the upshot of that is, I'll never have to ask you for money again! Thanks to their support, we can focus more of our energy on the important things - things like helping make oil drilling safer by getting rid of those pesky fines and regulations about oil spills.

We're particularly excited about our new efforts to help open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development, and implement the 'polar bear resettlement plan' that will get polar bears out of the way of the rigs and wells.

But we want to know what you think? What else can we do for the environment with our new partnership. Let us know!

And thanks ExxonMobil, for making this all possible.

First of all, thank you to Dan and the rest of the Environmental Action team for inviting me to blog here while Dan is on vacation. I hope you all enjoy my posts as much as Dan's.

As you've probably seen or heard already, the "father of the hybrid car," David Hermance, died in a plane crash on Saturday. The condolences of the entire Environmental Action team go out to his friends and family. Dave was the Executive Engineer for Advanced Technology Vehicles for Toyota, and oversaw the development and launch of the Prius.

But let's talk about David's legacy, and what hybrid cars are doing for our country (besides reducing pollution and using less gas).

In an interview with Alan Alda (yes, that Alan Alda) for the PBS program "Scientific American Frontiers" in 2004, David Hermance was asked, "If [the Prius] is so good, why don't you just say to them, here's the car for you, and this is the one you're going to get because this gets the best mileage, it performs just like the car you've been driving, only this is better. Costs about the same and so now that's the car that you can buy. Why offer them others that are not as good?"

Dave's response shows just how far we've come since 2004: "Well, in the US, sad to say, folks don't largely value fuel economy. Most of the population of the US is not convinced that global warming is real or that cars have anything to do with it."

You can read the rest of this transcript here, if you're interested.

Since this interview, sales of hybrid cars in the US (lead by the Prius) have skyrocketed (Jan. 2006 report, Top Ten Hybrids of 2006), and global warming has taken center stage as the environmental issue facing our country and our world in the minds of a growing number of Americans.

This sea change shows no sign of slowing, and it is the result of countless hours of work by scientists, activists like you and me, and even an ex-Vice President to spread the word about global warming and the dangers it poses to our planet.

The fact that hybrid cars were introduced and marketed as green alternatives over six years ago is also an important reason why global warming, energy independence, and fuel efficiency loom larger on the radar screens of many Americans today. Dave's legacy is one not only of technological innovation, but also one of raising awareness of probably the biggest challenge to ever confront us as a species.

Thanks to innovators like David Hermance, we are in a better position today to stop global warming before we feel its worst effects. Dave understood that sometimes you have to introduce the change before the "market researchers" say we're ready for it. He didn't wait until global warming was making headlines to do something about it, and we need more leaders like him in both our government and energy and transportation industries. The time to create real change is now. Hybrid cars were the beginning, but we need to go much further.

Dave's sudden death is tragic. He was 59, and the engine in his small plane apparently just stopped running while he was flying off the coast of California. It is comforting, however, to know that he lived long enough to see the early success of his work.

Dave, we'll miss you, but we promise to pick up where you left off. Thanks.

The Center for American Progress has launched a new energy campaign including a snazzy new site—you guessed it: www.kicktheoilhabit.org.

I'll have more to say on this later today, but you have to check out the sweet web video they've pulled together, drawing together the story of our dependence on oil.

Things are getting tougher for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and his allies in the fight to protect Florida's coast from oil and gas drilling.

This time, there's trouble with Cuba.

The New York Times reports this morning that Castro's government is negotiating to allow Chinese companies - among others - to drill on the Cuban side of the Florida Straits.

Here's Idaho's Larry Craig revving up on the Senate floor:

"Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our shores without competition from U.S. industries."

When was the last time you heard somebody say Red China? Two decades ago? Three?

You can tell by the way Craig is careful to use the phrase that he's stretching to tap into some lingering Cold War mentality, all in the service of a more-of-the-same won't-make-much-difference energy plan.

I missed this last week. A new survey by Public Agenda found that 90 percent of Americans viewed our dependence on oil as a security risk, and 55 percent said they "worry a lot" about this issue. This actually placed oil dependence at the top of the "worry scale" out of 18 issues surveyed. Also interesting, 85 percent of those surveyed thought that the government could do something to address the issue.

So there's concern and there's hope. Both good signs. Now we just have to make sure that politicians don't get sidetracked with talk of price-gouging and other such diversions when they should be focusing on the real issue at hand.

The NY Times pulled together this nifty graphic, breaking down each state based on its oil consumption and presidential vote. Obviously nothing surprising here given that states with higher density, which trend democratic, will use less oil and lower density states, which trend republican, will use more oil. But I always find it cool to see these things visually.

