Some Refreshing Common Sense! BLM Removes Solar Roadblock

Cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog...

Well ask and you shall receive I guess...

On monday, my colleague and I called on the federal Bureau of Land Management to stop being an Energy Delayer and lift a moratorium that locked up the vast reserves of solar energy located on federal lands. Today, the BLM announced that they would lift the planned twenty-two month moratorium on land it stewards in six southwest states rich in solar energy. The BLM had claimed that an extensive environmental impact review was necessary before solar development on federal lands could move forward and called for the moratorium on May 29th.

Today's refreshingly smart move from the federal government clears the way for over 130 solar energy development projects already submitted to the BLM to move forward and opens up the possibility of further development of this untapped and vast American energy resource.

"We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications," BLM Director James Caswell said in a statement, "and we are taking action. By continuing to accept and process new applications for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections."

I'd love to think my blogging had something to do with this, but there were plenty of voices that arrived at the same conclusion Helen and I did. Among those calling for an end to the insane moratorium on solar development was Senate Majority Leader and solar-rich Nevada's senator, Harry Reid who I imagine might be slightly more influential than this blogger...

Either way, it's clear that as the price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic insecurity along with it, the time is now to tap our vast reserves of abundant renewable energy and develop the clean and cheap new American energy sources that will power the 21st Century.

So wether it's the Bush Administration, Congressional demogauges or NIMBY enviros, we can't afford to let Energy Delayers stand in the way of a new American energy future.

Energy Delayers, Get Out Of The Way: A New American Energy Future Awaits

By Helen Aki and Jesse Jenkins, cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog

Just as the time becomes ripe for a major push towards clean, cheap sources of electricity, the Bureau of Land Management threw a two-year stumbling block in the path of solar power development last Friday. As solar power ramps up--the Bureau has received 130 proposals solar plants since 2005--the Bureau decided to put a hold on further development, claiming that that an exhaustive environmental impact report must be completed before solar plants can be installed on federally owned lands. Meanwhile, the push continues for oil drilling in protected offshore areas and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (an endeavor that really merits an environmental impact assessment!).

Using environmental justifications to suppress the growth of new, clean, American energy sources doesn't fly with environmentalists (who must feel like their political tool (the EIS) has been perversely co-opted by the "dark side"). But the Mojave ground squirrel aside (a species allegedly threatened by the solar development), it strikes me that anything that actively blocks much needed new clean, renewable energy is not only perverse or ironic, but actually dangerous.

Timed as it is to coincide with the expiration of critical renewable energy incentives, this new road block is bad news for the solar industry-- and actively blocking the advancement of new sources of clean, American energy is bad news for the economy as a whole. Now more than ever, as the price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic insecurity along with it, the transition to new clean sources of American energy is critical to secure continued economic prosperity.

As the New York Times reports:

"It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. "The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry." (emph. added)

Even if the moratorium on solar plants in public lands does not entirely smother the solar industry--after all, privately owned lands are still fair game--it is symbolic of a structural failure to fully acknowledge and understand the problems we face, or embrace progressive and effective policies to solve them.

The price of gas has exceeded $4 a gallon in most of the country (it was well over $4.50 in northern California this weekend), the economy is in a downturn, and Americans are crying out for new energy solutions. Cheap, abundant supplies of oil may have powered the United States of the past, but our continued reliance on this depleting and increasingly expensive fossil fuel is now imperiling our economy and our way of life. The obvious answer - to everyone but the federal government apparently - is to tap our vast reserves of abundant renewable energy and develop the new clean, cheap American energy sources that will power the 21st Century.

Instead, all we hear from our Bush Administration throws up roadblocks to the clean energy sources at our fingertips and calls to Drill! Drill! Drill! for more oil (i.e. more of the same). Meanwhile critical renewable energy incentives gasp their final, rattling breath in Congress.

Why? Though the answer may lie with oil interests, there is a deeper trend. In his most recent New York Times op-ed, Thomas Friedman laments the current state of the union and insists that we need to rebuild a dysfunctional nation. He writes that, "It's the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans," adding that "our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities" -- a myopia which is only too evident in a policy such as the BLM's, and in the absurd energy solutions proposed by the current administration.

Friedman goes on to say:

"I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry -- renewable energy and clean power -- and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry."

We are living in a dangerous time, a time of energy crisis. Out of this danger comes opportunity, and a choice between futures.

We can choose to continue towards a future of oil dependency that spells disaster for both our economy and our climate, putting up impediments to essential new American energy industries and providing "life support" in the form of continued subsidies to the mature ones in decline. Or we can choose to recharge America with the power sources of a truly novel era, letting go of that which is no longer politically or economically strategic and cultivating that which will lead us into an age of clean energy and prosperity.

It seems that, so far, we have only chosen the former. Which future do you choose?

Image source: NY Times

What is the Outlook for the Availability of Fossil Fuels?

by Paul Calhoun

I think this article is comparable to the people who slow down on the highway to look at an automobile accident. You are not involved in the accident, yet you surely are curious about what is happening. At the present time we can sense the presence of a disaster, but we do not have enough information to feel that we can get involved. My push to adopt renewable energies is based on our continued polluting of the environment with the burning of fossil fuels. We know that we must slow down this pollution so that our quality of life will not be severely degraded. There is another piece of information needed to prod us into action, and that is how long do we have before we run out of fossil fuels? As a current member of the earth, I am concerned that we leave future generation’s sufficient energy to bridge the gap from fossil to renewable fuels. This, to me, is looking at the car wreck. How long do we have until we are the ones involved in the wreck?

The majority of Americans now think that climate change is a problem and that global warming is real. But there still is not a sense of urgency. Every year the US emits CO2 that equals the equivalent weight of 1.2 billion elephants (2 trillion pounds using average size elephants). It is time to stop ignoring 1.2 billion elephants in the room. It is time to implement a plan that will adopt renewable energies at a pace to stabilize the environment from CO2 pollution and then, hopefully, start to reduce the amount of pollution we must derive this plan with an eye to how long our reserves of fossil fuels will last. Once we derive this plan we then can look at future generations and inform them “Here is the plan”.

The development of modern civilization has been dependent on both the availability and the advancement of energy. We have witnessed a progression from animal and steam power to the internal combustion engine and electricity generation and to the harnessing of alternative sources of energy. Because of our reliance on energy sources, it is also important to understand the impact of energy use on the environment. All aspects of energy, the way it is produced, distributed, and consumed, can affect local, regional, and global environments through land use and degradation, air pollution and global climate change via greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the foreseeable future, it is very likely that fossil fuels will remain our largest source of energy. However, fossil fuels are finite resources and there is concern not only about both domestic supply and U.S. reliance on foreign supplies but, also, with the increasing cost of these fuels. The research on the longevity of fossil fuels is an exciting adventure in itself. I will touch on some of the theories before I conclude this series of articles. Given the slack of a decade or two, the best summation of the longevity of fossil fuels is presented in “Wikipedia, Fossil fuel: Years of production left in the ground with the most optimistic reserve estimates (Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil)”.

Oil: = 45 years

Gas: = 72 years

Coal: = 252 years

With the slack of plus or minus 10 years, most projections are consistent with the Wikipedia numbers. . The popular Hubert peak theory projects that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum oil production tend to follow a bell-shaped curve. “Olduvai revisited 2008” from The Oil Drum blog is an amazing study. This theory was first laid out by Richard Duncan in1989 when he observed that world energy per capita had been declining for a decade. The Olduvai waveform for oil starts in 1950 which is consistent with the Wikipedia projections that the waveform will be completed by 2053.

The energy consumption of a nation is proportional to its Gross National Product (GNP).i.e. (The higher the GNP of a nation, then the higher its consumption.).To maintain our accustomed standard of living, we require the amount of energy that we are burning now to maintain our lifestyles. With the depletion of fossil fuels this will require renewable fuels to fill in the gap.

