Presidential debate is no wind job

By John McGory

Last night’s presidential debate made me proud to be an American.  President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney went toe-to-toe on the issues that are critical to America.  We love that these men running for the most powerful elected office in the world must defend their policy positions on live television.

The debate showed clear differences between the two candidates’ energy policies.  

President Obama pushed more fuel-efficient automobiles, clean oil, natural gas and coal technology and the expansion of renewable energy.

Governor Romney's plans include more permitting and licensing for oil and gas on federal lands and waters, the opening of the Canadian oil pipeline, a strong support of the use of coal and the reduction of environmental regulations.

Our country's energy future cannot be based solely on carbon-based fuels.  As President Obama said last night, an “all of the above” energy plan must include strong support for wind, solar and biofuels.  

President Obama pointed out Governor Romney’s opposition to extending wind energy tax credits that could cost America thousands of jobs in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado.  He quoted the governor as saying those jobs were “imaginary.”

Romney responded to this criticism of his energy plan by saying, “I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa.”

Appreciating renewable energy jobs and supporting them through tax credits are two different approaches to our energy future.  The government must support renewable technology and not simply give it lip service while providing billions in tax breaks to the oil industry.

The second point of contention came over the price of gasoline.  Four-dollar-a-gallon prices have hurt American pocketbooks.  Governor Romney indicated that if he became president that his policies would lower gas prices.

Pulitizer Prize-winning columnist, Robert B. Semple, Jr., in a March 17, 2012 column in the New York Times, “Obama sets oil prices?  Just another GOP myth” correctly points out that the president has no control over oil prices.  World markets set prices as supply and demand fluctuates depending on issues ranging from “a worldwide recession, an embargo or conflict in the Middle East.”

Prices will come down when oil use is reduced through its more efficient use and as other energy alternatives become available.  Governor Romney’s plan of drilling our way to energy independence will not succeed without increasingly efficient cars that may or may not use oil as a fuel.

Our energy future will determine many of the others issues facing our country including jobs and the deficit.  An “all-of-the-above” approach is what we need to truly become energy independent.  This will improve our economy and create jobs. 

The spirited give and take between two qualified candidates made for great political theater.  They both laid out their energy plans and it is our belief that President Obama’s plan makes more sense for our energy future. 

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier.  Follow our daily posts on Facebook.

Big oil is driving the Romney train

 By John McGory

This past August Mitt Romney raised $10 million dollars from Texas oil executives in the days before he announced his energy plan for America.  It is no surprise the plan favors oil and coal over renewable energy sources.

The plan calls for the expansion of drilling for oil and gas along the coasts of the Carolinas and Virginia, the elimination of most federal safety and environmental standards that govern the development of energy resources on public lands and the end of tax credits for renewable energy sources.

The Washington Post reported, “Romney’s plan caters heavily to oil and gas interests, and oil executives are some of his biggest benefactors.”

Big oil is telling their candidate to kill the push for renewable energy.  His plan to eliminate the wind tax credit would cost America, and especially Ohio, California and Iowa, thousands of jobs and cede America’s leadership position in renewable energy to China, Germany and Spain.

Romney will take care of his benefactors by preserving big oil’s $2.4 billion tax credits. This is for companies, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, ConocoPhillips and Shell, that made $137 billion in 2011 and over $60 billion so far in 2012.

But that is not all they are going to get.  The Romney-Ryan tax plan will cut the corporate tax rate for big oil, giving them another $2.3 billion.  That is over $4 billion from the national treasury for companies that will have made over $200 billion dollars in the past two years.

Romney says these cuts will lead to lower prices at the pumps for American consumers.  Unfortunately, oil prices are not set by American oil companies.  They are set on a global basis and all these big oil tax benefits will do is line the pockets of the oil barons.

How important is the election of Romney to big oil?  David and Charles Koch, brothers who own Koch Industries, the second largest privately-held company in America, promised in April $200 million dollars to elect Mitt Romney as president over Barack Obama.

Big oil's death grip on our pocketbooks will not end until there is competition for our energy dollars.  This election is about keeping the expensive and environmentally destructive fossil fuel industry as our only energy choice or promoting new energy solutions such as wind, solar and bioenergy. 

Americans will have no one to blame but themselves for high energy costs, the ravaging of public lands and a carbon-filled atmosphere if they allow big oil to put their feet up in the Oval Office for another four-year reign.  It is your choice. 

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier. 

Ohio and the presidential election

By John McGory

 

American will make a critical decision for president of the United States in 2012.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s paths for solutions to our country’s problem are divergent and divisive.  Let’s take a look at their energy policy proposals and what they mean for Ohio.

The general policy difference between the two candidates is simple. President Obama wants to encourage renewable energy while continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy sources.  The challenger Romney wants to release the coal and oil industries from the requirements of the 1970 Clean Air Act in an effort to increase national energy production.

This difference will determine how energy jobs are created.  Obama’s focus on renewable energy has created 3.1 million new green jobs, including 126,000 in Ohio.   CNN reported that the top three clean-tech states employ more people in green jobs than the coal industry does nationwide.  The wind industry now has 75,000 workers in the U.S. compared to 81,000 in the coal industry.

Romney says four million new jobs in oil, gas and coal industries will be created by opening up coastal Virginia and the Carolinas for oil exploration and cutting back on environment regulations.

The regulations Romney wants to gut are from the 1970 Clean Air Act.  President Richard Nixon signed into law the act which is the foundation for many of today’s environmental regulations.  Many of Romney’s proposals would require major reductions in America’s environmental standards.

Another major difference between the candidates is in energy tax credits.  Romney favors a proposal to eliminate the wind energy tax credit while refusing to end the tax credits for fossil fuel energy. This would have a devastating impact on Ohio which ranked as the fastest growing state for new wind-power installations last year. 

Obama supports the wind tax credit and a reduction in the $4 billion a year the oil industry receives in tax credits. 

The car mileage standards negotiated between the auto industry and the federal government is also up for debate.  An agreement between the federal government and the auto industry sets the standard of 54.5 miles per gallon for autos by 2025.  It will save Americans an average of $8000 over the life of the car while reducing greenhouse emissions.  The auto industry does not want to renegotiate the standards.  Romney wants to reduce it anyway.

Polls show approximately eighty percent of Americans support the increased production and use of renewable energy.  The explosion of renewable energy into the consciousness of the world is stunning.  Going back in time now and solely embracing fossil fuel energy to the detriment of renewable energy makes no sense.

Two great Ohioans, Orville and Wilbur Wright, were the first to build and fly an airplane.  Sixty-six years later another great Ohioan, Neil Armstrong, walked on the moon.  The stunning advancement of aviation technology is only one example of how quickly innovation can come once you start focusing the country’s intentions on it.    

The energy policy difference between the two candidates is stark.  We cannot go back to the 1960s and power our world solely on fossil fuels.  We must look to the future and trust technology will continue to lead our country to greater heights.  The energy policy differences between the candidates makes Ohio Energy Soldiers’ support for the reelection of Barack Obama for president of the United States an easy one.

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier.  Become a fan of our Facebook page by going to this link.  We support a strong Ohio economy linked to renewable energy.

Obama or Romney? Nah, electricity

By John McGory

This year’s presidential election will determine who our country’s leader will be.  Regardless of who wins, the real power in our world is electricity.

Electricity is the one leader we cannot do without.  We can change presidents and prime ministers but could you imagine the state of world affairs if we lost power for a substantial period of time? It would be very ugly.

The recent storms that ripped through the Midwest and Middle Atlantic states left millions without electricity for up to a week.  Ask any business or individual who didn’t have power for a week how important electricity is to them today.  They would kneel to the all powerful king.

The world’s economic and environmental future hinges on how we continue to provide a steady, reliable stream of electricity for a growing world.  The world-wide consumption of electricity doubled since 1980 and is expected to double again by 2030. 

China doubled its electric power system between 2006 and 2010.  India electric consumption will increase fivefold from 2010 to 2030. 

The United States electric needs sound modest in comparison to developing countries.  The U.S. electricity consumption will increase by 1.4 percent a year for the next two decades, according to Daniel Yergin in his book, “The Quest.”  But don’t be fooled, it will not be easy to produce.   Yergin says the U.S. will need to build about 300 new standard-sized coal-fired plants or 150 nuclear reactors to meet that increased consumption.

So how does the world get from here to there to meet it insatiable hunger for electricity?  Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1.   What types of fuel will countries use to produce their electricity needs? 
2.    How will the world pay for the estimated $14 trillion it will cost to accommodate this growth?        

Electricity’s great strength is its flexibility.  It is not a primary energy resource but one that is made from other resources.    Coal, natural gas and uranium are today’s big three with coal supplying 45 percent of the power for electricity, followed by natural gas at 23 percent and rising, and nuclear at 20 percent.  Hydropower supplies seven percent, wind approximately two percent and oil one percent. 

These primary resources are competing for a piece of the worldwide $14 trillion electric pie.  They all have their pluses and minuses.  Coal, natural gas and nuclear are the big boys who are elbowing their way into position.

They are trying to elbow out renewable energies.  The big three continue to say that renewable energies are decades away from having a significant impact on the world’s electricity needs.

This year’s presidential election will put Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a tight spot.  Huge contributions are coming in from the big energy producers.  But 85 percent of the public wants renewable energies to play a bigger role in meeting our energy needs. 

The candidates are going to walk a tightrope in appeasing big energy contributors while assuring the public that renewables will play a part in our energy future.  Listen closely to the candidates and you should be able to tell who is paying for the words that are coming out of their mouths. 

Electricity is our sovereign ruler.  We need it to live in our modern world.  The need for more power is great so the stakes are high.  Our economic and environmental future hinges on how we produce and pay for electricity.  The king must be served.

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier and a partner in Webface, an original content marketing company.              

Renewable energy needs to find more ways that won't work

By John McGory

Support for renewable energy is nonpartisan.  Polls show Republicans and Democrats equally support the development of new sustainable sources of energy for our country.  This hasn’t prevented the presidential candidates from sparring over the bumpy road to renewable energy. 

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues to slam the Obama Administration over the $528 million in loans the administration gave to the now-bankrupt Solyndra, a solar-panel manufacturer located in California.

The Obama camp has fired back about Massachusetts’ Green Energy Fund which was supported by then-Governor Romney.  Three of the 12 companies funded by the state have gone bankrupt or were sold for a loss.

If support for renewable energy is strong and nonpartisan, then the U.S. must not only accept failure, but embrace it.

One of America’s great inventors, Ohio’s own Thomas Edison, realized the importance of failure in innovation.  Edison said this about his many attempts at creating the light bulb, “I have not failed.  I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

Edison and his team worked around the clock for a decade to create the first central electric generating plant in the United States.  The Pearl Street Station in lower Manhattan lit J.P. Morgan’s house.  He was one of Edison’s major investors. 

Morgan’s house had 385 light bulbs that were powered by a specially built steam engine and electric generator in the basement.  The wiring set Morgan’s library on fire and the equipment had an irritating clanging noise.  Morgan commented that “I hope the Edison Company appreciates the value of my house as an experimental station.” 

Edison’s biggest complaint was financing the expensive project.  Costs were a serious problem as the price for copper, needed for the wires, kept going up.  His comment regarding his investors sums up today’s struggles with renewable energy development.  “Capital is timid,” said Edison.

His plan to bring electricity into private homes was ridiculed by many.  Experts appointed by the English Parliament disregarded Edison’s innovations as “good enough for our transatlantic friends” but “unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.”

Today our country has an integrated electric grid system second to none.  The genius and persistence of Thomas Edison is one of the main reasons for its success.  If our goal is to power our cities through renewable energies 100 years from today, then that same zest for finding ways that won’t work is needed.  Complaints about perceived failures in achieving this goal are unworthy of practical or scientific men.