Here are a couple of great interviews by NPR about the real impacts of high oil prices. Not surprisingly, both the Kentucky farmer and the go-cart course owner are miles ahead of our political leadership on this issue.

While these are great stories in their own right, I think the underlying message is how important it is for us to get the price of gasoline right. If people want to go-cart, they should pay the true cost of doing so. And with high gasoline prices, everyone will be much more likely to conserve.

Of course, there are real life implications with rising oil prices (putting farmers and businesses out of work), which is yet another reason why we need develop clean alternatives immediately.

These stories make a good case for both increased efficiency and oil alternative, and higher gasoline prices to dissuade wastefulness.

Anne Applebaum's oped this morning was ostensibly about the small anti-wind movement popping up in opposition to the rise of wind power. But in the end, Applebaum ends up skewering wind power itself.

Applebaum argues that personally, she finds wind turbines to be elegant and beautiful. She does, however, accept that some people see them as a nuisance and a blight on the land. Yet she then equates the opposition to wind power with the broader (and deeper) opposition to coal, nuclear power and liquified natural gas terminals.

In one instance, people hold a purely personal position—they don't like the aesthetic of wind turbines. This is something that will vary from person to person and which should have no (or little) bearing on these political decisions. In the other instance, opposition to nuclear power, or coal, or liquified natural gas has everything to do with political decisions: how many lives will be placed at risk? How much pollution (radioactive or otherwise) will be created? How many kids will suffer from asthma as a result? How much radioactive waste will be transported across the country?

For Applebaum to equate these two types of concerns is to significantly debase the importance of the energy debate. With so much at stake, there is no room for frivolous, personal objections.

(Via Think Progress).

And I thought I was earning the big bucks. Little did I know. Let's just say that former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond made more from a very short night of sleep then I do from an entire year of work. And we haven't even hit peak oil yet. These people have only just started making a killing. When oil prices jump to $100/barrel then we'll be talking about some real money.

Warms the heart.

Now this is funny. Whether it is fair or accurate is another question. But it is certainly funny.

Toles clearly exaggerates the individual's responsibility in funding terrorism. Do we control the way our cities are designed? Not really. Could more of us live closer to our work? Certainly—though owning a place in a big city is no small feat. Could we drive smaller cars? Abso–frickin–lutely. Can we fill up with something other than oil? Pretty much not.

So clearly, each one of us bears some responsibility. We could live in smaller houses, which in turn would allow more of us to live in cities (or higher density areas). And, when it comes to purchasing a vehicle, well there's the biggest burden.

But why over analyze things? It's just funny.

It's almost surprising that it's taken this long for the NY Times to run a story on Brazil's booming ethanol industry.

As this story suggests, one of the highlights of Brazil's march toward energy independence is the auto industry's efficient response in building flex-fuel vehicles (cars that can run on either gasoline or ethanol). In three short years, Brazil transformed their industry, making 70 percent of new vehicles flex-fuel. Of course, fuel production and distribution were also necessary, but it is still a stunning contrast in leadership when compared to the Big Three in Detroit.

The story also sketches out some of the unintended consequences of this boom from the threat of pushing ranchers further into the Amazon (so current land can be used for sugarcane) to the exploitation of workers pressured to produced increased amounts of sugarcane. The article explores neither in any depth, though they do serve as a subtle reminder that this isn't necessarily a perfect story—though it's clearly heading in that direction.

The Democrats released a letter today calling on President Bush to convene an Emergency Bipartisan National Energy Summit.

Now allow the cynic in me to provide some thoughts on this.

Both parties know they have to do something about this issue; pollsters are turning blue in the face. Hence, President Bush offers a couple of sentences about our "addiction to oil," and tours a few labs across the country to tout his "plan".

The Democrats have, for the most part, opposed Bush's proposals—not withstanding the fact that a majority of them voted for his energy bill last year. But when it comes to providing an actual solution (as one might be prone to do if one had power) the Democrats also fall short of finding any party consensus. They agree on the goal—vehemently proclaiming the need to end our dependence on oil. But when it comes to the actual policies, such as fuel efficiency, a majority evades them.

So, the strategy is obvious: get out front on the issue and put the ball in the President's court. If the Democrats actually try to make some noise on this and force Bush's hand, it will be interesting to see how he responds.

UPDATE: So apparently, Bush was quick to throw the ball right back into the Democrat's court—immediately rejecting their proposal for an emergency summit. Now we'll see whether the Democrats can actually turn this into a news story that forces Bush's hand. (Obviously, Bush wasn't going to make it that easy for them). Then again, from a policy perspective, given the lack of leadership on both sides, a bipartisan summit could be the one approach that actually moves things forward.

