Despite being a world leader in oil production, Iran lacks the refining capacity to supply its domestic demand for gasoline. (image: s.wsj.net)

The US is still working on legislation to impose new sanctions on gasoline sales to Iran, but the threat of sanctions is already having an impact. On Monday, Reuters reported that oil trading firms Vitol, the world’s largest oil trader, and Trafigura are going to stop selling gasoline to Iran. The firms join BP, Glencore, and Reliance Industries, who have already stopped selling fuel to Iran as the fear of US sanctions convinced them to halt their supplies.

The US is trying to use sanctions to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Firms who have operations in the US would be penalized for trading with Iran if sanctions pass. Gasoline sanctions are considered one of the most severe and effective sanctions that could be levied against Iran. Though it’s the world’s fifth-largest exporter of oil, Iran lacks the refineries necessarily to produce adequate supplies of its own fuel products and imports 40 percent of its gasoline.

In December Iran cut its rations of gasoline, but so far its domestic consumption has remained steady, reported Israel’s Haaretz on Sunday. The current rations allow consumers to buy 80 liters (down from 100 liters) at a subsidized price of roughly 10 cents per liter; any gasoline purchased beyond the allotted amount costs four times as much. The failure to reduce demand, coupled with Iran’s generous gasoline subsidies, could make sanctions especially painful. As major suppliers stop doing business with the country, Iran will have to seek out smaller suppliers that demand higher prices.

Vitol will complete any fuel deliveries that stem from previous agreements, but told Reuters that the company had not made any new deals with Iran since the beginning of 2010. Chinese oil traders supply Iran with 30 percent of its oil; France’s Total, Malaysia’s Petronas, and Kuwait’s Independent Petroleum Group also continue to sell to Iran.

The proposed US sanctions have already been successful in curbing gasoline supplies to Iran, even if they do not become law. How Iran will respond is unclear—especially because no new sanctions have actually been imposed. The Iranian government already plans to phase out subsidies, and is working to expand its refining capacity to make the country more energy independent. Iran’s envoy to OPEC, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, reminded observers of the most powerful card Iran has to play when he said on Monday that current oil prices were too low and that crude oil should be closer to $100 a barrel—a price point that some think would bring global economic recovery to a grinding halt.

Whether sanctions on gasoline (or the threat of them) will successfully disrupt Iran’s nuclear program—or whether Iran will use its oil exports as an economic weapon to combat sanctions and create a shock in global oil markets—remains to be seen.

UPDATE: On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal reported that Royal Dutch Shell is the latest company to announce that it has stopped selling gasoline to Iran. A company spokesperson would not comment on how possible sanctions may have influenced Shell’s decision, saying only, “Shell is not currently selling gasoline to Iran.” According to the Journal, Western companies are being replaced by companies from Asia, regardless of the threat of sanctions. Petronas, Malaysia’s state-owned oil company, confirmed that it was continuing its gasoline sales to Iran.

Clean coal and nuclear are cornerstones of Sen. Graham’s clean energy proposal. (image: treehugger.com)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), part of a trio including Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) working on compromise climate legislation, has begun circulating a draft of his own bill that would establish a clean energy standard for utilities, reports The Hill’s E2 Wire blog. Graham’s draft (full text available here) may or may not be included in any broader legislation that Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are working on, and could move forward as a separate bill.

The notable feature of Graham’s clean energy standard is its inclusiveness—renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass would qualify as clean energy, but so would nuclear power and coal plants that capture and sequester carbon emissions. His proposal would require utilities to produce progressively more electricity from clean sources: 13 percent in 2012, 25 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2050. While many Democrats and environmentalists oppose a standard that considers coal and nuclear to be “clean,” many Republicans insist that only coal and nuclear will allow their regions to produce the energy they need.

Climate legislation has faced a slew of setbacks, and Democrats have indicated a willingness to make concessions to nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore oil and gas drilling in exchange for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Whether Graham’s draft bill is merely the first step in renewed debate over climate and energy legislation or the foundation of a future Senate bill remains to be seen.

