The following continues the serialization of SIMPLE SOLUTION ESSAYS. During the past week I've posted a couple of global warming articles, so the following, which appeared in the Huffington Post on 20June2008, more than three years ago, sequences nicely:
Over time I noticed that Republicans supported their funding sources (big business ) and Democrats took care of the people. You would think just this difference would insure for one party rule, for there are so few rich people. Ah, but politics are not that simple.
Well, a lot more oil/coal money is given to Republican candidates, who therefore display their loyalty when elected by voting for this greenhouse gas energy source and against the environment. While that might be too simplistic an explanation, a good example of such action is Republican Congressman and Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri--right, who is now a senator), who, on June 5, 2008, displayed on his web page the following:
Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge
Exploration: Republicans: 91% supported
Democrats: 86% opposed
Coal to liquid projects: Republicans: 97% supported
Democrats: 78% opposed
Oil shale exploration: Republicans: 90% supported
Democrats: 86% opposed
Offshore oil exploration: Republicans: 81% supported
Democrats: 83% opposed
Blunt was merely pointing out that Republicans have been trying to develop homegrown energy reserves while Democrats were the ones responsible for our current energy predicament. Of course, it is no surprise that the League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan environmental group, gave him the lowest possible score, zero, seven of the past eight congressional sessions.
Last week in the U.S. Senate, Democrats could not muster the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on a plan for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The week before that Republican Senators killed the climate change mitigation bill. I loved Senator Bernard Sanders’ quoted response: “The American people must be wondering what in God’s name is going on in their nation’s capital.” Sanders is an Independent from Vermont.
When I worked in the U.S. Senate, President Jimmy Carter had a progressive solar energy program. But that was mostly because we were in the depths of the second energy crisis and there were such things as gasoline lines. I was still there when Ronald Reagan became president and decimated the national solar program. I went on to become director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute in the mid-80’s when there were very little Federal funds for renewable energy research. Hub Hubbard, director of the then Solar Energy Research Institute (now 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory), and I had an inside joke of not getting much funding, but were nevertheless increasing our market share to keep surviving. SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth goes into the politics of renewable energy.Mind you, the only Democratic president since then, Bill Clinton, did not do very much for sustainable resources. (However, the primary reason was that in the real value of the dollar, oil prices dropped to an all-time low* during his second term.)
To continue, somewhat influenced by the aura of global warming, his administration gave their full blessing for increasing natural gas use over coal for electricity production. So what happened? The U.S., in seven years, added more gas-fired electric generation capability than the entire new electrical capacity of Europe. So what happened? The price of natural gas tripled, and it is said that not only did American consumers end up paying a lot more for energy, but we also exacerbated our carbon footprint. We have not been very smart in our energy planning, which can be expected, for we still don’t have any national energy policy.
The Congressional Insiders Poll reported on 7June2008 showed that 95% of Democrats and only 26% of Republicans agreed with the following statement: “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?”
How are these inclinations affecting their electability? In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll of 4-5June 2008, voters nationwide were asked, “Which of the following issues will be MOST important to you when you decide how to vote for the president? The results were:
the economy (42%),
war in Iraq (24%),
health care (12%),
terrorism (11%),
illegal immigration (8%) and
other (1%).
Peak Oil and Global Warming, thus, combined, rate less than 1%, and did not even make the list.
A Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg Poll of May 1-8, 2008, essentially asked this same question and the environment got 4%. No mention of gasoline or energy. Thus, are Republican/ Democratic platforms on energy and the environment irrelevant?
Actually, no, as the Pew Research Center survey of May 21-25, 2008 showed that registered voters thought energy (77%) and the environment (62%) were important issues. Why this remarkable discrepancy among polls? Mainly, the other surveys asked what was the one MOST important issue.
Gasoline sells for more than $10/gallon in Europe (in the $11/gallon range in Germany), so even $5/gallon in the U.S. should be a blessing. Well, truckers will begin to find a way to rebel, lifestyles will be compromised and the matter of energy as a problem will grow through the summer, especially if Morgan Stanley is correct that oil will hit $150/barrel by Independence Day (they barely missed by a week).
So what is the conclusion? A wild card in this upcoming election is that McCain and Obama are at polar opposites on the matter of energy. The issue of fossil / nuclear energy versus green energy could well be the uniquely different determining factor in November. We of course need both to minimize the trauma of Peak Oil and Global Warming, but the voting public will actually be able to make a difference in the selection of the 44th President of the United States, and the margin of victory could well be green.
