The White House, Big Oil, and the "American Power Act"

[autorank]

Here's the all new "American Power Act" sponsored by Kerry and Lieberman, endorsed by the White House...

The White House, Big Oil, and the "American Power Act" by Michael Collins

The bill has the support of Duke Energy's CEO, hardly comforting. Of greater significance, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released a favorable analysis that showed the likely impact of the bill on energy consumption. The institute is named after noted right winger Peter G. ("Pete") Peterson who funds and controls the organization. Odd bed fellow for Kerry and Lieberman?


http://www.eenews.net/public/25/15767/features/documents/2010/05/20/document_gw_02.pdf">Peterson Institute, p. 4

The chart shows the difference between business as usual and the implementation of the American Power Act. By 2030, the country will be using 5.4 quadrillion btu's less energy as a result of this bill. That's just a 5% reduction from our current levels. This indicates that either conservation will not be a serious effort or that efforts are anticipated to fail.

There are significant reductions in coal usage, estimated at 44% by 2030. Petroleum usage will be reduced by only 7.5% by 2030.

The impact on renewable energy is negligible. Of special note, wind and solar power are virtually unchanged by 2030 and not significant contributors to alternative energy sources despite the great promise that both offer.

We do get a significant dose of nuclear power, however. The BP mess might look mild if one of those plants fails in a big way.

The net effect of the bill is to keep big oil in charge. Petroleum will be 34% of the total energy used under business as usual or the American Power Act scenarios. However, the prices and profits of big oil will rise exponentially. This is a certainty given the increased difficulty of identifying and tapping reserves and the notion of peak oil now adopted by the industry and the political hierarchy.

The critical element of the act that allows this capital preservation and expansion opportunity for oil is the ridiculously low gains listed for solar and wind power, both of which are open source, widely available, and eternally renewable.

Health reform legislation claimed to expand services but was largely a means of preserving the private insurance industry with little regulation. The recently passed financial reform package by the Senate keeps the perpetrators of the crisis in charge without truly addressing underlying greed and corruption.

In the same spirit, the American Power Act addresses coal pollution but not that from big oil petroleum products.

Of major significance, the act creates a guaranteed revenue and profit expansion scheme for big oil by diminishing the impact of highly viable alternative sources of energy.

Another triumph for The Money Party.

LINK

[amborin]

1. "keeps Big Oil in charge" life as it exists now on this planet is doomed

[autorank]

2. This law is a stinker

And Peter G. Peterson's institute endorsing it. Good grief.

More on "Pete" Peterson
http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2010/04/most-dangerous-member-of-wall-street.html

[autorank]

3. Big Oil Lobbying dollars

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html

[madrchsod]

4. bp spent 16 million to buy off the government

we really sell our selves out cheap do`t we.....

[autorank]

5. I'd say so. You and I are worth at least that much.

Where's our check?

:evilgrin:

[puebloknot]

6. Following the greed and political corruption is too much for me at the moment ...

... because I am thinking of my cousins in Houston and Corpus Christi and Pensacola, and my clients who live all along that coast.

They aren't earning their living by fishing, but the beaches are going to be a thing of the past, and the seabirds are so sad. Today, the wildlife, and next the humans whose health is going to be affected by the toxicity of this terrible event.

Somewhere in my head there is a quotation that I can't track down, but to paraphrase. "I have great faith in man, but I despair of mankind." Do the PTB at BP have children? Do any of the oil companies find it possible to hold in their minds the two issues of profit and caring for the suffering of individual men and women, and decide in favor of man. Anger does not serve me now. Sadness has taken hold and I despair!

[autorank]

8. The human costs and those to other species

...can't be calculated. It's a crime. I would feel a lot better if the government took over the
process. Regardless of who is in charge, it's going to hurt a lot of people for a long time.

:hi:

[puebloknot]

10. "The Government" generally is composed of real people at lower levels.

Yes, I'd like to see an entity that is not totally driven by the bottom line. How long can anyone live, and how much can anyone live in any lifetime?

When my favorite aunt died, a memorial celebration was held on the beach in Corpus Christi. Now?

I'm just sick. Trying hard not to be, but just so distraught over all the senseless and criminal suffering.

[autorank]

7. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu gets it

"For the next few decades, energy efficiency is one of the lowest cost options for reducing US carbon emissions. Many studies have concluded that energy efficiency can save both energy and money. For example, a recent McKinsey report calculated the potential savings assuming a 7% discount rate, no price on carbon and using only "net present value positive" investments. It found the potential to reduce consumer demand by about 23% by 2020 and reduce GHG emissions by 1.1 gigatons each year -- at a net savings of US$ 680 billion."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-chu/energy-efficiency-achievi_b_501263.html

23% - that's huge.

[ProSense]

9. The American Power Acts is supported by a number of organizations

The following people have ties to the Petersen Institute

Board of Directors
Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Paul A. Volcker


Advisory Committee
Paul R. Krugman
Joseph E. Stiglitz


Research experts
Simon Johnson


Visiting fellows
Nouriel Roubini


It's time for action on a climate change bill.

