This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Grounding Energy Policy in Reality

Mark Green's picture
American Petroleum Institute

Mark Green joined API after 16 years as national editorial writer in the Washington bureau of The Oklahoman newspaper, capping a 30-year career in print journalism. At API he is responsible for...

  • Member since 2018
  • 106 items added with 36,956 views
  • Aug 30, 2013 1:00 am GMT
  • 712 views

Your access to Member Features is limited.

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz emphasized the Obama administration’s commitment to curbing CO2 emissions during an appearance at Columbia University Monday, but he also stressed that energy policies must be grounded in reality:

  • The administration is focused on reducing energy-related CO2 and recognizes the significant, positive role natural gas is playing in the lowest U.S. emissions in two decades.

  • The administration is encouraged by the progress of new technologies, including electric cars and photovoltaic power, but recognizes that the United States must have dependable energy from oil and natural gas.

  • Dramatic increases in domestic oil and natural gas production are strengthening the U.S. in the world.

While much of Moniz’s Columbia speech centered on the administration’s Climate Action Plan, he said its “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is tethered to reality:

“Let’s start with the ground truth. Eighty percent of our energy today is fossil derived. The transportation sector is still today … largely dependent on oil as the transportation fuel. We’ve talked here about hopefully going to a future where we see a lot more electric vehicles using low-carbon electricity. But the reality is, in the energy business it’s extremely hard to see very, very rapid changes in the deployment. So we have to be practical, pragmatic, totally committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, doing so and accelerating that to the extent we can within the current realities.”

As Moniz said, this is an important starting point. Oil and natural gas run our economy and are largely responsible for modern lifestyles. Moniz said the administration’s goal is to push technologies so that all U.S. energy sources can help sustain our standard of living and help provide broad economic opportunity – and help counter climate change:

“Our approach to this is, we must reduce CO2 emissions. The president has a near-term target of 17 percent reduction from 2005 by 2020, and we’re about halfway there. But the idea is that all of the above means that we will invest in the technology, research, development and demonstration so that all of our energy sources can be enabled as marketplace competitors in a low-carbon energy world. … If you look at what are we doing about it in terms of the fossil energy sources, in the president’s Climate Action Plan there was a directive to issue a solicitation for up to $8 billion in loan guarantees for fossil energy projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There could be a whole bunch of them. … We’re saying, come forth with good ideas to stretch the technology in the fossil-based sources, reducing CO2 emissions.”

Again, this is a positive, realistic approach and one America’s oil and natural gas industry is advancing. Our industry is a leader in developing low- and zero-carbon technologies, investing $71 billion from 2000 to 2010 – compared to $43 billion by the federal government and $74 billion by the rest of U.S. private industry combined.

Yet, the heavy lift on reducing U.S. CO2 emissions is being done by natural gas, which Moniz stressed despite the presence of natural gas opponents in the Columbia U audience:

“It is a fact that in these last years the natural gas revolution has been a major contributor to reducing carbon emissions. The president has a goal of 17 percent by 2020, we are about halfway there and about half of that is because of the substitution of natural gas for coal in the private sector – essentially driven by market forces.”

Meanwhile, he said, the development of energy from vast U.S. shale deposits is shifting balances in the world:

“What we’re seeing here is a substitution for (oil) imports. This has significant economic benefits. It’s not changing the carbon balance specifically, but it is certainly reducing our balance of payments substantially. Not long ago we were spending a billion dollars a day on imported oil. That’s now at its lowest level in many, many years, and our production is at its highest level in many, many years … ”

Such are the elements of a true good-news story. The U.S. has the opportunity to advance new technologies because of its oil and natural gas wealth – wealth that is enriching our country and making it more secure in the world. On climate, the U.S. is leading all other industrialized nations in reducing CO2 emissions because of abundant, clean-burning natural gas.

As we go forward we should recognize that one our country’s strengths is oil and natural gas energy – for now and in the future, the basis for economic growth and security and for developing the next generation of energy technologies.

– See more at: http://energytomorrow.org/blog/2013/august/grounding-energy-policy-in-re...

Energy Regulation

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz emphasized the Obama administration’s commitment to curbing CO2 emissions during an appearance at Columbia University Monday, but he also stressed that energy policies must be grounded in reality:

  • The administration is focused on reducing energy-related CO2 and recognizes the significant, positive role natural gas is playing in the lowest U.S. emissions in two decades.

  • The administration is encouraged by the progress of new technologies, including electric cars and photovoltaic power, but recognizes that the United States must have dependable energy from oil and natural gas.

  • Dramatic increases in domestic oil and natural gas production are strengthening the U.S. in the world.

