NPR‘s Tom Gjelten
NPR‘s Tom Gjelten had a story on Morning Edition today (10/25/12) that made an important point about a prominent fallacy in the energy debate–and then spent the second half of the story falling into the exact same fallacy.
The story questioned the constant use of the phrase “energy independence” in political discussions of U.S. energy policy. Gjelten noted:
In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to be independent of the global economy.
Like sugar, wheat, gold and other commodities, oil is also bought and sold on a global market. All the oil produced in the world becomes part of the global oil supply; all the oil used comes out of that supply. The global oil price depends on the supply/demand relation, and the price is essentially the same for all countries.
So far, so good–that’s critical context that is usually missing when politicians talk about “energy independence,” and is particularly vital when this “independence” is linked, explicitly or implicitly, to energy prices. As Gjelten explains (with a handy metaphor about swimming pools), where oil comes from has very little bearing on how much it costs to fill up your tank.
But then Gjelten goes on to say that there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about where your energy is produced–and, the report suggests, to support “new techniques for extracting oil and gas from hard-to-reach deposits,” such as fracking and tar sands. That reason is “energy security.” Gjelten again:
If a country produces as much oil as it uses, it is less vulnerable to some foreign country shutting the tap…. The U.S. learned the importance of “energy security” in 1973, when Arab countries imposed an oil boycott on the United States to protest its military support for Israel in its war against Egypt and Syria. Americans were soon waiting in long lines at gas stations.
But “energy security” based on oil production has the exact same problem as “energy independence”: Oil is a global commodity. If a major oil producer shuts off production, whether or not they sell directly to the United States, they’ll cause the world price of oil to soar–and that will inevitably be reflected in the price paid at the pump. Where the oil comes from is irrelevant for “security” just as much as for “independence.” (If a country halted physical shipments of oil to the United States, that could cause short-term disruptions–but that’s what the strategic petroleum reserve is for.)
Amy Jaffe
Why didn’t Gjelten notice that the argument he makes in the first half of his story contradicted the main idea of the second half? Perhaps he could have looked for sources with independence from the energy industry. The story relies on two experts: One is Amy Jaffe, described as “executive director of energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis”–and not described as having spent the last 16 years, until this month, as director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum, a think tank sponsored by ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, etc. Her new post is a joint appointment with UC Davis’ Institute of Transportation Studies, whose board of advisers include representatives of ExxonMobil, BP, Shell…. You can sort of see why she would be unlikely to say: “Drill for more oil domestically? Nah, there really isn’t any point.”
Nor would that likely be the viewpoint of Gjelten’s other source, Roger Altman, ID’ed as someone who “served as deputy Treasury secretary under President Clinton” and is “now the chairman of Evercore Partners, an investment banking firm.” Unmentioned, but relevant to the story, is the fact that Evercore has a special focus on the energy industry; the firm “catapulted…to fourth place among advisers on oil and gas mergers this year,” Bloomberg reported in 2011 (10/24/11).
Jaffe is definitely an expert on energy, and Altman no doubt knows a great deal about the subject as well. But they both have connections to the industry that would make it difficult for them to say that there’s no particular national interest served in expanded domestic production. If Gjelten had talked to an independent critic of the fossil fuel industry, he might have gotten a different answer–and likely one that was more intellectually coherent.
Of course, since NPR receives corporate sponsorship from the likes of CITGO and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, its reporters may not perceive receiving money from fossil fuel industries as the conflict of interest that it is.
Some jokes never get old …
Sadly.
How long has it been since some wit made the sage observation that “PBS” could easily stand for “Petroleum Broadcasting Service”?
As for its hoary donation come on, a more accurate reflection of the reality is in order:
“You put the ‘public’ in ‘public broadcasting’
And we take it out”
Good points, and I described another hypocritical element of the article here: http://thethinred.blogspot.com/2012/10/into-mind-of-commissar-obamas-jfk.html
“Iranian nuclear ambitions are to refine the Uranium that they mine from their own reserves, and to fuel 1 nuclear reactor producing energy and to provide cancer treatment for 850 thousand cancer patients – who are now threatened by Western calls for the end to their enrichment program. In 1979, Iranian ambitions to become energy independence set them at odds with their puppet regime, which was finally overthrown – no longer a puppet to Anglo-American corporate mercantilism, it had to be isolated and attacked.”
