Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
Nothing says I care about environmental health more than another big oil and gas rig planted serenely in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. What beauty, you might be thinking! What elegance! Look as the infrastructure corrodes and this giant's legs rust and grow barnacles with each passing week. What visual splendor!
Of course, think of the view those marine animals must have. Aren't you jealous? I'd imagine the feeling is akin to having an individual Eiffel Tower being placed over my home. Wouldn't you be thrilled? Think of the economic benefits, after all!
The first two paragraphs were satirical. But what many of us turn a blind eye to everyday is no laughing matter. Senators Webb and Warner have not assured Virginians that safety issues aboard oil and gas rigs have been appropriately addressed (when that unimportant little incident in the Gulf of Mexico is even mentioned these days), and yet the gallant efforts for more oil and gas in the Atlantic continues.
I won't purport to be an expert on rig safety just as I won't allow myself to be played for a political foul. Safety measures cost time and money, in some cases, a lot of time and money. And we all know how the game of capitalism has worked in the U.S.: make profits and then make some more, even if it means cutting necessary safety corners.
Maybe Virginians like to drill holes in the ground, period. Not only do Virginia's political "leaders" want to drill holes in the Atlantic, they want to drill holes in southern Virginia. And I'm not even mentioning the preexisting holes that have been drilled in Virginia's soil.
So what, you might gab back? In the case of the Atlantic Ocean in particular, drilling holes stands to create a complex host of effects for marine animals living in the area, effects that are still unknown to many scientists and policy "experts." What's the value of disrupting and possible eliminating any number of marine species? Of course, this outcome may or may not happen, but are we really willing to chance it for questionable amounts of oil and gas resources?
Between Senator Webb's history writing adventures and Senator Warner's grand visions of becoming president, Virginia seems to have lost its progressive leadership. Maybe it was never truly there to begin with. Or maybe our politicians have themselves been worn down by the political process. Any way you spin the bottle, the results may be the same: a grim future for Virginia's environmental integrity and ecosystem sustainability.
Virginia's waters might be safe for a little while longer after the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee failed to reach a revenue sharing agreement on Thursday.
Although the legislation could still push through the Senate committee at a later date, for now its fate is up in the open.
The bill to open Virginia's waters to oil and gas exploration was introduced by Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb. Each proposed a 37.5% share of the revenues obtained from oil and gas exploration for states that allow energy production in federal waters off their coasts. The bill would also grant Virginia an additional 12.5% for federal projects.
Following the committee impasse, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska noted optimistically that the committee would come to an agreement on revenue sharing and push forward the legislation.
But while our exceedingly wise politicians count only the dollar signs behind this legislation, there is much more at stake than the almighty dollar.
Oil spill after oil spill, and gas leak after gas leak, has shown that these forms of fossil fuel extraction are prone to devastating environmental consequences.
Maybe most important of all are the living organisms that are killed off or badly affected. While we may not see these creatures in our everyday lives, they are what gives life extra meaning. They are an intangible good whose worth is inevitably difficult to pin down. When we lose them, we lose a lot more than what meets the eye and a lot more than what money can compensate for.
Who needs Sarah Palin when Virginia has its very own proponents of "Drill, baby, drill" in the form of Jim Webb and Mark Warner? Notwithstanding the fact that drilling today wouldn't start producing benefits for some time to come, the tendency to concentrate on fossil fuels distracts our political representatives from seeing the bigger picture: renewable forms of energy are the future. The argument often follows, among others, that renewable forms of energy aren't economical enough at present. If we take this claim to be true for the moment, it might well be because government subsidies have gone to environmentally devastating forms of energy like the fossil fuels instead of renewable forms of energy (as if Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Gas needed more money).
I can't think of one form of energy that's in widespread use right now that has not received some form of government subsidy to "get the ball rolling." But the tepid investments in energy sources like wind and solar are simply not enough to bring these renewables to scale in a timely fashion. It is as if there are some special interests who are opposed to the widespread use of renewable forms of energy in America!
Of course, there are such groups in America, groups who would rather poison the American people and exterminate the natural world as we know it (or used to know it) for a profit. But my concern isn't simply that of someone who loves the natural world intrinsically. It is a practical argument that takes into account the harmful economic consequences that environmental devastation has had, is having, and will have in the future for America, a form of devastation that has been fueled (sorry for the pun) by nonrenewable forms of energy.
Still we wait and hope for the best. Maybe our rational and scientific minds will find the magical solution to this dilemma. Maybe the "American spirit" will figure out an ingenious method to pour more poison into our rivers and atmosphere without the environmental and human health repercussions. That might be what Senators Warner and Webb think; otherwise their actions bear little rational justification.
Tim Goodrich is a veteran who deployed to the Middle East in support of the Global War on Terrorism. He currently attends graduate school at the University of Southern California and is a Sierra Club member and Partner at the Truman National Security Project. This article originally appeared on KCET.org.
I just bought a new car and will never need to buy gasoline again. The reason I have been able to happily drive past increasingly expensive gas stations isn't because I haven't been driving the car, it's because the car I bought runs entirely on electricity.
My decision to purchase an electric car was driven by a variety of reasons, but the simplest reason was this: The cost of filling up with gas is just too much. I'm not just writing about the price we're paying at the pump; I am also referring to the cost to our future generations, our national security, and our economy. As a veteran, I have seen the toll these costs take and I am doing what I can to stop contributing to the problem.
