Over the weekend, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela threatened to halt oil exports from his country to the United States if Colombia attacks Venezuela over the harboring of FARC and ELN terrorists. Chavez said, "If there was an attack on Venezuela from Colombian territory or from anywhere else, promoted by the Yankee empire, we would suspend oil shipments to the US, even if we have to eat stones. We would not send one more drop to US refineries." According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, nearly 10 percent of America's crude oil imports come from Venezuela.
Environmentalists aren't the only ones supporting electric vehicles these days; the U.S. Army has joined automakers to produce fuel-efficient, combat-ready electric vehicles. The reason: according to the Brooking Institution's Fueling the ‘Balance:' A Defense Energy Strategy Primer, "A $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil increases the price of [Defense Department] operations by $1.3 billion. To put this into context, each $10 price increase is equivalent to a loss of almost the entire U.S. Marine Corps procurement budget." Furthermore, according to Thomas Mathes, development director of the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, a 1 percent reduction in fuel consumption in Iraq would put 6,500 fewer troops in harm's way protecting fuel lines and sources.
Despite recent rebuttals to the contrary, global warming is a real threat to Americans. Even the U.S. military agrees. In the new video "Climate Patriots: A Military Perspective on Energy, Climate Change and American National Security," recently released by the PEW Project, leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces weigh in on their experiences gearing up for and preventing climate change. The overall gist: climate change will increase terrorism, will require more military spending, and will create a need for a greater U.S. military presence abroad. So we need to be taking action now.
Posted by: Michael Noble in policy, legislation, green jobs, global warming, federal issues, energy security, energy independence, energy efficiency, economic development, driving, clean energy, clean cars on
Jan 27, 2009
This speech yesterday by Barack Obama was remarkable, not because of any surprises in his push for the energy independence provisions of the recovery bill, the move to raise fuel economy for cars, and his call for a quick EPA review of California's waiver request, allowing it to regulate CO2 from cars. What's remarkable is how clearly he communicates the three energy crises: our security, economy, and planet. If anyone has any doubts at all about how urgently Obama views the energy issue, this is a must-read speech. Heck, read it in any case.
The latest on the federal economic stimulus package includes a "Rebuild America" proposal from Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar. His plan calls for a $45 billion infrastructure investment, which would include $18.25 billion for roads and bridges, $6 billion for transit, and $2 billion for intercity rail. While the numbers will likely change, there is little doubt that there will be a large investment in transportation infrastructure. Now the question is: what will the details of the transportation investment look like?
Last week, City Pages picked up the story and quoted me saying this: "The key issue with these tar sands is that this is the bottom of the barrel, the last sludge of oil remaining in the world. It's the dirtiest and most polluting oil by far, much more polluting than conventional sweet crude. Its mining, extraction, refining, and shipping would all essentially move the refining capacity of the Gulf Coast up to the Midwest Great Lakes region."
Yesterday, the Center for American Progress (transition leader John Podesta's left-leaning think tank) gathered top advocates for a Green Recovery for a live webcast of how America can get back on track investing in what Obama calls "the new energy economy."
Fresh Energy Blog