More of the same from NPR. Wednesday Marketplace ran a piece touting all the American steel jobs new pipelines will create, then buried the lead (that the number of jobs it will create is rather low), without once mentioning the environmental hazards.
The last time there was this much carbon in the air an entire subspecies of men were wiped from the face of the Earth. There is no written history 2 million years ago, and it’s too old to survive in the memory, but in the Bible, there are types of men who are killed by floods (and then later by reconquering), by “God’s” command. The “undeniable logic” of heaping and condoning disaster on the miserable economies of the poor should provoke the most heart-felt soul searching.
Brilliant. Thank you!
In short this was just another advertisement for the Oil Companies and the F-cking, er Frac’ing they are giving us.
I agree, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say “there’s no particular national interest served” by expanding domestic fossil fuel production. One served interest would be lower prices for gasoline and heating fuel, which can have dramatic impacts for poorer people. But of course, the costs for this expanded production could very well be far too high. I just don’t think you can characterize the issue in such a black/white way. There’s more to “national interest” than geopolitical security.
The “smoke and mirror” inane discussion about ‘independence’ and ‘security’ when it comes to oil totally misses the real point. Fossil fuels are a withering resource and the focus of our action should be on developing and energy paradigm that looks beyond oil (and coal or nuclear). This kind of nonsense gives people a sense of normalcy and diverts attention away from a real and looming catastrophe if we fail to get our act together in time. Kinda like arguing over seating on the Titanic.
Actually, both NPR and FAIR are wrong. Today’s price for ICE WTI crude is $86.28 per barrel, while that for ICE Brent crude is $109.55. Also, NYMEX natural gas is $3.40, while the cost of the same MMBtu in the UK on 30 Sept. 2012 was $11.08. The prices of crude and gas vary with location.
Also, the cost of gasoline at the pump includes the cost of taxes and of regulations, such as the use of corn-based ethanol.
And if the coal lobby and the extreme environmentalists don’t stop hydraulic fracturing, the US will benefit enormously from cheap abundant natural gas. Whenever gas corporations are able to liquify and export American natural gas, the US price will rise, but not to the level of the countries that import it from here. But if American natural gas stays cheap enough, it will displace coal as the main source of electricity, which will mean cleaner air, less carbon dioxide, and less global warming.
Thus the case for publicly funded broadcasting; hence no corporate sponsorship needed.
I disagree. As an unrealistic example, if one did not need to import anything, one would not be vulnerable to international sanctions, and to the extent that that situation applied to any product, one would not be vulnerable to a sanction that covered that product.
Just as clearly, the US uses 20 million barrels of oil a day, and will never produce that much. So discussions of energy independence are largely misleading; that is, lies.
=====
If the people who want to frack will guarantee that they will not pollute, and allow for careful oversight, so that the public will not be left holding the bag (see the West Valley Nuclear Decontamination Demonstration Project), they might get a little farther with the public. One fiasco at a time.
Don’t forget though that Citco is owned by Venezuela
It is absurd to think oil co’s won’t sell on the open market. Also absurd they won’t gouge our own citizenry at the pumps during crisis.
More oil is better for this country on any level.On every level.To say we wont ever have enough….or that the rich will just get richer,is just so much moaning by those who don’t even remember how independent America was at one time.They think this is the new norm.They want you to except that.They are like worm tongue in Lord of the rings who whispers gloom and doom in the kings ear until he reduces the king to a shell of himself.Crawling on his belly for the crumbs and bones worm tongue throws to him.America grew to power on cheap energy.The future will hold great discoveries.But in the mean time those who mean to begger us really need to be slapped aside.As we develop our natural resources.
Huh?
My point is Tim that the left would have us all agree there is no road to energy independence anymore,so we might as well just give up(.Other then new green technologies of course).They constantly want to educate America to the new norm.Not a bigger and better America.A smaller and less America.That is nonsense.Liberal /Progressive hand wringing.