On the left, one of the winners of a solar power design contest held by Exxon, as featured in a 1977 advertisment. (image: greentechhistory.com)

At HeatingOil.com we’ve reported on oil majors making a move to invest in renewable energy, but apparently this is an older trend than we realized. Alexis Madrigal’s blog, Inventing Green, shows an Exxon advertisement (partially pictured above) from 1977 that features the 10 winners of a design contest for solar-powered housing.

Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, had planned to expand into the US market, but the expansion of shale gas production in the US has proven to be an obstacle. The company isn’t too worried, though. As Rowena Mason of London’s Telegraph reports, Gazprom’s exports chief, Alexander Medvedev agrees with environmentalists that shale gas drilling is a “danger to drinking water.” He added that is was “unimaginable” that Europe would allow such dangerous drilling practices.

Controversy has surrounded shale gas drilling, but Vincent Fernando of Business Insider reports on a new oil shale drilling technology being investigated that would take center stage in the nightmares of the green movement. It’s called the “nuclear-assisted hydrocarbon production method,” and would take advantage of the incredible heat released by spent nuclear fuel rods to extract oil trapped in shale formations. If hydrofracking worries you, the combination of nuclear power and oil drilling might seem like Frankenstein’s monster come to life, but it could also open up oil fields three times larger than Saudi Arabia’s and prevent nuclear proliferation by creating a use for nuclear rods.

(image: Randy Bish, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review via cagle.com)

Climate change is still debated in some quarters, but the Pentagon has made up its mind: climate change is real, and it’s a threat. As Brad Johnson reports at The Wonk Room blog, the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on Monday, addressed climate change for the first time. According to the QDR, climate change won’t cause conflict but “it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.”

What does the future hold for oil companies? A serious shift away from oil, says the Economist. As oil gets harder to find and more expensive to produce, oil companies are diversifying and investing in nuclear power, biofuels, and natural gas, a trend the Economist thinks will only continue. “Big Oil” is staying big but is less about oil.

Energy conservation can lower your heating bills, but now it can earn you money in a different way. My Emissions Exchange allows individual households to trade in the carbon market, according to Liz Galst at the New York Times’ Green Inc. blog. A couple in Pennsylvania made $17.20 by selling carbon credits to a manufacturer in Ohio.

When it comes to energy consumption, the United States and China top the list, but which country has the highest per capita energy consumption? It’s Qatar. Andrew Price at GOOD has the graph and some more analysis, but now you know “Qatar” is the answer to a pretty good trivia question.

Three senators at the center of the debate over cap and trade’s place in energy legislation (left to right): Graham, Kerry, Liebeman. (image: mnn.com)

Key Senate Democrats say they will support an existing energy bill that does not include a cap and trade provision, and are trying to convince their colleagues to do the same, an article on the website MotherJones.com reported on Tuesday. Buzz about a climate change of heart on the part of the Democrats grew louder last week, when the media reported that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who are trying to win bipartisan support for their own compromise energy and climate legislation in the Senate, were planning to do away with cap and trade altogether. The two anti-cap and trade movements represent a larger trend in the Democratic caucus: the perception that dropping cap and trade (or any carbon dioxide emissions limits) from climate legislation is the only way to get it passed.

Possible elimination of the cap and trade provision from the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), which was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June, raises several concerns. For starters, doing away with a carbon cap may spell doom for an international climate treaty. Other big carbon emitters, most notably China, want to see the U.S. make meaningful reductions in carbon emissions before they commit to their own reductions. In November, China agreed to curb its carbon intensity 40–45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, although it does not want these emissions targets to be legally binding.

Another potential problem with the bill, according to environmentalists, is that it could increase, rather than decrease, carbon emissions by making too many concessions to big energy interests. The bill would lift a ban on drilling on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, just 45 miles off the Florida coast. In addition, an expansion of federal authority over the placement of power lines called for in the bill could increase emissions, said David Lashof, director of the climate center at the National Resources Defense Council. He explained that more electricity infrastructure without a corresponding cap on carbon would make it easier to bring new coal plants onto the grid and increase output at existing plants.

ACELA also contains few provisions for clean, renewable energy. Although it requires utilities to produce 15 percent of power from renewable resources within the next 11 years, solar and wind advocates say that renewable electricity standard is not ambitious enough Grist.com reported.