Comments (40): Well, the title of this posting struck a nerve. Some were insulted and many were feisty. Good! I enjoyed the exchanges. Click on Comments to read the responses.
* As it is counterintuitive that oil prices in the 1990's were lower than before the first energy crisis in 1973, I show the entire table here (April 2011 is used as the reference year):
| Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Prices | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1946-Present | ||
| U.S. Average | ||
| (in $/bbl.) | ||
| Year | Nominal | Inflation Adjusted |
| 1946 | $1.63 | $18.49 |
| 1947 | $2.16 | $21.73 |
| 1948 | $2.77 | $25.92 |
| 1949 | $2.77 | $26.17 |
| 1950 | $2.77 | $25.90 |
| 1951 | $2.77 | $24.00 |
| 1952 | $2.77 | $23.47 |
| 1953 | $2.92 | $24.50 |
| 1954 | $2.99 | $25.04 |
| 1955 | $2.93 | $24.57 |
| 1956 | $2.94 | $24.35 |
| 1957 | $3.14 | $25.12 |
| 1958 | $3.00 | $23.38 |
| 1959 | $3.00 | $23.15 |
| 1960 | $2.91 | $22.15 |
| 1961 | $2.85 | $21.44 |
| 1962 | $2.85 | $21.19 |
| 1963 | $2.91 | $21.39 |
| 1964 | $3.00 | $21.75 |
| 1965 | $3.01 | $21.47 |
| 1966 | $3.10 | $21.48 |
| 1967 | $3.12 | $21.04 |
| 1968 | $3.18 | $20.53 |
| 1969 | $3.32 | $20.36 |
| 1970 | $3.39 | $19.65 |
| 1971 | $3.60 | $20.00 |
| 1972 | $3.60 | $21.44 |
| 1973 | $4.75 | $23.87 |
| 1974 | $9.35 | $42.58 |
| 1975 | $12.21 | $51.00 |
| 1976 | $13.10 | $51.78 |
| 1977 | $14.40 | $53.41 |
| 1978 | $14.95 | $51.58 |
| 1979 | $25.10 | $77.05 |
| 1980 | $37.42 | $102.26 |
| 1981 | $35.75 | $88.55 |
| 1982 | $31.83 | $74.24 |
| 1983 | $29.08 | $65.69 |
| 1984 | $28.75 | $62.26 |
| 1985 | $26.92 | $56.28 |
| 1986 | $14.44 | $29.62 |
| 1987 | $17.75 | $35.13 |
| 1988 | $14.87 | $28.32 |
| 1989 | $18.33 | $33.24 |
| 1990 | $23.19 | $39.80 |
| 1991 | $20.20 | $33.36 |
| 1992 | $19.25 | $30.85 |
| 1993 | $16.75 | $26.09 |
| 1994 | $15.66 | $23.76 |
| 1995 | $16.75 | $24.73 |
| 1996 | $20.46 | $29.32 |
| 1997 | $18.64 | $26.12 |
| 1998 | $11.91 | $16.44 |
| 1999 | $16.56 | $22.30 |
| 2000 | $27.39 | $35.76 |
| 2001 | $23.00 | $29.23 |
| 2002 | $22.81 | $28.50 |
| 2003 | $27.69 | $33.86 |
| 2004 | $37.66 | $44.81 |
| 2005 | $50.04 | $57.57 |
| 2006 | $58.30 | $65.03 |
| 2007 | $64.20 | $69.51 |
| 2008 | $91.48 | $95.25 |
| 2009 | $53.48 | $55.96 |
| 2010 | $71.21 | $73.44 |
| 2011 Partial | $86.84 | |
Note that while the $147/barrel high was attained in 2008, the average was less than $100/barrel. After the second energy crisis in 1980, the average price exceeded $100/barrel in 2011 dollars.
While I'm at this, here were world-wide prices in March of this year:
While I'm at this, here were world-wide prices in March of this year:
Cities Worldwide with the Highest and Lowest Prices for Gasoline (March 2011)
What is the average U.S. price of gasoline? Just go to the box to the right that is headlined with Gasoline Prices and click on the state symbol on the bottom right.
-
