There’s a plan out there that will create jobs, collect revenue for state and federal governments and improve the environment. And it won’t come at any cost to the taxpayer but if the administration doesn’t act, it will be a net drain on the economy. 1.) What is it? 2.) Why haven’t Congress and the administration acted? The answers are increased oil and natural gas production in the United States and we have no idea.
The costs of the ban: A new study commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) details the social, economic and environmental effects of oil and natural gas exploration on and beneath federal lands. The report estimates that consumer energy costs will increase and cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) will decrease by $2.36 trillion over the next two decades.
The other cost on inaction is an environmental one and specifically relates to offshore drilling. Off the coast of Santa Barbara and elsewhere, oil seeps from the ocean floor release oily bubbles or droplets of oil. The non-profit organization Stop Oil Seeps (SOS) California details that these “Oil slicks of varying thickness form on the sea surface and spread out under the influence of wind and currents. As the oil loses its lighter fractions and undergoes weathering, some of it sinks to the ocean floor, some is dispersed by wave agitation into the water column, and some eventually washes up on shore or sticks to rocks near the high tide line.”
The benefits of action: An enormous amount of energy in a variety of forms exists in the United States that, if developed and commercialized, would create hundreds of thousands of sustainable jobs and largely benefit our overall economy without accumulating massive debt. The Heritage Foundation estimates that increasing domestic oil production by 2 million barrels a day would create 270,000 jobs. Further, increasing supply will either relieve the upward pressure of prices that is likely to worsen as global demand surges when countries come out of their respective recessions. Since states and federal government would collect royalties from the production, it would actually help to lower deficits.
A risk of oil spills, albeit greatly diminished with improved technology, does exist with new drilling activity. But it would also significantly reduce the pressure on offshore seeps and decreases marine oil pollution. Bruce Allen, co-founder of SOS California has argued to lift state and federal moratoriums on offshore oil production. SOS California’s new documentary, A Crude Reality, points out the environmental problems oil seeps present. The Heritage Foundation will be hosting the Washington, DC premiere of A Crude Reality, followed by a discussion with Mr. Allen on February 24, 2010 from 12-1:30. You can RSVP here or watch online at Heritage.org.
Michelle Obama flew to Denmark on Wednesday to pitch Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Olympics. President Obama arrived in Copenhagen this morning to make his own pitch, saying that it could repair the American image. Chicago was knocked out in the first round of votes, but that’s beside the point.
Two people. Two planes. Three days. Not very green.
Just last week President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly: “That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”
Mrs. Obama left two days earlier in order to have meeting time with IOC members. There’s nothing wrong with the President or the First Lady lobbying to the International Olympic Committee. Sure there are costs to hosting the Olympics, which have some Chicagoans opposed to the idea : “Take the Chicagoans for Rio, a group that is reportedly driving the organizers of the Chicago 2016 bid a little crazy. The Chicagoans for Rio website presents figures on the massive debt accumulated by host cities (Montreal took 30 years to pay off their debt from the ’76 Games) and useless construction (21 of the 22 structures from the recent Athens Olympics are presently going unused).”
No one can really predict whether the benefits of hosting the 2016 games will outweigh the costs, but if President Obama believes what he says that global warming is a near-term, imminent threat, couldn’t the First Couple have flown on one Air Force One together?
Let’s do a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the carbon footprint of taking two Air Force planes as opposed to one:
• Michelle Obama flew in on Air Force Two, a Boeing C-32 - a modified version of the 757-200.
• The fuel consumption of the Boeing is 3900 liters per hour, equivalent to about 1030.3831g/h. The cruising speed is Mach .8 = 272.23200 m / s = 609 mph
• Which is equivalent to 1030.3831 g/1h * 1h/609mi = 1.6919g/mi = .591 mpg
• Assuming both planes have to get back to the U.S. at some point, the trip to Copenhagen, two approximately 10 hr flight equals 10,304 gallons of fuel * 2 = 20,608 gallons.
• Jet fuel emits 21.1 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon.
• Using an additional plane emitted 434,726 pounds of carbon into the air.
Let’s compare this with a Cadillac Escalade – certainly not the green car of choice.
• The average car is driven 12,000 miles per year.
• An Escalade gets 14 miles per gallon so it uses 857 gallons of gasoline per year.
• An Escalade emits 16,797 pounds of carbon per year.
So, taking an additional plane to lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago is equivalent to driving an Escalade for nearly 26 years. (434,726 lbs of Co2 / 16,797 lbs of Co2).
Environmental hypocrisy is nothing new to celebrities and politicians that make the push to go green. John Travolta often preaches about the catastrophic consequences global warming but has five private jets that he likes to fly for ‘business purposes’. Senator Harry Reid riding in a Chevrolet Suburban to attend a news conference on energy efficiency when a short walk from the Capitol to the Senate building would have sufficed. Google founder Sergey Brin greened the company’s headquarters but signed up for a Co2-spewing joyride in space.
There is certainly nothing wrong with energy efficiency and environmental conservation, but when celebrities and politicians lecture about doing your part, fear monger about global warming and lobby for a cap and trade bill that will make your electricity bills “necessarily skyrocket”, it is hypocritical and arrogant. There is also nothing wrong with people choosing the vehicles they like best, but it is insufferably elitist to punish soccer moms in the name of the environment while skipping the sacrifice yourself.
Drew Davidhizar contributed to this post.