While much of Moniz’s Columbia speech centered on the administration’s Climate Action Plan, he said its “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is tethered to reality:

“Let’s start with the ground truth. Eighty percent of our energy today is fossil derived. The transportation sector is still today … largely dependent on oil as the transportation fuel. We’ve talked here about hopefully going to a future where we see a lot more electric vehicles using low-carbon electricity. But the reality is, in the energy business it’s extremely hard to see very, very rapid changes in the deployment. So we have to be practical, pragmatic, totally committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, doing so and accelerating that to the extent we can within the current realities.”

As Moniz said, this is an important starting point. Oil and natural gas run our economy and are largely responsible for modern lifestyles. Moniz said the administration’s goal is to push technologies so that all U.S. energy sources can help sustain our standard of living and help provide broad economic opportunity – and help counter climate change:

“Our approach to this is, we must reduce CO2 emissions. The president has a near-term target of 17 percent reduction from 2005 by 2020, and we’re about halfway there. But the idea is that all of the above means that we will invest in the technology, research, development and demonstration so that all of our energy sources can be enabled as marketplace competitors in a low-carbon energy world. … If you look at what are we doing about it in terms of the fossil energy sources, in the president’s Climate Action Plan there was a directive to issue a solicitation for up to $8 billion in loan guarantees for fossil energy projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There could be a whole bunch of them. … We’re saying, come forth with good ideas to stretch the technology in the fossil-based sources, reducing CO2 emissions.”

Again, this is a positive, realistic approach and one America’s oil and natural gas industry is advancing. Our industry is a leader in developing low- and zero-carbon technologies, investing $71 billion from 2000 to 2010 – compared to $43 billion by the federal government and $74 billion by the rest of U.S. private industry combined.

Yet, the heavy lift on reducing U.S. CO2 emissions is being done by natural gas, which Moniz stressed despite the presence of natural gas opponents in the Columbia U audience:

“It is a fact that in these last years the natural gas revolution has been a major contributor to reducing carbon emissions. The president has a goal of 17 percent by 2020, we are about halfway there and about half of that is because of the substitution of natural gas for coal in the private sector – essentially driven by market forces.”

Meanwhile, he said, the development of energy from vast U.S. shale deposits is shifting balances in the world:

“What we’re seeing here is a substitution for (oil) imports. This has significant economic benefits. It’s not changing the carbon balance specifically, but it is certainly reducing our balance of payments substantially. Not long ago we were spending a billion dollars a day on imported oil. That’s now at its lowest level in many, many years, and our production is at its highest level in many, many years … ”

Such are the elements of a true good-news story. The U.S. has the opportunity to advance new technologies because of its oil and natural gas wealth – wealth that is enriching our country and making it more secure in the world. On climate, the U.S. is leading all other industrialized nations in reducing CO2 emissions because of abundant, clean-burning natural gas.

As we go forward we should recognize that one our country’s strengths is oil and natural gas energy – for now and in the future, the basis for economic growth and security and for developing the next generation of energy technologies.

Photo Credit: Energy Industry Regulation/shutterstock

Mark Green's picture
Thank Mark for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Leo Klisch's picture
Leo Klisch on Sep 1, 2013

I have no doubts about the value of oil and NG. Because of it’s unique properties we should be encouraging less of it’s use through carbon prices to extend it’s lifetime,slow it’s CO2 emissions and allow solar thermal to compete in the low temperature uses such as DHW and space heat.This would allow for the longer term use of oil and gas for it’s important roll of backing up wind, solar,biomass/gas,electrified transportation, etc. However like OPEC, the oil and gas industry is very careful about keeping alternatives to it’s products noncompetitive and will not give up any significant portion of it’s market share.

Coal is anouther matter and we could do without it very soon if we got our act together.

David Newell's picture
David Newell on Sep 4, 2013

“energy policies must be grounded in reality:”

Sounds good, but the reality which has penetrated some in government is different.

 

==========

The head of the U.S. Navy Pacific commandsays climate change is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region.  (March 13 2013)

=====

Biggest Threat to U.S. National Security: Wars

 

Linda J. Bilmes of the Harvard Kennedy School estimates that the wars bin Laden provoked the U.S. into launching over the past decade have cost somewhere between $4 and $6 trillion.

=========

 

and we get fed pap and crap

that the wealth of this nation will somehow make us A-OK,

once more perpetrating the ignorance that “our future” is differentiateable from anyone else on the planet.

 

================

Admittedly,

 

It’s easy to be on “this side of the fence”

and throw “your policys suck” bombs at governmental leaders,

whose facile utterances are probaly designed to keep insurrection from spreading.

 

Truthfully, I do not know what I would do if “I” was the “commander in chief”.    But I’m not, and I can smell a lie, even if only metaphorically.  Therefore, “bombs away..”

 

 

The latest edition of Scientific American has an article on the prevalence of methane in groundwater as a function of distance from “dirty mother fracking ” activities, now they’re trying to finger out if it’s ancient or newly released gas.

What the hell: this is called “Fiddling while Rome Burns.”

 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »