\nchoice but to rely on offshore drilling and the stomach-turning dangers it
\ncarries. We know all the
\nproblems<\/a> with importing oil from petro-dictatorships. Electric cars aren’t
\nready to replace fuel-combustion engines. The only option, political leaders
\ntell us, is for Americans to choke down the occasional drilling catastrophe and
\ndeal with the ugly consequences.\n<\/p>\n
“Accidents happen,”
\nsaid Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). “You learn from them and you try not to make
\nsure they don’t happen again.”\n<\/p>\n
“I doubt this is the
\nfirst accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last,” said
\nWhite House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.\n<\/p>\n
“The reality of it is
\nthat we will be depending on oil and gas as we transition to a new energy
\nfuture,” Ken Salazar, President Obama’s Interior secretary, told a Senate panel
\nlast week. “You are not going to turn off the lights of this country or the
\neconomy by shutting it all down.”\n<\/p>\n
Is it true that we’ve
\ngot no alternative?\n<\/p>\n
The last time lawmakers The committee asked Domestic offshore Looking at the If you’re tired of dead 10 solutions to our oil addiction<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n 1. A better “cash for clunkers.”<\/strong> Last summer’s popular program 2. Emergency funding for endangered mass transit<\/strong>. A chilling 59 3. A national telecommuting and videoconferencing initiative. <\/strong>Encouraging 4. Smarter freight movement. <\/strong>Congress could commission a study to 5. Smarter land use. <\/strong>Congress could direct (and help fund) local 6. Smarter travel through IT. <\/strong>By equipping its trucks with directional 7. Educating drivers.<\/strong> Teaching energy-efficient driving practices (such as 8. A resolution saying efficiency is a new national priority.<\/strong> A 9. Prizes for tech breakthroughs.<\/strong> The privately run Automotive X Prize<\/a> offers $10 million to the first team of engineers that can invent a commercially 10. Efficiency “visibility.” <\/strong>Efficiency is a largely invisible energy Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n In wake of Gulf spill, should this be the summer of energy reform?<\/a><\/p>\n Show how much you—and BP—care with a commemorative oil spill T-shirt<\/a><\/p>\n Matthews tells Obama to kill BP’s disaster capitalism<\/a><\/p>\n
\ntruly freaked out about the problem of our oil dependence—when gas prices
\ntopped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008—the Senate Energy Committee called in
\nSkip Laitner, director of economic analysis at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy<\/a> (ACEEE).\n<\/p>\n
\nLaitner what efficiency—the famously unglamorous energy strategy—could do to
\nrelieve gas prices. He gave them an astonishing figure: It could save 46
\nbillion barrels of oil. If the U.S. made an all-out investment in energy
\nefficiency-cutting energy waste out of vehicles, buildings, the electrical
\ngrid, and elsewhere in the economy—Laitner believes it could save the energy
\nequivalent of 46 billion barrels by 2030.\n<\/p>\n
\ndrilling produced 537 million barrels a year over the last nine years,
\naccording to the Minerals Management Service. A full-bore efficiency plan would
\nsave the equivalent of 85 years of offshore drilling.\n<\/p>\n
\ntransportation sector alone, Laitner recommended 10 short-term policies that
\nwould cut the need for oil. Congress eventually passed one of them-the “cash
\nfor clunkers” program. Even that could be improved upon: the lax fuel-economy
\nstandards for new cars meant the trade-in program didn’t save nearly as much
\nfuel as it could have\n<\/p>\n
\nsea turtles<\/a>, oil-coated marshlands, destroyed fisheries, disputes over leak
\nrates, political cop-outs, terms like tar balls<\/a> and junk shots<\/a> (OK, those are funny), these are for you:\n<\/p>\n
\ntook hundreds of thousands of low-performing autos off the road, but its low
\nstandards for the fuel economy of eligible new cars made it more of an
\nauto-industry bailout than an environmental boon. A two-year version that gave
\ncredit for only truly efficient new vehicles (35 mpg or better) would save more
\noil. Congress could pay for it by extending the 1978 gas guzzler tax<\/a> to
\nlight trucks and SUVs—it currently applies only to passenger cars.\n<\/p>\n
\npercent<\/a> of public transit networks have cut service or raised fares (or
\nboth) since January 2009, pushing more commuters into cars. Congress could save
\nboth oil and jobs by preserving existing bus and rail lines with emergency
\nfunding.\n<\/p>\n
\nemployees to work from home and cut back on business travel would cut fuel
\nusage, save them money and commuting time, and probably make a lot of them
\nhappier. Congress could direct federal workers to telecommute and
\nvideoconference as much as possible. For everyone else, a campaign would help
\nmake these things more normative and socially acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\nexplore a grab-bag of methods to lighten the impact of trucking and rail and
\njet shipping. “Heavy trucks might save 32 percent of energy use through a
\ncombination of improved fuel efficiencies, and better coordination to reduce
\nempty backhauls and unnecessary travel,” Laitner writes in a journal
\narticle<\/a> [PDF] Train design that reduces aerodynamic drag and collects
\nenergy from braking (as a Prius does) could produce more savings.\n<\/p>\n
\ngovernment efforts to update zoning and land-use <\/strong>regulations in ways that encourage compact development compatible
\nwith transit service and friendly to walkers and bikers. (Obama’s Partnership
\nfor Sustainable Communities<\/a> is already taking steps in this direction.)\n<\/p>\n
\nsoftware that helps drivers avoid left-hand turns, UPS
\nsaved<\/a> 3 million gallons of fuel in a year. If the nation’s 270,000-some traffic-light
\nsystems all used technology that anticipated traffic patterns and reduced stop times,
\naccording to Laitner, they could cut transportation petroleum use by 5 to 10
\npercent. A national study into attacking fuel waste through information
\ntechnology could yield more such gains.\n<\/p>\n
\nslower acceleration<\/a>) and maintenance (keeping tires inflated) would lead to
\nfuel-saving behavioral changes. Studying why people don’t take money-saving
\nsteps like checking tire pressure could yield even more. Fuel-economy basics
\ncould also become a central part of driver’s ed programs.\n<\/p>\n
\n“statement”—big deal, right? Well, it could be: An “efficiency is king”
\nresolution from Congress would send a clear signal to businesses, consumers,
\nand energy markets that would encourage them to make their own changes.
\nCongress could also tell government agencies to move immediately on efficiency
\nmeasures that would pay for themselves-and make funding contingent on that
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
\nviable 100 mpg car. Congress could consider similar incentives to encourage
\nentrepreneurs to focus on efficiency. (The Obama administration is already
\nfunding potential high-payoff cleantech
\nresearch<\/a> ventures.)\n<\/p>\n
\nsource. To correct that, writes Laitner, “Congress should direct and fund the
\nDepartment of Commerce, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
\nAgency (among others) to collaborate in the development of a National Energy
\nEfficiency Data Center (NEEDC).” We’re learning more than we ever wanted to
\nknow about oil dispersants, blowout preventers, and other offshore rig
\nhardware. Why not learn instead about constructive technologies?\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"