Al Gore today: "The Senate should heed their advice and move quickly to pass the American Power Act immediately."

[autorank]

13. They need to read the analysis by the right wing Peterson Institute

The news arm of Peter G. "Pete" Peterson, right winger from way back, former chairman of Lehman, and the nonstop opponent of Social Security. This was a highly favorable review of the act. It came out just after the act was introduced. If you read the Peterson document, you will see that they did a lot work on analysis. Clearly, they had the bill particulars ahead of time to do this. If you search on the title of their title under Google News, here's what you get.


11:45 PM EDT Google News search by title

This is not the whole story. The New York Times, May 20, covered it but not by name. They called it an "nonpartisan study" and gave the pdf address. They know who Peterson is, that his institute is a strong right wing group, and that the institute is all about bias - the bias of "Pete" Peterson.

I don't know the basis of support for the act by those you listed other than Simon Johnson. That's easy. He works for the Peterson Institute. But I do know what the analysis says about energy consumption in 2020 and 2030. There's a decline in coal, the same usage for oil, and lots more nuclear.

PART I—ENCOURAGING DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION
SEC. 1101. IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING EFFICIENCY OF REGULATORY PROCESS.
http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/pdf/APAbill.pdf

Part I, Page 23
"2) COVERAGE.—In the case of reactors that
2 receive combined licenses and on which construction
3 is commenced, the Secretary shall pay—
4 "(A) 100 percent of the covered costs of
5 delay that occur after the initial 30-day period
6 of covered delay; but
7 "(B) not more than $500,000,000 per con
8 tract.

They're taking nuclear plant building regulations and making them more "efficient." That means it's easier to build a plant. That's what MMS did with off shore drilling, made it easier to get permits to drill. The wording on page 23 shows more "efficiencies." We're on the hook, the federal government with our money, for cost over runs up to $500 million. More bailouts. Construction companies building nuclear plants have no incentive to finish on time. The overruns are guaranteed.

This is just one of many problems that will emerge. The bill is being sold like health and financial reform, fundamentally flawed but "a start." This is way too important to start with flaws, particularly when the flaw is a complete lack of emphasis on renewables (solar over all).

[Truth2Tell]

32. Sooooo, if you can list a couple of mildly progressive economists

with loose ties to the organization pushing the bill... that somehow validates the merits of the policy? Even if they haven't individually endorsed the proposal?

Is that the logic of your post? :shrug:

[Me.]

11. They Think They Have This Gamed

The so called oligarchy (Senator Sanders) think we peons are a bunch of zombies. No wonder the admin seems taken aback by the virulence of the backlash. What is it abut La. that is so pivotal in pointing out the flaws of our governing bodies?

[autorank]

12. Great point about Louisiana

It's the great teacher ... two huge lessons in such a short time. Will we learn?

[OneGrassRoot]

20. Really, really great point. Louisiana plays a magnificent...

if not heartbreaking role in pointing out our flaws -- and strengths. The strength of the peons. :)

[leftstreet]

14. They're all such good friends!

Very interesting,
Thanks for posting

[autorank]

29. Welcome!

I like that image - telling. There's no solvent for the mess they create.

[Cleobulus]

15. Regardless of what this bill says, honestly, we are probably going to use...

a hell of a lot less petroleum and natural gas well before 2020, the difference is its not going to be voluntary reduction in consumption.

[truedelphi]

16. Excellent reporting. K & R. It was said on TV tonight that in the USA,

We use 20% of the world's energy.

So how much of that is used on our deplorable, pointless, expensive, criminally staged, and never victorious wars? Maybe half of our energy?

Stop our wars and we just might have a chance to be "environmental..."

[autorank]

17. No oil=no war

It's a simple equation. I expect to win the science fair with it this year;)

We're 20% of the globes energy, 5% of the population and we think that we can go on forever without
a crash program, lots of TRUTH, and a unified people. This American Power Act (sic) is barely a
thumb in the dike. Lots of hype form Peter G. ("Pete") Peterson and that's the high point.

[truedelphi]

18. Hve to leave off after reading this - too scary to read and then attempt sleep.

In bold:

Lifting the ban on offshore drilling was a calculated risk to get the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act passed in the Senate. The bill is a plan to replace previous environmental legislation referred to as "Cap and Trade," aimed at reducing carbon emissions. In order to get new programs for carbon alternatives, including nuclear power, we're told that the administration had to give-in to offshore drilling requests, particularly at deepwater depths, grater than 5,000 feet.

Then you go on to say you will explain this, later in your article, but that too is a scary sentence - that this horse trading is all about this new American Power Act and that the Act itself is the stuff of nonsense.

People claim that Reagan was scary - but the only American Power Act that happened under his regime was the one that stated that women had to wear immense shoulder pads on their clothes so it looked like their boobs had gone from their chests to the tops of their arms (Which was sort of scary as well, now that I think about it.)