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier.  OES supports the research and funding of renewable energies and every Ohioans responsibilty to reduce their personal carbon footprint.  Go our Facebook fan page for more information.

Oil's Red Herring: World Hunger

 By John McGory

Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful forces.  The plots’ goals are often to dupe the public and steal their money or power.   The plotters’ tools include switching the argument or blaming other people or ideas for the “real” problem.

Recent comments by two pro-oil powerhouses may point to a new strategy by fossil fuel supporters that may be worth keeping an eye on by the conspiracy theorists.

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil’s chief executive, recently used the “switching the argument” tactic.  He said in New York City that tackling global poverty should have a higher international priority than reducing carbon emissions, because it would give billions of the world’s energy poor access to oil and gas supplies.

“They’d love to burn fossil fuels because their quality of life would rise immeasurably,” said Tillerson.  “You’d save millions upon millions of lives making fossil fuels available to parts of the world that don’t have it.”

Tillerson believes world hunger is the “real” problem and oil can solve it.

Now go across the pond to Norway and hear how Ivar Giaever, Norwegian physicist and 1973 Nobel Prize winner, blames alternative energies for preventing hungry children from being fed. 

"In particular, I am worried about all the money wasted on alternative energies, when so many children in the world go hungry to bed," said the physicist.

Giaever clearly blames alternative energy development as the reason why the world has hungry children.

Hmmm.  It appears from these comments from two esteemed energy experts that the "real" world problem is world hunger, oil can solve it and alternative energy is preventing its solution.

World hunger is a serious problem that needs to be tackled but it is being used as a red herring in Tillerson and Giaever's arguments.

A "red herring" is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.  These energy experts are discussing oil and alternative energy issues so they introduce world hunger under the guise of being relevant to energy issues.  The world hunger issue becomes the focal point and energy issues are dismissed.

Is world hunger going to be the next political football used to take people’s attention away from the economic and environmental problems associated with an oil-dominated world? An argument could easily be made that increased production of lower cost renewable fuels could be the true answer to solving world hunger.

Switching the argument or blaming others for our “real”problems are two age-old political strategies to draw attention away from an issue. The conspiracy theory crowd may want to keep their eye on how this developing oil/alternative energy/world hunger argument plays out. 

John McGory is an Ohio Energy Soldier.  Go to our fan page on Facebook to like Ohio Energy Soldiers.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohio-Energy-Soldiers/398221510229537

.   

Oil: Our donut-eating diet

By John McGory

The world's economy continues to die a slow death.  The reason is simple.  Any good economic news is followed by a spike in oil futures which quickly dampens any enthusiasm for the good news. 

Today's example is from Europe.  European leaders agreed on a plan to use bailout funds to directly aid banks in Spain and Italy.   So boom, this leads to a surge in the euro, equities and commodities markets and a $4 a barrel increase in oil futures.



A Chicago trader, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, said "We got the good news from the EU and equities took off.  That's what's driving us higher."



How can the world economy recover if soaring oil prices continue to choke any good economic news?   It is like celebrating a pound loss in a diet by eating a box of donuts.



The U.S. economy is driven by the consumer.  Seventy percent of our economy is built on people buying stuff.   But anytime Joe Consumer gets a few extra bucks in his pocket from extra hours at work or a raise, higher oil prices snatch it away before he can spend it.



That is why I believe we cannot survive in this economic environment.  Oil's stranglehold on our economy allows us to live but not flourish.  The lack of competition allows oil companies to charge what the market will bear. 



An improvement in our standard of living will only come when other energy sources compete with big oil.   We need to encourage our elected leaders to push for faster development of renewable sources of energy. 



Write your representative a letter or call them up and ask them what they are doing to promote renewable sources of energy.   The status quo will not change unless we decide it is time to change.




Our oil-based economy is slowly killing us.  The U.S. and Ohio's economy are sure to continue to stagnate as long as we have our addiction to oil.  We either push for change or continue on our donut-eating diet.    


John McGory can be contacted at jrmcgory@gmail.com.