Although the bill would establish an agency called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or CEDA, it also would empower the Department of Energy to distribute an unlimited number of loan guarantees to underwrite the construction of nuclear power plants without congressional review. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the chance of default on these loans is at least 50 percent, so the bill could wind up costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Those who support ACELA include Democrats Jim Webb (Va.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.). Republicans Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Sam Brownback (Kan.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), and Jeff Sessions (Ala.), who voted the bill out of committee, could also come on board.
Supporters of the bill argue that getting the measure passed is more politically feasible than getting a cap and trade provision thorough the Senate. In an omission that cold signify the White House’s quiet assent to the elimination of cap and trade from climate legislation, President Obama did not refer to a cap and trade system or any plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in last week’s State of the Union speech.

Obama did, however, praise the House of Representatives for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, which includes a cap and trade provision. He also urged the Senate to make a bipartisan effort to do the same.

ACES calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the US to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It also requires utilities to generate an increasing amount of power from renewable sources and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), sponsored by Sens. Kerry and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and a companion bill to ACELA, would begin with the same 3 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2012 as ACES, but would require a sharper cut of 20 percent by 2020. Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham have proposed cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by about 17 percent of 2005 levels, the same goal put forth in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Both ACES and CEJAPA would establish a system of carbon credits, in which regulated industries would have to acquire carbon permits. However, the Waxman-Markey bill would establish a relatively free carbon market, allowing emitters to purchase carbon credits as needed, while the Boxer-Kerry measure would try to control costs to polluting industries by capping the price of credits at $28 per unit. Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham initially pledged continued support to the concept of a cap and trade system, although the senators said that they do not support the name “cap and trade.” Take a look at this comparison of the various climate bills in Congress posted in October of last year to get a more detailed description of each piece of legislation.

As cap and trade loses favor in Congress and the chances of passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation appear as bleak as ever, the Natural Resources Defense Council has stepped up efforts to force legislative action. The NRDC’s Action Fund this week launched a web-based video in which Leonardo DiCaprio and a host of Hollywood stars, with Cornell West of Princeton University thrown in the mix, exhort Americans to urge their senators to support comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The campaign uses online tools such as social networking, blogs, and e-mail to tell the Senate that the country needs legislation that will reduce carbon pollution and create clean energy jobs. It appears that the NRDC believes that grassroots action by green-minded citizens reinforced by major star power could turn around the fate of climate legislation. However, the way the political winds are currently blowing in Washington, it would take no less than a hurricane of constituent pressure to change the minds of senators who have taken up firm positions against the enactment of any greenhouse emissions reduction laws any time soon.

Support for domestic oil drilling and nuclear energy expansion was a point of common ground in the President's address and the Republican response. (image: cbc.ca)

In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, President Obama urged the U.S. Senate to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, and turned away from any discussion of cap and trade or putting a price on carbon to focus on job creation and energy independence. Such legislation can put Americans work today, “building the infrastructure of tomorrow,” said Obama.

Framing clean technology in terms of national competitiveness, Obama went on to say that “There’s no reason Europe or China should have…the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.” Building the facilities to create clean energy and offering homeowners rebates for making their homes more energy efficient will create those jobs in the US.

China and India, Obama said, are “putting more emphasis on math and science,” and investing in clean energy, “because they want those jobs.

“No area is more ripe for innovation than energy,” said Obama. However, when he named the types of energy that would drive job production, he did not include many of the renewable sources of energy that the environmental movement considers central to the future of US energy. Instead of wind and solar, Obama called for expanded nuclear power, offshore oil and gas development, advanced biofuels, and clean coal technology. Focusing on these sectors of the energy industry represents the Democrats’ compromise position, since they have already tried to entice Republican support for the climate and energy bill by offering concessions for offshore drilling and nuclear energy.

Mention of advanced biofuels holds special relevance for the heating oil industry and heating oil consumers. Biofuels may represent the future of the heating oil industry, and industry pioneers such as Hart Petroleum are leading the way to the development of cleaner heating fuels. The Department of Energy has already awarded a great deal of money to biofuels research, and Obama’s inclusion of biofuels in his State of the Union address indicates that such favorable funding is likely to continue.

Ensuring that innovation in energy moves forward “means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America,” said Obama. He also expressed gratitude to the House of Representatives for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in June of last year, which included provisions for cap and trade, and urged a bipartisan effort (such as that led by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman) in the Senate this year to do the same.

Incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for America’s future, Obama said, because “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

In an effort to reduce the deficit, Obama stated that tax cuts for oil companies will be discontinued, which could lead to increased costs that will be passed on to heating oil consumers.

As an indication of how President Obama’s proposals on energy aimed to find common ground, Republicans seemed to agree that innovation and clean energy have key roles to play in America’s economic future. In the Republican response to Obama’s speech, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said that all Americans can agree that the country must become more energy independent.

“We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources and we must use them all,” said McDonnell. He went on to say that technological advances can “unleash” alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power, which can lower energy costs.

However, McDonnell said, the Obama administration’s policies delay offshore production and hinder the expansion of nuclear energy. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats also want to impose what McDonnell called “job-killing” energy taxes in the form of cap and trade—objections that Obama had hoped to steer clear of by avoiding any mention of cap and trade.

Members of both parties can certainly agree with McDonnell that, “Now is the time to adopt energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.”

Senator Lindsey Graham. (image: media.counton2.com)

Bucking criticism from fellow Republicans and drawing praise from Democrats and environmentalists, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reiterated his call on Tuesday for the federal regulation of greenhouse gasses, The State reported.

Speaking at a climate-change conference in Columbia, SC, the senator described a cap-and-trade bill that would reduce US carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020, while including allowances for offshore oil drilling and nuclear power. “Whatever political push back I get I’m willing to accept because I know what I’m trying to do makes sense to me,” Graham said. “I am convinced that reason, logic and good business sense, and good environmental policy, will trump the status quo.”

In December, Graham began drafting the bill with Senators John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). Advertised as a bipartisan (or even tri-partisan) compromise on climate-change legislation, the proposal is clearly meant to appeal to both sides of the aisle. For liberal and moderate Democrats, the bill outlines a cap-and-trade system that would curb carbon emissions by requiring companies that wish to exceed emission limits to buy credits from those producing smaller amounts of greenhouse gasses. For Republicans and conservative Democrats, who tend to criticize cap-and-trade’s cost to energy industries (especially coal producers and petroleum refiners), the bill includes extra allowances and funding for offshore drilling and nuclear power.

Of course despite Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham’s best efforts, not everyone is pleased by the proposal. Environmental groups, like the ocean-preservation organization Oceana, have suggested that an increase in offshore drilling could create a higher risk of spills, although other environmental groups have been less critical, admitting that an agreement that included a key Republican is a step forward. Likewise, certain Democrats have rejected the party’s agenda, urging President Obama to save climate-change legislation for next year, after the 2010 elections. For example, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said that she has strenuously asked the White House to place cap and trade on the back burner.

Given the general resistance to climate-change legislation, Senator Graham, one of only a few Republicans who have shown any interest in curbing global warming, has demonstrated himself to be an indomitable spokesman for the cause. Even after the Lexington County Republican Party voted to censure him for his views on climate change, Graham appeared at the Columbia conference to have lost little hope that a bill will eventually be passed. Suggesting that the proposed legislation is tied to the very future of America, Graham argued that his bill would boost the flagging US economy while reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Yet, while his remarks were met by a standing ovation from his audience, Senator Graham’s message is still lost on many members of Congress, who will ultimately determine the fate of climate-change legislation, and with it, perhaps, the fate of the nation.

Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. (image: talkingpointsmemo.com)

Washington, not Copenhagen—that’s where the real test for the Obama administration on carbon reduction may be.

As the London Times reported Monday, members of the President’s own party are defecting from the administration’s agenda. Several Democratic senators are urging the President to table climate change legislation for at least a year, until 2011—after the 2010 congressional elections. For example, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said that she has strenuously asked the White House to place cap and trade on the back burner, “communicating that in every way I know how.”

Landrieu is not alone. Other prominent Democratic senators who would like to see cap and trade swept under the rug, at least for the near future, include Kent Conrad (ND) and Ben Nelson (NE; now known for “Nebraska Compromise” on health care legislation).