If you're interested, you can read the letter to Bush (hopefully the download function will work). It was signed by 50 Democrats including leadership in both houses.
Letter from Democrats

Displaying an uncanny knack for symbolism, the Statue of Liberty's light will now be powered by wind energy. The story suggests that the Bush administration itself was behind this decision though this isn't totally clear. Either way, you know that Bush will be touting this as a symbol of his own effort to support alternative energy.

If you were going to support just a few kilowatts of wind energy this would be the place to do it...

For the second time in four months, the CEOs of the top five oil companies will appear before a Senate Committee tomorrow to defend industry mergers, prices, and profits. As was the case last time, little is expected to come of the event other than a bevy of soundbites from seemingly angry politicians showing national (and hopefully local) cameras their best profile as they chew out the industry execs. As the cameras pan the dais away from the Senators all that is left behind are trails of winks and nods to complement the on-camera frown.

Unlike Senator Stevens, Chairman Specter is apparently planning to put the witnesses under oath. Stevens must be thinking the place is going to the dogs.

(Via the Progress Report)

Knight Ridder reported that 136 Members of Congress spent more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars last year to lease vehicles, often choosing gas-guzzling SUVs or luxury cars.

Exposing my own bias, I initially thought that Members leasing SUVs would hail from rural districts, but this is not the case:

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., tools around his 16-square-mile Manhattan district in a Cadillac DeVille that costs nearly $1,000 a month. In nearby Queens, Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks chose a Lexus for $1,062.85 a month.

To see the whole list go here

Once again, the Virginia legislature is proposing to allow gas drilling along its coasts--undermining a federal moratorium on offshore drilling.

Gov. Warner vetoed a similar bill last year and now we'll see where Tim Kaine stands on critical energy issues. Will he cave and support a bill that leads Virginia in the same direction of continued dependence on fossil fuels or will he try to move toward the new technologies and energy sources of the future.

It is worth noting that the final bill doesn't even include tax credits for consumers to purchases energy efficient appliances. At least the legislature still knows how to spell "O-N-E S-I-D-E-D"

Some quick thoughts about the 25x'25 Conference:

* Overall, this is a great initiative to bring farmers, industry, government and environmentalists together to address our collective energy concerns.

* Not surprisingly, the more vague a goal is the easier it is for people to get behind it. This campaign casts a broad net of calling for 25 percent of our energy from renewables by 2025. But since the definition of renewables includes both electricity and transportation fuels it enables everyone from supporters of ethanol to supporters of wind to all jump on board.

On the one hand it is great to build momentum by bringing more people on board. But the flipside is that the goal is so nebulous that people aren't necessarily working together on a concrete proposal. At least in the legislative arena, the real weight of this coalition would be realized if they were able to support each others' individual efforts. Will industry support a renewable portfolio standard? will environmentalists support ethanol? It's not sure what this all looks like when the rubber hits the road.

* Sec. of Agriculture Johanns was at the event providing a glimpse of what the administration is doing that is compatible with the goal of 25x'25. I specifically asked the Secretary why the administration hasn't supported a renewable electricity standard, which we know is the best way to encourage the development of alternative energy. The Secretary punted the question, saying that it was within the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Energy. I'm sure the farmers who benefit from siting wind turbines on their land appreciated that.

* One of the better presentations was by James Woolsey , who displayed an incredible knowledge of both the history of U.S.-Islamic relations and of the technologies avaiable to end America's dependence on oil. He also possesses a great deadpan sense of humor. One of the interesting stats he provided related to Brazil's recent transformation in their transportation industry. In just two years (2003-2005), Brazil transformed its vehicle fleet from being 5% flex fuel to 75% flex fuel. Of course the transformation was years in the making, but to make those leaps in just two years is incredible.

Of course, from a sociological/historical perspective, these long-term visionary efforts always provide a future opportunity to reflect on stated goals and evaluate the progress made. It will be interesting to imagine what our energy sector will look like in 20 years.

So the conference I attended today was the 25x'25 Agriculture and Forestry Renewable Energy Summit. It's a broad-based coalition effort to get 25 percent of our energy from renewables by 2025. There were a bunch of good presentations that I'll discuss but one interesting piece were the results of a public poll on the issue.

Public Opinion Strategies surveyed 1,000 registered voters and found several interesting things:

* Americans don't believe that there is an energy crisis, but they do believe we have a serious problem; it's just not the level of a crisis in the public's mind.

* 98% of Americans believe the overall goal of getting 25% of our energy from renewables is important (74% very important)

* 90% believe the goal is achievable

* 88% support federal incentives to acheive the goal and 92% favor government mandates.

* Energy ranked at the top of Americans concerns along with health care, security and education

* the public believes that special-interests, such as the oil and gas industry, are the primary obstacle to achieving the goal

* national security is the best way of selling the goal.

The support levels are of course off the charts, which has to be rare for any issue.

I haven't heard much from this morning's committee hearing on energy independence, but I did track down Amory Lovin's press release for the event. As usual, his thoughts are bold and solidly backed by research.

"The surest path to an energy policy that enhances security and prosperity is free-market economics," Lovins's prepared testimony concludes: "letting all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. That would make the energy security, oil, climate, and most proliferation problems fade away, and would make our economy and democracy far stronger."

The full release is on the flipside.

UPDATE: His full testimony is posted here

Media Alert: Senate Energy Committee To Hear How U.S. Energy Policy Undercuts National Security

Washington, D.C., 7 March 2006-The U.S. Senate's Energy Committee is scheduled Tuesday to hear four invited experts-former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, top oil strategist Dan Yergin, Susan Cischke, vice president of environmental and safety engineering for Ford Motor Company, and Rocky Mountain Institute CEO Amory Lovins-testify on the goal of energy independence. Lovins, who has briefed two U.S. Presidents and 16 other heads of state on energy policy and has long advised major energy firms and the Departments of Energy and Defense, will report his organization's dramatic new finding: a business-led roadmap for getting the U.S. entirely off oil. He will also explain why that's not enough, because one of the biggest threats to national security is national energy policy.
Lovins will testify that achieving energy independence and security requires three actions: making domestic energy infrastructure, notably electric and gas grids, resilient; phasing out, not expanding, vulnerable facilities and unreliable fuel sources; and ultimately eliminating reliance on oil from any source. Thus, for example, U.S. policymakers should be concerned about recently attacked Saudi oil facilities whose destruction could crash the global economy; but they should be equally wary of creating an "all-American Strait of Hormuz" by drilling for oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thus doubling and prolonging dependence on the vulnerable Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Lovins documented TAPS's frightening vulnerability in his 1981 Pentagon study Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1011.php). In 2001, Mr. Woolsey, who'd coauthored its foreword with Adm. Tom Moorer (President Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), testified against Refuge drilling as imperiling national security.
Lovins will also testify that overcentralized energy systems create other tempting terrorist targets and make regional blackouts bigger and more frequent. He will describe how nuclear power, another centerpiece of Federal energy policy, encourages the spread of nuclear bombs-"correctly identified by the President as the gravest threat to national security"-as is now occurring in Iran.

Lovins will explain how these "self-inflicted security threats" can be eliminated by cheaper, faster, more abundant, and security-enhancing energy alternatives-both comprehensive efficiency and more diverse, dispersed, renewable supplies-that are already winning in the global marketplace. For example, decentralized power generation, a third of it renewable, is already bigger than nuclear power and is growing many times faster, simply because it cuts investors' costs and risks. Energy efficiency is even cheaper and probably bigger. Such quick, affordable options would, he will suggest, make a better and safer offer to India-modernizing the non-nuclear 97 percent of its electricity system-than boosting the costly nuclear 3 percent.

Similarly, the costly and risky liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals pushed by Federal policy would become needless and uncompetitive if policymakers relieved both gas and power shortages by simple policy reforms. These could save half of U.S. natural gas at less than a tenth of its price, and quickly slash the country's annual gas and power bills by more than $50 billion.
Lovins's testimony will emphasize Winning the Oil Endgame (www.oilendgame.com)-an independent, peer-reviewed, detailed, transparent, and uncontested RMI study cosponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Naval Research, and introduced by former Secretary of State George Shultz and Shell ex-chairman Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. The study shows how existing technologies and innovative business strategies and government policies can eliminate U.S. oil use by the 2040s and revitalize the U.S. economy, without needing new energy taxes, subsidies, mandates, or Federal laws. Welcomed by business and military leaders, the RMI analysis is based on competitive strategy for cars, trucks, planes, oil, and the military. Such powerful forces as Wal-Mart and the Pentagon are already starting to speed its implementation.

"The surest path to an energy policy that enhances security and prosperity is free-market economics," Lovins's prepared testimony concludes: "letting all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. That would make the energy security, oil, climate, and most proliferation problems fade away, and would make our economy and democracy far stronger."

The Senate Energy Committee is holding a hearing today on energy independence with some heavy hitters testifying, including Amory Lovins (head of the Rocky Mountain Institute and overall energy guru) and James Woosley (former CIA Director and active member of the Set America Free Coalition).

Instead of being in DC (where I'm usually based), I'm held up in Boston, so I won't be able to report on the actual proceedings. Though if you are particularly interested you may be able to watch them on the Committee's website or through CSPAN.

Of course we generally know what each witness will say, so these things are at least part kabuki theatre, but it's still a great opportunity to raise the profile of the issue.

I'll be reporting on some of the goodies from the hearing as they come to me.

The fight to protect the Arctic has begun, again!

This annual ritual of rabid oilies and their congressional counterparts fighting to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling was initiated this week by Senator Domenici. As chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Domenici sent a letter to the budget committee outlining his recommendations for the FY07 Budget.

Committee Republicans said it "is likely" most of the panel would support legislation this year to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to the "views and estimates" letter sent by Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici to Budget Chairman Gregg and ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Not so fast...

But in a separate letter to Gregg and Conrad, Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., countered that "the Senate remains deeply divided over this issue, and the Budget Committee should not assume its enactment this year."

This continues to be one of the environmental communities biggest success stories, particularly when you consider the amount of muscle and money that the opposition (including the President) has utilized.

The first big fight is keeping the Arctic out of the federal budget, which is usually completed sometime in April. Stay tuned for more updates.

Sen. Barack Obama gave a "major" speech on energy independence yesterday at the National Governor Association meeting. The rhetoric and the reasoning behind it are solid though they are not overly ambitious.

Here's the goal he lays out:

With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

It isn't clear whether he is referring to 7.5 million barrels per day less than projected use or current use. It sounds like the baseline is projected use. But given the projected growth in U.S. oil consumption (a disputed figure itself), Obama's goal basically amounts to reducing our dependence in 2025 to our current oil use! Meaning in twenty years we would still be using about 20 million barrels of oil each day. This would hardly solve the problem.

To paraphrase Friedman (in reference to Bush's proposal): this isn't sending a man to the moon, this is flying to Nevada.

And again, as many have pointed out, reducing our dependence by an "amount equivalent to what is imported from the Middle East" will certainly not end or even reduce imports from the Middle East. The only way to end our dependence on "foreign" oil is to end our dependence on all oil. That's the moon shot!

The entire speech is below the fold.

(Hat Tip to Grist for posting the speech first)

Energy Security is National Security Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Governor's Ethanol Coalition
Washington, DC

In this year's State of the Union address, President Bush told us that it was time to get serious about America's addiction to foreign oil. The next day, we found out that his idea didn't sit too well with the Saudi Royal Family. A few hours later, Energy Secretary Bodman backtracked and assured the world that even though the President said he planned to reduce the amount of oil we import from the Middle East, he actually didn't mean that literally.

If there's a single example out there that encapsulates the ability of unstable, undemocratic governments to wield undue influence over America's national security just because of our dependence on oil, this is it.

Now, I could stand up here and give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy. I could cite studies from scientists and experts and even our own State Department detailing the dangers of global warming - how it can destroy our coastal areas and generate more deadly storms. I could talk forever about the economic consequences of dependence - how it's decimating our auto industry and costing us jobs and emptying our wallets at the pump. And I could talk about the millions of new jobs and entire new industries we could create by transitioning to an alternative-fuel economy.

But all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from the mouths of our enemies:

"[Oil] is the umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community." These are the words of Al Qaeda.

"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own]." These are the words Osama bin Laden.

More than anything else, these comments represent a realization of American weakness shared by the rest of the world. It's a realization that for all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles heel of the most powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without.

Oil single-handedly fuels 96% of our transportation needs, and it's also critical to the manufacture of millions of goods and products in this country. As we saw during Hurricane Katrina, this kind of dependency means that the loss of even a small amount of oil and refining capacity for just a few days can cause economic panic and soaring prices. A serious embargo or permanent loss could cause untold disaster.

It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it's just not possible. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.

As a result, every single hour we spend $18 million on foreign oil. It doesn't matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes, or havens for the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds - they get our money because we need their oil.

One need only glance at headlines around the world to understand how dangerous this addictive arrangement truly is.

In Iran, Islamic fundamentalists are forging ahead with their nuclear program, knowing full well that the world's response to their actions will be influenced by our need for their oil. In fact, reports of a $100 billion oil deal between Iran and China were soon followed by China's refusal to press for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear intentions.

In Nigeria, militant rebels have been attacking the country's oil pipelines in recent weeks, sending prices soaring and calling into question the political stability of a country that represents America's fifth-largest source of oil imports.

In Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on that country's poorly defended oil refineries for years. On Friday, they almost succeeded as a truck full of explosives was detonated by the shots of security guards just before it entered the refinery. Even this minor damage caused oil prices to jump $2 in a single day. But a former CIA agent tells us that if terrorists ever succeeded in destroying an entire oil complex, it could take enough oil off the market to cause economic catastrophe in the United States.

Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our back.

Now, the good news about the President's decision to finally focus on energy independence after five years is that it helps build bipartisan consensus that our reliance on foreign oil is a problem and shows that he understands the potential of renewable fuels to make a difference.

The bad news is that the President's energy policy treats our dependence on oil as more of a nuisance than a serious threat.