How do we hammer this information into a plan? A roadmap needs to be derived that utilizes the adoption of solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energies into our energy consumptions needs. Technologies such as stuffing CO2 into caves should not be adopted until they are proven. A plan that incorporates renewable energies with fossils fuels usage would be more realistic for our country to follow.

How do we proceed?

We must continue tax incentives for the renewable energy sectors to incubate their growth. Our House of Representatives in Congress has passed a bill to renew the energy tax incentives that are due to expire December 31, 2008. President Bush threatens to veto this bill because it taxes the Oil Industry $19 billion dollars from multi-billion dollar profits. The president’s premise is that the oil companies require these profits to continue exploration of new oil. Politics aside, we desperately need to find new sources of renewable energy.

We need to demand that our local and national leaders produce renewable energy action plans. There are pockets of leadership like Arizona and California. This leadership needs to be at a national level to be successful for the USA. Once this is accomplished we will be well on our way for future generations.

http://environmentalhelp.typepad.com

Oil Hits Record Price. Gas Nearing $4.00. President Bush, Clueless…

Happy Friday! Oil hit record-prices today: $103.05 per barrel. Bully for us...

That tops the inflation adjusted high of $102.53 set in 1980. Oil first inched over $100 to welcome in the new year on January 2nd and has hovered around $100 since then, routinely spiking into new record territory. Now we've blown past the final record: the inflation adjusted highs reached in the '80s.

This news comes as analysts predict $4.00 per gallon gasoline when refiners switch over to reformulated blends in Spring.

Of course, you and I already know that. We see it every time we drive past a gas station, or god forbid, actually pull in to fill up our tanks!

You'd assume President Bush would be clearly aware of the state of gas prices as well, given how much they impact average Americans every day. Well, you might assume that about another president anyway... I wasn't too shocked to learn that President Bush is actually completely clueless that gas prices are soaring towards $4.00!

In a press conference today, he revealed his complete ignorance of what life is like for real Americans on the street in an interview that began with a simple question from Peter Maer of CBS News. Here's the transcript of the exchange, courtesy of NTYimes blog, "the Lede":

Q: What’s your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing –

MR. BUSH: Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q: A number of analysts are predicting –

MR. BUSH: Oh, yeah?

Q: — $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

MR. BUSH: That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

"I hadn't heard of that?!" Seriously?! Well that explains a lot...

Like why President Bush has routinely blocked the US Congress's fiscally responsible attempts to re-invest wasteful oil subsidies to kick-start new sources of clean, homegrown renewable energy.

Three times now, the House of Representatives of the 110th Congress has passed bills that would end wasteful subsidies to oil companies designed to spur domestic oil exploration at a time when oil priced in at about $20.00/barrel. With oil prices at record levels over five times higher than when Bush took office, it's simply fiscally irresponsible to shower an industry recording record profits with taxpayer subsidies while denying the most promising and fastest growing clean, homegrown renewable energy technologies critical incentives that spur their growth.

The House passed their third attempt to correct this irresponsible tax spending and shift funds to extend critical renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits, as well as support purchases of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps the third time's a charm, but this victory could be short lived, with President Bush again threatening to veto and a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate expected (again!).

But I guess if President Bush doesn't have a clue what oil and gasoline prices are really like these days, he can be forgiven for ignorantly and irresponsibly defending oil subsidies to Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and friends... These oil companies are incidentally reaping record profits off of the record prices paid by every-day Americans at the pumps, all while the economy tanks... But maybe President Bush doesn't know that either.

So maybe we should go light on President Bush... After all, he doesn't know any better!

But WE, the every day American tax payer do!

WE know that lavishing subsidies on established and highly profitable industries is a pretty poor use of taxpayer money.

We ALSO know that subsidizing the energy industries of the past will not help us solve the energy challenges of the future! To do that, we're going to have to be Energy Smart! We're going to have to invest in new, clean, domestic energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, energy efficiency, new 100+ mpg plug-in hybrid cars and more in order to have an energy supply that is sustainable, both environmentally AND economically.

WE know better, so let's let the Senate and President Bush know it's time to re-invest! Let your Senators know it's time to be smart with our energy subsidies.

Tell the Senate to pass H.R. 5351 the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 so we can take a step towards a sustainable, prosperous and secure America!

Oil Hits $100 per Barrel as We Welcome in 2008

It's finally happened: $100-per-barrel oil is no longer some looming specter, just a dark possibility used by Peak Oilers to frighten little chillun's into driving less.

As we welcome in 2008, the specter of $100 oil has gone from pernicious possibility to fact-of-life reality as oil prices touched $100 per barrel today on NYMEX.

Of course, oil prices didn't stay at $100 for long before the fell back into the "comfortable" $90s.

But consider this: when this blog started in summer 2005, oil prices were trading around $55 dollars, already up about 100% from the $20-30 price range oil hovered at between 2000-2004.

2006 started with oil prices trading around $60/barrel and by the beginning of 2007, prices had topped $75 before falling back down to around $60 to welcome in the new year.

Of course, the brief fall in prices would be just that - brief - and oil prices climbed steadily in 2007, inching towards record-setting heights seemingly every day.


On October 19th, 2007, oil prices topped the $90-per-barrel mark for the first time in history before falling back into the $80s. Crude oil prices jumped by 28 percent just between August and October 2007.

By year's end, $90-per-barrel oil seemed pretty normal and it was only a matter of time before the $100 threshold was breeched. Well, today, our time is up as oil hit exactly $100.00/barrel today on NYMEX before receding into the high $90s.

$100/barrel is clearly a record in nominal prices, but it's also pretty close to - if not exceeding - the inflation-adjusted record price as well. Depending on the adjustment, $38 barrel of oil in 1980, the previous inflation-adjusted record price, would be worth somewhere between $96 to $101 in today's dollars. We're entering uncharted territory in oil prices now.

Anyone want to wager on where oil prices will be by the end of 2008? If so, place your bets in the comments section here (and for a more lucrative prize: a bottle of champagne to the victor I believe, check out this running contest at Jerome a Paris' DailyKos dairy).

[A hat tip to Jerome a Paris at DailyKos]

Pelosi Cobbles Together Strong Energy Bill - Heading for Showdown in Senate

After long hours of negotiations that have stretched long into the night for the past week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to have cobbled together a deal that will send a strong energy bill out of the House, likely Thursday.

Rumors last month that essentially every major provision but increased fuel economy standards might get stripped from the bill followed by long weeks of speculation have given way today to confirmation that the energy package heading for a House floor vote tomorrow will include some version of every major clean energy provision under consideration: a 35 mpg CAFE standard, a biofuels standard, and in a surprise turn, both a 15% by 2020 national renewable electricity standard and a $21 billion tax package for clean energy sources.

The passage of the bill, expected tomorrow in the House, will be a major victory for Speaker Pelosi, who has fought hard to advance a strong energy bill to the floor over opposition from Republicans, industry and even influential members of her own party - namely influential Michigan Congressman John Dingell.

Even after securing passage in the House, the bill will be heading towards a tough vote in the Senate where opposition from ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, Pete Domenici (R-NM) will mean the bill will require a filibuster-proof 60 votes to secure passage. And it won't end there: President Bush has re-iterated threats to veto the bill if it includes certain provisions, including a renewable electricity standard and tax provisions financed by ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

Details on the components of the energy package below. But first, a look at the tumultuous - and still-unfolding - saga of the 2007 Congressional Energy Bill.

The Energy Bill's Saga

After some Senate Republicans blocked a formal conference committee to reconcile the two version of the energy bill passed by the Senate and House this summer (see previous posts here and here), Democratic leaders opted to move forward without a formal conference. They have instead been meeting in closed sessions to hammer out details on what provisions are in and what are left on the cutting-room floor. They concluded those negotiations late last night and have referred a full bill to the House floor for a vote sometime Thursday.

While the hundreds-of-pages long bill includes scores of smaller provisions, including some excellent new energy efficiency provisions, four major provisions were at the center negotiations - and speculations - this past week:

A 35 mile-per gallon fuel economy standard (35 mpg CAFE) for cars and light trucks, the first increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years. The energy bill passed by the Senate included a 35 mpg CAFE provision while the House version did not. Senior Michigan Democrat and House Energy Committee Chairman, John Dingell had opposed the Senate version of the CAFE provision, pushing for a weaker update to CAFE standards.

A large biofuels requirements (a renewable fuels standard or RFS) that mandates billions of gallons of ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels for use in U.S. cars and trucks. The Senate bill included a 36 billion gallon by 2022 biofuels standard, including 21 billion gallons from "advanced" biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. The House version had no renewable fuels title.

A 15% by 2020 renewable electricity standard (RES) requiring large electric utilities to acquire 15% of their electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal energy by 2020. The Senate narrowly failed to pass a RES this summer, while the House succeeded in passing a standard for the first time in history.

Finally, a multi-billion dollar package of tax incentives for clean energy funded by ending subsidies and closing royalty loopholes enjoyed by the oil and gas industries. During the first "100 days" push, House Democrats passed a $32 billion tax package while the Senate again narrowly failed to pass a tax package; the House energy bill passed this summer did include a $16 billion tax package.

The fuel economy provisions were the source of contention between Speaker Pelosi and Energy Chairman Dingell, who has been a key advocate for the auto industry and fought the 35 mpg CAFE standards.

The latter two provisions were the source of the most conflict between Democrats and Republicans, and between the House and the Senate, and have drawn veto threats from President Bush.

Although of questionable environmental character, the biofuels package, in contrast, is widely seen as the political "glue" that holds the bill together, drawing in "farm state" Republican moderates.

All this led to much speculation and anticipation over the course of what was a very secretive negotiation process, as small bits of information leaked of closed negotiation chambers and rumors spread.

Veil of Secrecy Parted To Reveal Strong Energy Bill

In the end, the bill heading to the House floor will be stronger than many - perhaps most - speculated, including some version of all four major provisions:

The bill includes a 35 MPG fleetwide CAFE standard, although it retains the "flex fuel vehicle loophole" that Detroit automakers exploit to help turn gas guzzling SUVs into 35 mpg machines on paper. The loophole is decreased in later years though. The CAFE standard also keeps separate standards for cars and light trucks/SUVs, potentially leaving the SUV loophole intact. Pelosi has issued assurances though that the seperate standards will still amount to a 35 mpg fleetwide average across all cars, light trucks and SUVs.

Also in the bill is a large biofuels standard, although details are still emerging on the renewable fuels title.

The bill includes the 15% by 2020 renewable electricity standard passed by the House earlier this year, although there have been some small modifications made (a lower price cap on the costs of compliance for example). Like the version passed by the House, utilities can meet up to 4% of the standard with energy efficiency (which I suppose makes it a 11% RES and 4% efficiency standard, although some utilities may opt for more than 11% renewables). The bill does not conflict with the 25 renewables standards already enacted by states.

Finally, in a surprise to many, the bill will include a $21 billion tax package which will be financed in part by ending $13 billion in subsidies for the oil industry. A provision in the original House bill to close unintended loopholes in offshore oil and gas royalty agreements was not included in the new bill.

The bill also includes a number of other provisions intended to advance America towards a clean energy future, including strong new energy efficiency standards and a "Green Jobs" provision intended to create 3 million new skilled jobs in the clean energy economy.

Speaker Pelosi's summary of the bill can be found here.

The Saga Continues... Showdown Looms in the Senate

While the energy bill is expected to pass the House, where simply majority rules, it's fate in the Senate is still unclear. A "supermajority" of 60 votes will be required to move the bill in the Senate past Republican opposition in the form of a filibuster threat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he is unsure whether or not he has the needed 60 votes.

If the bill cannot secure passage in the Senate in it's current form, speculation is that Democrats will begin stripping provisions from the bill until 60 votes can be earned. What the bill looks like at the end of that process is still unclear, and the possibility of a presidential veto looms over the whole thing (sounds pretty familiar...).