If Reagan had tried to persuade the Soviet Union to tear down The Wall, using Obama's secret method of top negotiating, it would have gone like this:

"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall. <slight pause while he waits, hoping to hear pitchforks in motion, indicating that Gorbachev will do so.> "Now I know you don't want to, Mr. Gorbachev, so I will offer you all of Cleveland, most of Philadelphia and parts of Texas, if only you would just please tear down the wall." <Pause> "Okay, so how about this, you can have New York City, our dairy farms and Area 51..." <still no reply>

"Okay Mr Gorbachev - you can have it all, all of it, just let me keep my ranch in Santa Barbara."

And we'd all be speaking Russian now and making deals with the Russian mafia. With most of us having had to learn to fight with our insurers, we probably would be right at home dealing with the Russian mafia.

Anyway, I hope you are very proud of this article. It was enough for me that you showed us how it is all one big money party, and now additionally you suggest that we believe that we won't be able to create legislation to undo environmental damage that apparently will only be appeased by taxing us poor serfs on our utility bills.

[formercia]

19. Nuclear Energy is Big Oil

Shifting to Nuclear Energy will ensure that the corporate monster that Is Big Oil will continue to survive.

[autorank]

28. Yes

And it adds to the risk factor. Let them build enough, operate long enough and we'll get a Gulf of Mexico, Nuclear Style...could be a series. Countdown to Oblivion!

[mmonk]

21. Good work.

Quite a good job exposing the American Power Act and the grip Big Oil has.

[autorank]

27. Thanks!

I need to thank the Peterson Institute for International Economics. They obviously got the bill before it was filed and did a great endorsement piece with all of the claimed benefits. Amazint how Peter G ("Pete") Peterson has suddenly become a big fan of the act's co sponsor, Sen. Kerry, although it's no surprise that he'd endorse something from the other sponsor, Sen. Lieberman. Peterson is the Forrest Gump of the modern political age;)

[xchrom]

22. Recommend

[autorank]

36. Thanks!

There are lots of £'s & $'s at stake here. We could use more focus on all the living species and
organisms involved!

[blindpig]

23. If those jerks were serious about their work they would endorse

expropriation without compensation for the entire energy sector. k&r

[autorank]

26. You've got it exactly - nationalize it, nothing in return

Why not buy the cow. We'd take better care of it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Ah, but how much more will Big Oil be able to squeeze out of the public.

Not too much, I suspect. In other words, they look as if they're burying their heads in the sand.

Reminds me a bit of the Tory politician complaining to the waitress serving him, while they were having a bite to eat at one of their conferences, that the price of their cup of tea had doubled. 'Market forces!' was her unsympathetic reply. Except in their case, they could well afford it, of course.

[autorank]

25. Like the joke

It's the same story for the big boys and big oil, they can afford the "market forces" on oil because they're beneficiaries of those forces. Cheers!

[Joe Chi Minh]

40. Yes, but the point I was suggesting was that they won't have a market any longer,

once they've squeezed the last red cent out of the public, will they. The extreme polarisation of the country's wealth has been a major factor in this apparently looming economic catastrophe.

Of course, you're right that they'll just have to cry in their virtual palaces that they'll no longer have the fun of oppressing the public, having won their little game of monopoly.

[Robeson]

30. Kick and Rec.

[Octafish]

31. Outstanding article. Terrible energy policy.

I'm as big a Kerry booster as my level of income allows. Lieberman's another thing.

While their energy strategy is better than doing nothing, the bill looks like Cheney Lite. Perhaps if it had been implemented in 1981-at the start of Jimmy Carter's second term--it'd have a chance of working better than the Go-Go Big Oil we've lived with since.

Right now, the planet's problems require big changes in the way we do business. Saving petroleum for stuff we need -- from fertilizer to medicines to whateverplasticthing -- will be better for us than using it on transportation. We must find alternatives to gasoline for driving to work, gramma's or the Safeway.

But, as the Money Party knows, Big Oil rules.

Thank you, Mr. C.!

[autorank]

34. Very good point about 1981

Might have been very good then. Of course, Carter's program was the best by far and most visionary.
I don't have a problem with Kerry at all, I just want all of them to understand what the majority of
people know - it's crunch time! Oil does rule but they've gone way too far on this.

Thanks you!

[Truth2Tell]

33. Recommended.

Thanks Auto! Glad to see you're honed in on Petersen. His influence in the Obama government is disturbing on several levels.

:hi:

[autorank]

35. Peterson indeed

And he's got his staff/partners out there as part of the "opposition" like Simon Johnson. More like
controlled opposition.

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

37. Yep, this is part of a long-running kabuki act. nt

[neverforget]

38. Change......around the edges. We can do better, We must do better!

Our future and our children's future depends on it.

[autorank]

39. It is literally our future

I think of my daughter and her peers, what a struggle if this isn't fixed, needless struggle.

I fully agree.