Just one day after he told us in the State of the Union that renewable fuels were the key to an energy independent future, we learned that the President's budget cuts would force layoffs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Last week, this made for a rather awkward situation when the President wanted to use the lab for a photo-op - so awkward that the White House actually re-hired the laid-off researchers just to avoid the embarrassment.

This is only one example, but it tells the story of a larger weakness in the President's energy policy: it's simply not commensurate to the challenge.

There's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment.

During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers.

If we hope to strengthen our security and control our own foreign policy, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence.

But so far, President Bush seems like he is offering less - much less.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office.

He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

His latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

And while he cannot seem to find the funding for any of these energy proposals, he has no problem allowing the oil companies to stiff taxpayers $7 billion in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. These are the same oil companies that are currently enjoying the highest profits on record.

Again, this is just not a serious commitment to energy independence. The solutions are too timid - the reforms too small. America's dependence on oil is a major threat to our national security, and the American people deserve a bold commitment that has the full force of their government behind it.

This isn't to lay the blame for our energy problems entirely at the feet of our President. This is an issue that politicians from both parties clamor about when gas prices are the headline of the month, only to fall back into a trance of inaction once things calm down. And so we all need to get serious here. Automakers need to get serious about shifting their technology to greater fuel-efficiency, consumers need to get serious about buying hybrid cars, and Washington needs to get serious about working together to find a real solution to our energy crisis.

Such a solution is not only possible, it's already being implemented in other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years thanks to its investment in biofuels.

So why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great American projects of the 21st century?

The answer is, we can. The President's energy proposal would reduce our oil imports by 4.5 million barrels per day by 2025. Not only can we do better than that, we must do better than that if we hope to make a real dent in our oil dependency. With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

We can do this by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we use.

First, the cars. For years, we've hesitated to raise fuel economy standards as a nation in part because of a very legitimate concern - the impact it would have on Detroit. The auto industry is right when they argue that transitioning to more hybrid and fuel-efficient cars would require massive investment at a time when they're struggling under the weight of rising health care costs, sagging profits, and stiff competition.

But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year.

There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars.

But that's not to say we should leave the industry to face these costs on its own. Yes, we should raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008. With the technology they already have, this should be an achievable goal for automakers. But we can help them get there.

Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made - more than the cost of steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7 billion just last year.

So here's the deal we can make with the auto companies. It's a piece of legislation I introduced called "Health Care for Hybrids," and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars. It's a win-win proposal for the industry - their retirees will be taken care of, they'll save money on health care, and they'll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future.

Now, building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with home-grown biofuels. The Governors in this room have long known about this potential, and all of you have been leading the way on ethanol in your own states.

This coalition also knows that corn-based ethanol is only the beginning. If we truly want to harness the power of these fuels and the promise of this market, we can and must generate more cellulosic ethanol from agricultural products like corn stocks, switch grass and other crops our farmers grow.

Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel - including my own.

But the challenge we face with these biofuels is getting them out of the labs, out of the farms, and onto the wider commercial market. Every scientific study in the world could sing the praises of biofuels, but you might still be hard-pressed to find an investor willing to take the risk on a cellulosic ethanol plant or a brand-name petroleum company willing to build an E85 fueling station.

The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.

Once we take the risk out of investing, the second thing the government can do is to let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels. We can do this in a few ways.

First, we should ramp up the renewable fuel standard and create an alternative diesel standard in this country so that by 2025, 65 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year will be blended into the petroleum supply.

Second, Washington should lead the way on energy independency by making sure that every single automobile the government purchases is a flexible-fuel vehicle - starting today. When it becomes possible in the coming years, we should make sure that every government car is a plug-in hybrid as well.

Third, I'm supporting legislation that would make sure every single new car in America is a flexible-fuel vehicle within a decade. Currently it costs manufacturers just $100 to add these tanks to each car. But we can do them one better. If they install flexible-fuel tanks in their cars before the decade's up, the government should provide them a $100 tax credit to do it - so there's no excuse for delay.

Fourth, there are already millions of people driving flexible-fuel vehicles who don't know it. The auto companies shouldn't get CAF'E credit for making these cars if they don't let buyers know about them, so I'd like to ask the industry to follow GM's lead and put a yellow gas cap on all flexible fuel vehicles starting today. Also, they should send a letter to those people who already have flexible-fuel vehicles so they can start filling up their tank at the closest E85 station.

Finally, since there are only around 500 fueling stations that pump E85 in the country, we recently passed legislation that would provide tax credits of up to $30,000 for those who want to install E85 pumps at their station. But we should do even more - we should make sure that in the coming years, E85 stations are as easy to find as your gas station is now.

Make no mistake - none of these reforms will come easy, and they won't happen overnight. But we can't continue to settle for piecemeal, bite-sized solutions to our energy crisis. We need a national commitment to energy security, and to emphasize that commitment, we should install a Director of Energy Security to oversee all of our efforts. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director, this person would be an advisor to the National Security Council and have the full authority to coordinate America's energy policy across all levels of government. He or she would approve all major budget decisions and provide a full report to Congress and the country every year detailing the progress we're making toward our 2025 goal.

In the days and months after September 11th, Americans were waiting to be called to something bigger than themselves. Just like their parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation, they were willing to serve and defend their country - not only on the fields of war, but on the homefront too.

This is our chance to step up and serve. The war against international terrorism has pitted us against a new kind of enemy that wages terror in new and unconventional ways. At home, fighting that enemy won't require us to build the massive war machine that Franklin Roosevelt called for so many years ago, but it will require us to harness our own renewable forms of energy so that oil can never be used as a weapon against America. From farmers and scientists to entrepreneurs and governors, everyone has a role to play in this effort. In fact, this afternoon I'm sitting down with business and military leaders to discuss this very topic.

Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. Now is the time for this call to arms. I hope some of the ideas I've laid out today can serve as a basis for this call, but I also hope that members of both parties and all levels of government can come together in the near future to launch this serious quest for energy independence. Thank you.

A fascinating new poll by the NY Times/CBS found that a majority of Americans are willing to support a gas tax increase if it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil or global warming.

The poll is quite clear. When asked straight up whether they would support a gas tax increase 85% were opposed. But when you asked then whether they would support a gas tax increase if it reduced our dependence on oil, 55% were supportive, and if it reduced global warming 59% were in favor.

The basic notion underpinning the poll results are simple: across the board, Americans are willing to pay taxes if they will result in measurable and valuable outcomes. This is an aside, but I've often thought that a truly accountable government would issue each tax paying citizen a breakdown of how their taxes were spent. Everyone would get the same readout: 50% for defense, X for healthcare, etc and you could even go into a few more details--with a "results" section for each category. It would be an effective tool for getting people bought into the value of government. Obviously that isn't the modus operandus of the current system.

Anyway, back to the poll, which clearly shows that Americans believe that global warming and energy independence are serious priorities--worth paying to solve.

I was surprised that when the gas tax was linked to reducing global warming it gained more support (59%) than when tied to reducing our dependence on foreign oil (55%). The difference if probably close to the margin of error, but I would have thought that the latter would have blown the former out of the water.

Also interesting, if you look at the entire poll is that when revenue from the gas tax was used to fight the war on terrorism, 71% were opposed. I'm not sure if this suggests some fatigue with the war on terrorism (doubtful) or whether the public really makes a strong connection between a gas tax and global warming/foreign oil and wants to ensure that the money is dedicated to the right fight.

Either way, this is quite an encouraging sign that the public is on board and willing to put their money where their concerns are.

The latest quest to solve our addiction to oil hinges on microbes able to rapidly convert swithgrass or other plant products into ethanol. The Washington Post had a story today about J. Craig Venter's efforts to create a designer microbe that could reduce the costs of producing ethanol.

Now I'm as supportive as the next person of investing in safe technologies that can reduce our dependence on oil. It is certainly a worthy pursuit that Venter and others are undertaking and one that could someday transform our energy system.

The only concern with these magic bullet proposals, like hydrogen, is that they are years--if not decades--away from commercial use. And while it may certainly be good planning to pursue these technologies today it is just as bad planning not to be utilizing existing technologies to address the problem.

We know that we could double the fuel efficiency of our cars immediately if there were political will, and that doing so would make a serious dent in our dependence.

Anyway, I wouldn't get so worked up about this if politicians, such as Bush, weren't always using the promise of future technologies to avoid supporting existing ones.

The story is an interesting read though...

Here's an old but timely story that came across my e-mail today. It's an interesting article in a local Cape Cod paper about the latest tribulations of the Cape Wind Project. Although the story focuses on Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) effort to kill the project, it leads by exposing the oil affiliations of members of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. I haven't followed the issue closely enough to know whether this info. has gotten out broadly, but it sure makes for interesting reading:

* Bill Koch: owner of a major energy conglomerate that includes oil, natural gas and petroleum interests - and co-chairman of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

* Doug Yearley - board member of Marathon Oil - and former president of the Alliance.

The other amazing factoid in the story is that oil rigs are apparently allowed to be as close as 500 feet of a shipping channel yet Young (and his allies) are proposing that turbines be restricted to a distance of 1.5 miles.