This is for Mr. Michael E. Admittedly, I am one of those “hand-wringing liberals” that you so seem to dislike, and yes, I do feel that the drill, baby, drill response to our energy needs is not a sustainable model. Do you not remember basic high school science? Fossil fuels were created over millions of years from dead plant & animal matter, and extreme pressure. They are FOSSIL fuels, and hence can not he recreated within our lifetime. They are an extremely finite resource that will continue to dwindle if sorry yes men like you continue to resist innovation. I fully concede that the switch to alternatives can not happen overnight, and we will continue to use fossil fuels until our infrastructure has been fully updated, but to say that looking to alternatives (NOT fossil fuels) is for naught is a preposterous assumption, and one of the biggest fallacies ever fabricated by the oil lobby. I promise you, they are the true worm tongues in this situation – they scare you with talk of dark people cutting off our oil supply, so we have to drill, baby, drill right here in the good ole USA, so we can continue to drive our long-outdated dino mobiles. They know that once we are done using their poison, there will be far less revenue for them. As it stands, they have a hand in both the oil supply, as well as the mechanical supply, i.e. the instruments we use that require the use of their product. Once we start using the sun, who will we pay for it? The only thing we’ll have to pay anyone for will be the generators, and general maintenance. Think about it.
Mike says: “One served interest would be lower prices for gasoline and heating fuel.”
That is a common misconception. It seems logical to the layman, but in reality, domestic production would actually raise energy prices. It’s counter-intuitive, I know, which makes it difficult for most people to wrap their head around.
Effect on gasoline prices: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/22/450136/20-experts-who-say-drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/
Effect on natural gas prices: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/pdf/fe_lng.pdf (jump to “Summary of Results” on pg 6)
Kevin Cahill says: “if American natural gas stays cheap enough, it will displace coal as the main source of electricity, which will mean cleaner air, less carbon dioxide, and less global warming.”
Another common misconception. Fracking actually releases incredible amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which causes global warming to a much greater extent than CO2.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/methane-leaks-09-11-2012.html
Fracking is also terribly harmful to the water supply and air quality of surrounding communities.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/10/03-4
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/19-2
So, the bottom line is there’s nothing “clean” about fracking.
@MilkoFace- Very well said!
milkoFace.Thanks for that very measured ,and considered response.On the whole I agree with you.Fossil fuels are not finite.Yet we are finding more and more every day.Enough for ALL our needs for 200 years or more.Here under our very feet.Now you can argue that fact.But what I am saying is this country is slated for collapse in less than 12 years.Twelve years economically speaking.This is no time to be forcing a radical change on our energy production.Especially when the slowdown in our drive for that energy is based on a very flawed model of global climate change.The free market will take hydrogen some day, and fuel our cars and homes for pennies.Windmills and solar energy will continue to get better.Storage batteries.All these thing are in the works.But it will not come on line in time.For now ,those hampering our energy needs(this president)must be sent packing.Forget hatred for those companies that have been producing oil for this country since the 1920s.It is a wasted emotion.Yes oil is black gold.So be it.For now we can do everything we need to do to become as energy independent as possible.it will benefit us both economically and geopolitically.My problem with liberalism in this case is as so often happens…..they are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
From the measurable data on the oxygen content of the atmosphere, Kelvin computed the total amount of fossil carbon that had been separated from the oxygen by photosynthesis. So the total fossil carbon is not only finite, it is computable. This is indeed not the time for a radical change in our energy choices, it is long past time. Hydrogen to fuel our cars for pennies is possible, if we do what France did, only better, and produce it using nationally-owned breeder nuclear reactors.
There is a design that would produce as much energy for 20 years as a 1000 MW coal burner, using ten reactors of 100 MW capacity, each being factory built and requiring a factory built core of enriched uranium. The clever part of the design is that the uranium is only 20.7 tons per reactor, and in the course of the 20 year life of that fuel core, fissile plutonium is produced and consumed as fast as the fissile uranium is used up. The fuel core is designed to be refurbished using un-enriched uranium, and the total waste for ten reactors after 20 years is 8% of the fuel cores, i.e. less than 17 tons total for all ten reactors. The design is a derivative of the IFR EBRII (Integral Fast Reactor, Experimental Breeder Reactor 2), built at Argonne National Labs, which was deliberately subjected to the conditions that destroyed reactors at TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima-Daiichi. The test was run in April 1986, BEFORE the Chernobyl blunder.
Windmills and solar energy, and biomass, are totally inadequate to replace solar fossil carbon. Nukes use fossilized supernova energy.