Stay tuned (and call your Senators!).

Oil Futures Rise Above $90 Per Barrel Before Falling ... For Now

According to the New York Times, oil futures rose to a new record of over $90 per barrel before falling somewhat today.

Prices began to retreat today as investors sold to lock into profits, but prices are expected to continue to push upwards into new territory in the days ahead, inching ever closer to $100 per barrel as speculators continue to drive the market.

The Times reports that crude oil futures briefly passed $90 a barrel - rising as high as $90.07 - twice in electronic trading overnight, despite a growing consensus among analysts that the oil's underlying supply and demand fundamentals do not support such high prices.

"This market has been hijacked by speculators," wrote Stephen Schork, a trader and analyst in Villanova, Pa., in a research note.

According to the Times:

Crude prices have jumped 28 percent since late August. The advance appears to be trickling down to consumers in the form of higher gas prices, and may result in higher heating prices this winter.

Prices at the pump have risen 5.3 cents over the past four days, averaging $2.81 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Meanwhile, heating oil costs are expected to jump more than 20 percent this winter.

After last night's run-up in price, light, sweet crude for November delivery fell 87 cents to settle at $88.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the Times reports.

Overall, oil futures rose $4.91 this week, or 6 percent in a single week. Oil prices have risen from around $25 per barrel since 2002 to well over $80 per barrel in the past five years.

Despite venturing into record territory this year in nominal terms, the price of oil is still below inflation-adjusted highs hit in early 1980. Depending on the adjustment, a $38 barrel of oil in 1980 would be worth $96 to $101 or more today, the Times reports.

Rep. Ed Markey vs. Toyota On New Fuel Economy Standards

The supposedly "green" automaker, Toyota, is fighting tougher fuel economy legislation that would save American consumers billions of dollars and put a major dent in the United States' oil addiction.

Some of you may have missed the buzz kicked up recently by a nationwide campaign to put the heat on Toyota for lobbying against tougher fuel economy standards. The campaign, coordinated by NRDC , the National Environmental Trust, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others is focused on calling out the fact that Toyota, maker of the 46-mpg hybrid Prius, is joining with the Big Three Detroit automakers to lobby hard against a proposed increase in fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2020.

The Senate passed an energy bill including a 35 mpg by 2020 standard and the House is currently considering similar legislation (in the form of the Markey-Platts bill). Toyota, who often touts their fuel-efficient hybrid Pruis, Camry and Highlander models and markets itself as a "green" car company, is lobbying hard against the 35 mpg by 2020 standard and supporting the significantly more industry-friendly Hill-Terry bill (HR 2927) as part of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which also includes General Motors, Ford and Chrysler).

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman helped spread the word about Toyota and Detroit's shenanigans in a column last week and media and grassroots events across the country continue to put pressure on Toyota for fighting increased fuel economy standards.

In response to the pressure, Toyota issued this statement:

There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on research and development but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

Toyota has long supported an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We are continuously striving to improve our fuel economy, regardless of federal mandates. [emphasis added]

Representative Edward Markey, chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and sponsor of the House 35x2020 proposal has personally challenged Toyota's claims that meeting the 35 mpg by 2020 fuel economy standards in the Senate Energy Bill would be "impossible."

In a press release last week, Rep. Markey said:

Toyota, intent on keeping its image as a “green” company, has responded to calls of fuel economy obstructionism by telling their customers that higher fuel economy standards being considered in an energy bill before Congress are “impossible.” Yet a thorough analysis of international fuel economy standards clearly shows that Toyota is already meeting—and exceeding—the 35 mile per gallon standard in the energy bill. In Japan.

“Apparently the only thing that separates Toyota from the ‘impossible dream’ of 35 miles per gallon here in the U.S., is a flight across the Pacific Ocean,” said Chairman Edward J. Markey of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “The International Date Line is an invisible barrier for fuel efficiency that Toyota is unwilling to cross.”

