$10 a Gallon Gas, or Start Converting Now?

CNN reported today that analysts predict gas could hit $10 a gallon within a couple of years. Other nations are making bold strides to move away from fossil fuels – why does our government take only half-hearted baby steps?

With gas prices setting new records on a weekly basis, CNN reported today what I had previously heard only on blogs: some market analysts are now predicting gas could go as high as $10 a gallon within a couple of years. Ten dollars a gallon.

As shocking as this might sound, we should not be surprised. It was less than a year ago that crude oil was at $70 a barrel, yet this week it hovered around $130, with Goldman Sachs predicting it could soon rise to $150 or $200. And as recently as 2001 you could still buy a gallon of gas for $1, even though the national average is now approaching $4 a gallon.

The basic dynamic behind this dramatic price increase – a shrinking supply which can no longer meet growing demand, a dynamic referred to as “peak oil” – is not going to change. It can only get worse, and prices will only rise.

And it’s not just the price of gas itself that will go up, but the price of everything that uses gas or oil in our economy, which as we note elsewhere on the website is pretty much everything. As author James Howard Kunstler outlined in his recent Post op-ed “Wake Up America. We’re Driving Toward Disaster,” this inescapable dynamic will affect (and is already affecting) everything from the price of food to how we travel, conduct commerce and trade, deliver health care and occupy the land we live on.

Indeed, food prices have already soared in recent months. People are shifting to metropolitan mass transit systems as gas prices keep rising, but these systems are in bad repair and overcrowded. The airline industry is crumbling under the weight of fuel costs, with new fees introduced almost daily. Five small airlines filed for bankruptcy in the past two months.

And all the consequences of peak oil will all be exacerbated by global warming induced climate change, as the U.S. Climate Change Science Program made clear in a report issued yesterday that predicted everything from greater forest fires to increased crop failures. The document concludes that “climate change is already impacting the nation’s ecosystems and services in significant ways, and those alterations are very likely to accelerate in the future, in some cases dramatically.”

So what is our government doing about this? We know the Bush Administration is out to lunch, but why isn’t our Democratic-controlled Congress taking dramatic action to meet this rapidly growing, double-headed crisis?

Other nations invest heavily in renewable energy development. Our government invests a fraction of what it spends each month on the occupation of Iraq. Other nations maintain extensive, effective mass transit systems. Ours are allowed to disintegrate.

Here’s another perfect example of the problem: Israel recently announced support for an initiative to add 100,000 electric cars to their roads by 2010. Meanwhile, our Congress announced with much fanfare six months ago that they were modestly raising fuel efficiency standards for U.S. cars by 40% – by the year 2020.

The lack of an even remotely adequate response by this Congress is a criminal abdication of its responsibility to represent the interests of the people of this country. And however much the Democrats controlling Congress complain about Republican obstructionism, they themselves have yet to even put forth a plan to meet this crisis, let alone demonstrate a willingness to go to the mat fighting for such changes.

Of course, we must change as well. We cannot maintain our current “cheap energy” lifestyle and expect that some new technology or government program will fix everything. We must change how we live, not only to meet the extreme challenges of climate change and peak oil, but to compel our government to take serious action itself. If we don’t move, then our government won’t either.

Our Congress desperately needs members who will present serious plans to combat global warming and convert to a clean energy economy; members who are not beholden to the oil, coal and auto industries and who are free to fight for the bold policy changes we need to enact now.

That’s what this campaign is about – please join us now.

More Bad News on Biofuels (and tips on saving gas)

The push for so-called “second-generation” biofuels, those made out of non-food crops, once again ignores a huge problem: many of the plants under consideration are invasive species that can wreak havoc on the environment. How many more terrible ideas do we we have to go through before we invest in renewable energy electric vehicles and mass transit?

We have written previously on the multiple disastrous effects of food-based biofuels such as corn ethanol, a subject we will revisit again and again until Congress stops funding them.  Biofuel crops such as corn ethanol are driving up the price of food in the U.S., creating greater hunger around the world, polluting the Chesapeake Bay and other vital watersheds, and accelerating global warming by promoting deforestation.

Using non-food crops for biofuels might seem to be an alternative, but upon closer inspection even these often turn out to be a very bad idea, for a host of other reasons.

A recent article in the New York Times explains how many second-generation biofuel crops are invasive alien species that can overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create “economic and ecological havoc.”  As one expert notes, “we’ve had 100 years of experience with introductions of these crops that turned out to be disastrous for environment, people, health.”

One particular example is the giant reed, a fast-growing, thirsty plant that has drained wetlands in other places where it has been planted.  So why in the world would one create plantations of such a dangerous species right next to the already-threatened Florida Everglades, as is currently planned?  And to make matters worse, the giant reed is highly flammable and a major fire risk.  More fires are the last thing we need as we struggle to arrest global warming.

This does not mean that some second generation biofuels might not be appropriate, grown in specific places and under specific conditions.  But the corporations looking to make a profit and the governments that do their bidding, including our own, seem to have no interest in doing the necessary study or taking any precautions, and are racing ahead with dangerous and often counterproductive plans.  And have you noticed how biofeuls have done nothing to reduce the price of gas, or even hold it steady?

In addition, the rush to biofuels ignores even more fundamental realities.  One is that even converting huge amounts of agricultural production to biofuels can only satisfy a small fraction of our current oil and gas addiction.  The U.S. leads the world in soybean and corn production, but even if 100% of both of these crops were turned into ethanol, it would still only provide about 20% of the fuel currently used by U.S. drivers each year.

The second and overriding reality is that as the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in our atmosphere move closer and closer to a catastrophic tipping point – with some scientists worried we are near or at that point already – what we need to do is to drammatically decrease and eliminate burning fuels – not simply exchange one sort of flammable fuel for another.  That is why the appropriate answer to the crisis of global warming, not to mention the ever-rising price of gas, is a giant federal investment in mass transit and renewable energy electric cars.  And that’s precisely what this campaign is fighting for.

In the meantime, we also need to take every possible step to reduce our own consumption of fossil fuel.  And when walking, bicycling, and mass transit are not possible and you must use your car (and we do mean must!), here, just in time for the Memorial Day weekend, are a few tips on how to use less gas while you’re driving.

Area Drought Ends – With a Flood

Tuesday’s front page headline in the Washington Post – “Deluge Washes Away Area’s Drought” – neatly summarized the climate chaos that we are creating through global warming. Without strong, even radical government action, such weather events, and the devastation they cause, will only get worse.

As noted in the Post article, the 11 month drought ended, “but local officials soon found themselves facing the opposite problem” – widespread flooding that shut down schools and government buildings, caused significant property damage, threatened lives, and left tens of thousands without power.

As should be readily apparent, while the drought may now be “officially” over, months of little or no rain followed by a few weeks of intense downpours is not an optimal precipitation pattern – but that is exactly the type of chaotic weather extremes that global warming creates.  And while everything looks very green right now in our area, it is more likely than not that the same severly dry conditions will be upon us again this summer – with the same results to our vegetation, and farmers’ crops, that we saw last summer.

This past week also featured the freakishly strong winds, including a possible tornado in Calvert County, that are associated with our increasingly violent weather.  The same system that gave us all this rain and wind spawned tornados that killed at least 22 in the mid-west. 

Regrettably, the rain did not do nearly as much for the Southeast, which continues to be in the grip of a severe, prolonged drought.  (Water rationing has become a way of life in Atlanta and other cities and towns in the region.)  And just as bad, this spring’s heavier-than-usual flooding in the mid-west has led to predictions that the year’s corn crop will be at least 5-10% lower that last year.  Add on to this the fact that 25% of the crop is being diverted to make economically and environmentally disastrous corn ethanol, and it’s virtually a guarantee that our food prices will continue to rise through the coming year.

The leading edge of deadly climate change is all around us, in the weather we see and experience every day, yet our Congress seems oblivious, and promotes policies that do little to address the root cause of global warming, and in some cases actually make the situation worse.

It is time for leadership that understands the climate crisis we are facing and is prepared to do something about it.  Join the Clark for Congress campaign, and help us make the difference.

Congress to actually INCREASE funding for the Iraq war

Once again, the Democrats controlling Congress plan to express their staunch opposition to the Iraq war by continuing to fund it.  In fact, this time they are providing even more money than President Bush requested.  With opposition like this in Congress, who needs war supporters?

The bill currently under discussion in Congress, and which could be voted on as early as this coming week, includes not only the $108 billion that Mr. Bush requested, but an additional, unrequested $65-70 billion to continue funding the Iraq occupation well into 2009.  Plans such as these, cooked up by the Democratic Party leadership (which includes our own Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) have led many in our nation to question if the Democrats really oppose our military intervention Iraq, or if they’re just saying what their constituents want to hear.

War is one of those “either you’re fer it or agin it” type situations.  If it is truly just, you go all out and make any sacrifice to win it.  If it’s wrong, you go all out and make any sacrifice to stop it.  So what do we make of a Democratic majority in Congress that goes out of its way to regularly express its opposition to the Iraq occupation, yet in vote after vote over two years, continues to fund it?

Their strategy this time is pure Machiavelli.  Get the ugly stuff out of the way early, and hopefully people will forget it later.  By approving the extra, unrequested money now, the Democrats are hoping to avoid any embarrassing Iraq votes in the fall, right before the election, votes that might remind the public how weak (or complicit) they are.  And by including a healthy cushion of funding for 2009, they protect the next President from having to make any real, near term changes in our Iraq policy. 

And then, of course, they blame it all on the Republicans.  

[Interestingly, even some members of the anti-war community support this myth.  Nita Chaudhary, a top official at MoveOn.org, told Politico this week that “Voters need to know Democrats are fighting for an end to this war.”  And yet only two days later I received an email alert from the very same Nita Chaudhary, urging me to call Rep. Van Hollen “right now” to oppose the Democrats’ proposed bill, and to tell him that voters are “tired of dumping billions into the unwinnable war in Iraq.”  So which is it?]

Let’s be clear: the Democratic argument that they can’t stop the war because they don’t have the Republican votes to override Bush’s vetoes  – an argument Rep. Van Hollen makes regularly – is utterly false.  What they conveniently leave out is that, as the majority party, they control Congress.  They decide what comes up for a vote and what doesn’t.  They don’t have to pass withdrawal legislation that Bush can then veto.  They can simply insure that the only Iraq bills that come up for a vote are ones to fund the withdrawal of troops and end the occupation.  That’s what a majority can do, and what many of us thought we were getting when we elected a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006.  It’s also known as the power of the purse, an actual power of Congress written into the Constitution as a major check on Executive power, for situations just like this.  

But the Democrats aren’t willing to use their legitimate power to end the war.  Why?  How many more soldiers and innocent civilians – men, women and children among them – will die during the coming year that Congress is extending this war?  Who will pay for the extra $170 billion they are throwing at it?  Apparently, if it’s not their kids dying and not their money being spent, Congress doesn’t seem too worried about these vexing issues.

In the fall of 2006, sixteen (16) federal intelligence agencies reached the unanimous conclusion that the Iraq war and subsequent occupation had increased the terrorist threat.  Not decreased the terrorist threat, or even held it steady, but increased it.  So continued funding of the moral and foreign policy disaster in Iraq is, in the most real of all ways, a vote for increasing the terrorist threat against our country.

And the price tag for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is now closing in on $1 trillion, with another $1.5 – 2 trillion in incurred (to be paid later) costs.  Yet we are told our government has little if any money to invest in renewable energy development, to create the green, sustainable economy we desperately need to fight global warming and to escape the perpetually rising cost of oil and gas.

Perhaps it is time to elect members of Congress who will tell us the truth, and who will fight for what we need, as opposed to acquiesce to what we don’t want.

Corn Ethanol – The World’s Deadliest Fuel

Media focus the past few weeks on the global food crisis has brought new light onto Congress’ program of subsidizing food-based biofuels. If you want a program that increases hunger and food prices across the board, all while accelerating the crisis of global warming, then say hello to corn ethanol.

Our campaign believes strongly in supporting our nation’s farmers, but doing it through the artifice of corn ethanol production, which is known to be accelerating the process of global warming, is beyond absurd.  How many bushels of corn can farmers grow on land devastated by drought or flood – the increasingly frequent weather patterns in large parts of our country, including Maryland and Virginia, thanks to climate change?

The mainstream media’s belated focus on the erupting global food crisis has now also made it clear how corn ethanol production contributes significantly to rising food prices and increased hunger here in the United States.  With a full quarter of all U.S. grown corn now funneled into ethanol production – a process that Congress subsidizes with billions of taxpayer dollars – the price of corn has escalated dramatically, as has the price of all other foods that require corn, from eggs to poultry to cereal to the countless food items that contain corn syrup or corn starch.

At the same time, the rising price of U.S. corn has forced other countries to import cheaper sorghum to feed their livestock.  This, in turn, has raised the price of sorghum, a grain widely used by the world’s poorest people.  According to the World Bank, the grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank with ethanol could feed one person for a year.  

When I was growing up, my parents would chide my brother and I whenever we didn’t finish our meals, saying that there were starving children in India and Asia who would love to have what we have.  Now we can apparently remind ourselves of this when we fill up our gas tanks as well.

We talked about the disastrous nature of food-based biofuels a month ago (“The Democrat-Controlled Congress: Making the Environment – and Global Warming – Worse.”)  But with all the new focus on global hunger and food scarcity, a quick reminder is in order.  Corn ethanol is a U.S. government program that is doing the following:

a) driving up the price of basic foods we all eat
b) creating greater hunger in a world already short on food
c) polluting our waterways with millions of gallons of extra fertilizer runoff (including the already threatened  Chesapeake Bay); and
d) exacerbating the crisis of global warming, since carbon-storing forests are being cut down to grow crops for biofuels – or to grow food to replace other crops now being used for fuel.  

And all of this while:

e) the price of gas just keeps going up and up.

Even by the standards of the U.S. Congress, this has got to be the most boneheaded, counterproductive and downright destructive program ever.  So why in the world are Rep. Van Hollen and the Democratic Party he helps lead dramatically increasing support for corn ethanol production, and mandating that it be added to our gas?  What will it take before these people gets serious about the crisis of climate change, developing a sustainable national energy policy, and supporting our farmers to grow food?

Because if you care about preventing high food prices and increased hunger, or cleaning the environment, or saving the planet from the catastrophic effects of global warming, one thing is crystal clear: the growing of food for fuel must end.  And no politician who claims to be serious about these issues can possibly suggest otherwise.