There has been a lot of well-placed concern about President Bush's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The program raises serious proliferation concerns, would cost tens of billions of dollars, and would not resolve the need for a permananent nuclear waste solution. The Washington Post did a good job of running through some of these concerns in today's story.

But the story's lead had me bouncing off the walls.

President Bush's new nuclear energy initiative is supposed to help cure America's "addiction to oil" by redesigning a taboo technology, originally used to obtain plutonium for bombs, to reuse spent nuclear fuel.

Now would someone please explain to me how exactly nuclear power is supposed to reduce our "addiction to oil"? Have I missed the new breakthrough that would have us fueling up on uranium or plutonium?

Oil only accounts for 3% of our electricity, which--as of now--is the sole energy use for nuclear power.

So perhaps Bush's grand scheme to invest billions in nuclear power in an effort to reduce our dependence on oil is in fact targeted at displacing this miniscule three percent. Of course, the more likely explanation is that the Bush administration is trying to associate their personal ambition (and a notably unpopular one) of increasing nuclear power with the publicly valued goal of ending our dependence on oil.

But why do reporter's continue to propogate this blatant misdirection?

With the advent of the hydrogen economy, nuclear power could, in theory, play a role in reducing our dependence on oil. But this is never a part of the story. Instead, Bush--and many reporters--are content to connect two dots that are not on the same page.

Given what is at stake, we need to get better (and louder) at pointing this out.

I'm not sure it's a screening when 80 million people have already seen them, but Grist has posted some of the best and the worst of the car commericals from last night. If you missed them, you can see them here

One thing I don't get is why President Bush and his advisers hyped energy as being a central part of the SOTU. They must have known that energy would occupy only 2 mins and 15 secs of the speech. Why disappoint? There were no serious initiatives and none of the press is really being fooled by the rhetoric.

The NY Times'lead editorial expresses their disappointment that energy didn't play a central role in the speech. Notably absent was any mention of energy efficiency, increasing gas mileage, taxing oil--or any legitimate policy that would significantly reduce our dependence on oil.

The President declares America "addicted to oil" the day after Exxon reports the highest profits in our history.

This stuff draws itself...

The trouble in dealing with Iran is a chilling reminder of how vulnerable our dependence on oil makes us. If we impose sanctions on them for starting up their nuclear program, then we risk losing their oil production--which amounts to 4 million barrels a day--the 2nd most of all OPEC countries. The NY Times has a good story that explores this dilemma.

As expected, the fallout from Robert Kennedy's wrong-headed opposition to the Cape Wind project is extending well beyond the environmental community--providing inherent naysayers yet another opportunity to step up and bash wind power.

John Tierney, the self-proclaimed libertarian columnist for the Times, has a piece yesterday that uses the Kennedy's hyprocrisy as an opportunity to do just that (unfortunately, you won't be able to read it without subscribing).

I've already stated that I disagree with Kennedy's position, so let's move on to taking apart Tierney's flawed argument.

The crux of Tierney's argument is that there are legitimate economic reasons for opposing wind farms:

Environmentalists have been promising for more than three decades that wind energy would be competitive if there was a "level playing field," but it survives only because the field has been tilted in its favor.

When you add up the tax breaks and other federal aid to wind farms, the subsidy per unit of energy produced is more than double the subsidy given to nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants, according to Thomas Tanton, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

As comforting as this argument must be to Tierney's libertarian beliefs it simply isn't true. I haven't had a chance to review the report he cites but based on my three years of working on federal energy subsidies I feel pretty comfortable saying that it is unequivocally false.

I'm not sure what timeframe their analysis used, but from a historical perspective, there is no comparing the subsidies heaped upon fossil fuels and nuclear power, as compared to wind. One study by the consulting firm Management Information Services found that between 1950-97, the federal government provided conventional technologies nearly $300 billion in subsidies, whereas renewables as a whole (sun, wind, biomass, etc) received $25 billion.

As a libertarian, I suspect that Tierney would prefer that every energy source be kicked off the federal dole. But there's never been a "free market" energy system and as long as the likes of OPEC are controlling 70 percent of the oil remaining in the world, there never will be. Which means that the federal government does have to make choices.

Is it going to be windmills, cooling towers, or smokestacks?

Energy issues are front and center as the Republicans scurry to reorganize themselves in the House in the wake of Delay's resignation as Majority Leader. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is making a bid for the Whip position (3rd in line), is urging his party to embrace clean energy policies and would recommend that they immediately pass another energy bill--this time one what will actually help our situation.

Wamp is already a bit of an outsider in his quest for the post, but this is certainly an affront to Tom Delay and President Bush, both of whom have spent the past five years pushing through a porky, do-nothing energy bill. The hypocrisy is that Wamp eventually voted for that bill, even though he initally opposed the House version. But the fact that he is even talking about energy is encouraging.