Part of the reason for the opposition could be described as “initiative fatigue.” Still in the throes of a bruising battle over as-yet-unpassed health care reform legislation, and with battles over Wall Street regulation, job creation, two different military occupations, and the economic stimulus fresh in everyone’s minds, there is little appetite for taking on another politically divisive fight. Little appetite, and—Democratic foes worry— less political capital left to spend.

Make no mistake: carbon reduction is politically divisive. Even ignoring significant international tensions, such as those between the developed and the developing worlds, domestically it pits region against region and industry against industry.
Consider regional or state-by-state differences, as embodied by some of the high-level Democratic defectors. Landrieu is concerned that taxing carbon—and that’s what cap and trade’s purpose is: to increase the cost of emitting carbon, so as to encourage reductions in emissions—will hurt the economy of her fossil-fuel-dependent state. Louisiana’s economy is largely based on energy; not only does it have significant oil and gas reserves, but it’s also a key port for crude oil imports.

Nebraska’s Nelson and North Dakota’s Conrad are worried about cap and trade’s effect on agriculture, a key industry in both states. Plants may absorb or sequester carbon, but growing them—at least on the industrial scale of modern agriculture—emits carbon in industrial quantities. Whether it’s manufacturing fertilizer, fuel for farm equipment, or electricity for agricultural operations, agriculture is an intensely energy-dependent enterprise. (Nebraska’s other senator, Mike Johanns, has called cap and trade “a death sentence” for farming.) In addition, North Dakota has large oil reserves, but generates almost all its electricity with coal—increasing the cost of carbon can hurt the state many ways.

Then there are tensions that cut across regions and instead are based in industry needs.

Some of the inter-industry rivalry is obvious: alternative energy companies vs. fossil fuel; natural gas (less carbon) vs. coal (more carbon); utilities (more favorable treatment under proposed legislation) vs. oil companies (less favorable). But soup manufacturers? Why are they getting involved? What’s Campbell’s dog in the fight?

Their dog is that making soup—like any manufacturing process—requires energy. Most energy comes from fossil fuel, so soup has a carbon footprint. The question then becomes, how much does Campbell or other food manufacturers have to pay for their footprint? Campbell—like Kellogg, Del Monte, and the industry group the Alliance of Food Associations—believes it’s being asked to pay too much. Food companies will have to bid for carbon allowances at auction, unlike some other industries (such as steel and aluminum) that are slated to receive free carbon allowances, at least under the House version of cap and trade legislation.
Kelly Johnston, Campbell’s Vice President for Public Affairs stated the food industry’s position very clearly and succinctly: “I think it’s clear from our view that we’re not being treated as fairly as carbon intensive industries. There needs to be some recognition of the role the food industry plays in our economy.”

That there will be winners and losers under cap and trade is hardly surprising. Any time government gerrymanders legislation to try to protect certain activities, people and businesses engaged in those activities win—and everyone else loses, since the cost not borne by the winners is parceled out to them. That’s why organizations who’ve never been involved in energy lobbying before—like food manufacturers—are registering to lobby the Senate on climate change legislation.

Of course, the focus on Democratic opposition doesn’t mean that Republican opposition has gone away. Many Republicans have been unalterably opposed from the very beginning. Others are engaged in aggressive horse trading to get their priorities addressed in exchange for their support. Take John McCain: he’s seeking support for nuclear power as quid pro quo for his vote. All of which makes getting 60 votes—the magic number to render climate legislation filibuster-proof in the Senate—look like drawing to an inside straight.

Right now, the Senate bill is very much a work in progress. Sponsors John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are playing it close to the vest, divulging few details as they mix together support for offshore drilling, funding for nuclear power, and support for various coal projects into what they hope will be a winning hand.

However, with soaring deficits and high unemployment, there may be no way to convince 60 senators that they should support a bill that might result in economic pain for their constituents or key industries.

(image: blogs.citypages.com)

Dr. Bill Irwin, a philosophy professor at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and editor of The Simpsons and Philosophy thinks so. The Canadian Press reported on Monday that Irwin suggests the show may have had strong influence on social perception of the nuclear industry. Perhaps trying to drum up some controversy and boost book sales (or earn himself a cut of some lobbying funds?) Irwin says that the show’s trifecta of characters – careless plant employee Homer, miserly Mr. Burns, and environmentalist Lisa – has made powerful and repeated arguments against the safety of nuclear power.