Toyota claims that Japan does not have mandatory fleet standards comparable to the United States. This is not true. In Japan, the government first imposed weight-based fuel economy standards in 1999 and revised them in 2006 “because the majority of vehicles sold in Japan in 2002 already met or exceeded the 2010 standards,” according to a July 2007 report by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). The same report says Japan’s fuel economy is currently at 41 mpg, and will have a fleetwide fuel economy of about 47 mpg in 2015 – 5 years before the 35 mile per gallon energy bill requirement is due to be met in the United States. A chart from the report on fuel economy levels around the world is included below (click to enlarge).

The graphic also reveals the lie in GM, Ford and Chrysler's assertions that building vehicle efficient enough to meet the 35 mpg standard is impossible. All three companies already sell thousands of vehicles every year in Canada, Australia and China where fuel economy standards far exceed those in the U.S. and all three operate in Europe where standards are already higher than the 35 mpg standard the automakers are fighting so hard.

So why are Toyota and Detroit fighting so hard against standards that will require them to achieve average fuel economy levels 13 years from now that they are already achieving today in Europe and Japan and will and will need to meet in just a few years in China, Australia and Canada?

Why do these automakers insist on blocking the biggest step towards energy independence and increased energy security Congress has taken in decades?

If you want to tell Toyota it's time to do as their slogan says, and truly get "moving forward," head over to the NRDC's site here.

And click here to tell your representatives that you want to see the strongest elements of both the House and Senate energy packages make it into the final energy bill and onto the President's desk!

[A hat tip to Hill Heat's the Cunctator]

$100-a-Barrel Oil, Here We Come! Oil Prices Keep on Soaring

New York oil future costs soared passed $82/barrel yesterday and Goldman Sachs analysts predict $95/barrel oil by the end of 2008

[From Dawn.com:]

LONDON, Sept 19: New York oil prices surged to a record high $82.51 per barrel on Wednesday following news that American crude reserves tumbled last week.

New York’s main futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in October, hit the historic peak after publication of the US Department of Energy (DoE) weekly report.

In London, the price of Brent North Sea crude for November delivery jumped to $78.49 per barrel — which was not far off its all-time high of $78.64 that was struck in August 2006.

The DoE said on Wednesday that US crude inventories plunged by 3.8 million barrels to 318.8 million barrels in the week ending September 14.

That marked the tenth successive weekly drop and was almost double analysts’ consensus forecasts for a fall of about 2.0 million barrels.

Prices were “led by the US crude inventories,” said AG Edwards analyst Eric Wittenauer.

American gasoline or petrol stockpiles rose by 400,000 barrels last week, the DoE added, confounding market expectations for a drop of 1.0 million.

Distillates, which include diesel and heating fuel, advanced by 1.5 million barrels, which tallied with forecasts for a 1.23-million-barrel gain.

In later deals, New York crude pulled back to stand at $81.51, unchanged from the close on Tuesday. London Brent meanwhile stood 12 cents higher at $77.71 per barrel.

In recent days, oil prices in New York have streaked to record highs on concerns about tight global supplies and rising demand.

Traders are fearful of a supply crunch in the fourth quarter of 2007 as heating fuel demand hits a peak during the cold northern hemisphere winter months.

New York crude had surged past $82 per barrel on Tuesday after the US Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to boost the flagging United States economy — which is the biggest global market for crude oil.

For some time, oil market traders have been concerned that an economic slowdown in the US would dampen crude demand and lead to lower prices.

“Crude oil prices... rose in the wake of the Fed’s decision to cut rates by 50 basis points,” Australia’s Commonwealth Bank said in a market commentary.

“The rate cut is seen as reducing the risk of a severe slowing of the US economy which may also have impacted on oil demand.”

Analysts at US investment bank Goldman Sachs have said oil could soar as high as $90 a barrel between now and the end of the year and could reach $95 by the end of 2008.

Industry analysts argue that a recent Opec decision to boost output by 500,000 barrels a day was insufficient and came too late to meet rising winter-related demand.