Murphy on oil
I imagine most of us in Cheshire got this flyer this week:
Aside from the always upsetting "this mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense" disclaimer, I did find the letter interesting. It mentioned that he'll be holding some "town hall meetings" around the district. That's a good thing.
But my concern is what I highlighted in blue and circled. The very first question reads "How important do you believe it is for Congress to focus on ending America's dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy?"
That's a bit of a misleading question. Thing is, I've seen several different, expert sources assert that, based on current technology, America could not offset more than 10% of our oil consumption with homegrown biocrops.
Of course, the key words are "current technology." However, if we can achieve the improvements in technology and make our use of biocrops more efficient, then Congressman Murphy's question might be fair. But until science achieves those efficiencies, that question is a bit misleading... although, I'm sure it was unintended.
Nonetheless, I think most of our elected officials (myself included) could probably use a good full day crash course in transportation energy. At that point, officials would recognize that questions like this are, at best, predicated on hypothetical technological advances.
However, we live in the real world, not a hypothetical world.
And what is the "real world?" Well, a good place to start in understanding my view is the Energy Security Leadership Council's recommendations to America on reducing consumption of foreign oil. In their fairly extensive report, they give real guidance on what America could do today and over the next 25 years. And while their recommendations include an increased use of biofuels, it also includes increased domestic drilling/production... and it still estimates that 30-50% of our oil consumption will be from foreign sources!
In the meantime, I hope all of our elected officials will begin to acknowledge that alternative fuels are not a "cure all" by any means. Rather, they ought to be considered a component of a comprehensive energy plan... a plan which will probably not come to fruition without the American people on board... and to get the American people on board, we need to have an educated, frank discussion... a discussion which can include (fully disclosed) hypotheticals," but not be predicated on (undisclosed) hypotheticals.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
5 comments:
"alternative fuels are not a "cure all" by any means. Rather, they ought to be considered a component of a comprehensive energy plan..."
Well said. There are tremendous opportunities for efficiency improvements for power generation and transportation. Boosting our national fuel economy standards by 5mpg (like just about every other industrialized nation) would immediately lead to a 33% reduction in transportation fuels.
"It is cheaper to save electricity than to make it" -Amory B Lovins
Another approach to reduce energy consumption is to induce people to use alternative modes of transportation. In particular, getting people to walk or bike when making short trips around town would reduce both energy consumption and carbon emissions and promote a healthier lifestyle. Of course, many Cheshire residents currently live considerable distances from the retail services in town, and many roads are uninviting if not dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. A development that brings residential and retail closer would facilitate walking and cycling, and although it would initially affect a small number of residents, it would serve as a positive model (as Canton does now) and encourage other communities and developers to consider mixing retail and residential.
Another huge consumer of energy to think about is the food industry. Estimates are that 10% of the total energy used by the US goes into producing food. Most of the energy is used to make fertilizer (natural gas) for crops, to processes and package food and to transport food. Food production is also highly inefficient as 7 to 10 calories of energy are required to produce one calorie of food. To learn more, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma", or you can find more details and potential solutions here.
If we want alternative fuel we will have to pay more. Of course Murphy complained about the price of gasoline. Maybe we can make like Hugo Chavez and just seize the oil companies.
The oiliest thing here is Murphy and his unctious perpetual campaign
It is a pleasure to see someone else in Cheshire is aware of Amory Lovins. Amory coined the name "negawatts."defined as power that is never generated because of reduced demand. And yes, that is true, it is cheaper to generate negawatts that to generate new power. A good read is "Factor of Four" by Amory.
Post a Comment