It’s true there hasn’t been a new power plant built in the US or Canada in over 30 years, and for 20 of those The Simpsons has been on the air, creating indelible images of nuclear havoc–Homer dropping a fuel rod in the title sequence, falling asleep at the control panel and then pushing random buttons in a panic, and of course of Blinky the three-eyed fish—a mutant product of the power plant’s unchecked radiation.

Blinky the fish. (image: blogs.sfweekly.com)

Irwin undoes his own argument, though, by raising the specters of some other things that have happened in the past 30 years that also may not have been great for nuclear reactor sales: the meltdowns at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl.

The report coincides with the rejection of a proposal for a new Saskatchewan plant by Ontario-based Bruce Power; the plan was scrapped after public polling determined that area residents were opposed to it. The Wall Street Journal weighs in, saying that economics are a far larger argument against building any new plants, given the investment required to build and maintain them, and the years of labor necessary before they can start supplying power.

Laying the blame for the shortcomings of nuclear power at the feet of a bumbling cartoon family. Sounds like a plot worthy of a certain American TV show…

The bill worked on by Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman is notable for its inclusion of expanded oil drilling. (image: politico.com)

Last Thursday, three US senators offered a revised proposal for climate legislation—more framework than bill—meant to assuage moderate and conservative critics by lowering emissions standards, promoting nuclear power, and expanding oil and gas drilling along the nations’ coastlines. It may strike some readers—and perhaps some senators—as odd that a climate bill would promote increased oil production, given the prevailing notion that oil ought quickly to be replaced by cleaner fuels. After all, aren’t carbon emissions from burning oil partly responsible for anthropogenic climate change?

In an article posted on Friday, Geoffrey Styles at Energy Outlook suggests that there is good reason to support new oil-drilling projects. Like it or not, the United States is an oil-dependent nation, and there’s little chance that biofuels will replace fossil fuels anytime soon. Last year, the United States used 19.5 million barrels of oil per day, which accounted for 37 percent of total US energy consumption. Even the Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires that commercial fuels contain a certain percentage of biofuels, is likely to cut national oil consumption only by 7 percent, or 1.4 million barrels a day. The inevitable conclusion is that the United States will continue to burn oil for a long time. So, according to the precepts of national energy security, why not produce as much of it as possible right here?

But then there is the matter of the emissions themselves. If we produce the oil here, or import it from another country, won’t it still emit carbon and lead to climate change? Styles informs us that conventional oil production in fact generates very few emissions. “Well-to-wheels” analysis, which traces oil from production all the way to its end use, suggests that 80–90 percent of emissions are created by burning oil, with production, transportation, and refinement accounting for only a small remainder. Thus, according to Styles, the most effective strategies for reducing oil-based emissions are not lowering or cutting off oil production, but rather “vehicle dieselization, hybridization, downsizing, and other efficiency measures, along with non-efficiency conservation, including carpooling, telecommuting, virtual meetings, etc.”

This HeatingOil.com reporter feels the need to pop his head in the frame for a moment and tell the reader that this is not a very good argument. It’s like saying that even though guns kill millions of people every year, the physical production of guns has led to very few actual deaths, and therefore the world would benefit from having more guns. In the case of oil, Geoffrey Styles fails to account for the many other, non-vehicular carbon emitters that daily consume oil—like homes, business, factories, ships, planes, etc. Little is said about efforts to curb these emissions—the rise of biofuels as a supplement to or a substitute for oil in many of these uses is the most obvious that comes to mind—while the proposal that carpooling and hybridization will curb vehicular emissions enough to justify the continued use of oil is hardly convincing. Until such a time as all of these oil users—including road vehicles—are exponentially more efficient, burning oil will continue to release emissions. Into the foreseeable future, producing more oil, whether it is done at home or abroad, will only lead to more emissions.

The new climate proposal is broadly similar to other climate bills, including the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills, but for the fact that it promotes the domestic production of conventional energy. Thus, it still contains legislation on emissions caps and carbon taxes, and funding for alternative and renewable energy projects. While the United States—like much of the world—is still dependent on oil, and will likely continue to consume it at a steady rate, at least for the foreseeable future, both legislation and environmental necessity point to a greener future built on alternative energy.