At the age of 18, I enlisted in the active duty Air Force and went on to deploy three times to the Middle East, supporting the no fly zones over Iraq, the initial response to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and the pre-war bombing of Iraq. My unit also supported homeland defense operations and after my honorable discharge, I traveled to Baghdad as part of a fact finding delegation.
Through these experiences, I came to see that our foreign policy needs to evolve in order to provide smarter national security here at home. After all, how much sense does it make to spend $400 per gallon getting gas to our service members in remote regions of Afghanistan? How much sense does it make to send money to countries that don't like us, don't share our values, and sometimes find ways to get that money into the hands of terrorist organizations? The Rand Corporation found that US armed forces spend up to $83 billion annually protecting vulnerable infrastructure and patrolling oil transit routes. US Navy Secretary Roy Mabus recently said, "The Army did a study and found that out of every 24 fuel convoys we use [in Afghanistan], a soldier or marine is killed or wounded guarding that convoy. That's a high price to pay for fuel."
For these reasons, our military is currently researching and using alternative energy technologies in the field. If our military as a whole sees the importance of getting off fossil fuels, and the lives of our service members depend on it, I want to support that effort.
A draft management plan released by the George Washington National Forest in Virginia on Wednesday will limit the type of gas and oil drilling that could occur within its 1.1 million acres of territory while opening up segments of the forest to the potential for wind energy construction.
The plan would disallow horizontal drilling, a form of drilling typically using hydraulic fracking to reach deposits of natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing has become more and more controversial as increasing evidence has mounted against its unsafe use.
Half of the George Washington National Forest sits on top of the Marcellus shale natural gas formation, a natural gas deposit that ranges from the state of New York to the Virginias.
Fortunately, there is no drilling being undertake at the moment in the national forest, located in Virginia and West Virginia.
Wind energy would itself only be considered for development in areas not deemed "sensitive," according to the draft management plan.
The insistence by many to "drill, baby drill," is as obviously compulsive as it is dangerous to human beings and the surrounding ecosystems, which is why the national forest's draft management plan comes as such a great relief.
Until hydraulic fracking in particular can be done in a safe way, there is no sensible reason why it should continue.
The ultimate goal is an energy independent future for the U.S., but the U.S. will not have a future if it continues to search and rely upon nonrenewable sources of energy, the extraction of which does much more harm than good.
Gov. McDonnell may finally be granted his wish to open waters off Virginia to oil and gas exploration as the U.S House remains on schedule to vote on a bill that could do just that.
The Republican majority U.S. House has set out to undo President Obama's decision to halt plans to allow gas and oil exploration in U.S. waters off the East Coast.
Gas and oil exploration in the waters off Virginia are part of Gov. McDonnell's "vision" to establish an energy capital in Virginia.
However, this goal might be little more than the usual political bluster. At present, Virginia imports most of its energy and therefore even if oil and natural gas are found in waters off Virginia, it's not clear how much this would benefit McDonnell's "vision."
As the Virginia Director of the Sierra Club, Glen Besa, noted, the U.S. should be investing in public transportation and more fuel efficient, alternatively fueled, vehicles instead of gas and oil exploration.
Here again, though, McDonnell is putting the interests of his campaign and Party contributors ahead of all other Virginians.
Oil and gas exploration has proven time and again to be an unsafe enterprise, one whose uncertainties were catastrophically demonstrated during the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We shouldn't have to learn the same devastating lessons twice.
Clean and renewable energy is the future, but it has to start with a genuine effort in that direction today.
Shhh... Do you hear that? The silence is deafening. It's the sound of the mainstream media covering the one year anniversary of the BP oil disaster.
One year ago today, the largest oil spill in American history took place in the Gulf of Mexico. For four months, the nation's attention was focused on a geyser of oil coming up from the ocean floor. Then one day the oil stopped flowing and the well was capped.
I had the good fortune to meet some fantastic people during the BP oil spill. Working with Sierra Club and Environment America we flew up three victims from the Gulf Coast to tell their story to folks in Virginia. They were here the day the oil stopped flowing.
Chris Seaman, who owns a chain of restaurants along the Gulf Coast of Florida was in my car when the well was capped. He turned to me and told me how happy and worried he was at the same time.
He was happy because the oil had stopped flowing and the American public would come back to his beaches again. He was worried because he knew the media crews were leaving, and along with them the commitment to restoring the Gulf Coast that had just began to take hold across the country.
The worries that Chris had that day were well-founded. The media stopped covering the BP oil tragedy, most folks assumed the oil disappeared and politics as usual returned to Washington, DC. In the year that has passed since this unspeakable tragedy occurred off the Louisiana coast, the United States has not taken meaningful action to break our addiction to oil.
This post comes from Gina Coplon-Newfield, Sierra Club Senior Campaign Representative for Electric Vehicles
For electric vehicle (EV) advocates, there is nothing more appealing than opportunities to charge EVs on completely emissions-free solar power. There are challenges associated with wide-spread adoption of solar-powered EVs, but exciting solutions and innovations are beginning to emerge -- for both individuals and institutions. Recently, I had the chance to talk with Christof Demont-Heinrich, the creator and editor of SolarChargedDriving.com. He said that before the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf came on the market last December, it was estimated that about 50 percent of EV drivers also had solar panels on their roofs, and that at least 1,000 people are currently charging their EVs with solar.
Demont-Heinrich said that about 1.5-3 kilowatts of solar power are needed to charge an EV. Additionally, one would need about 5-7 kilowatts for the electricity needs of the house, with a total of 7-10 kilowatts for home + EV. If someone already has five kilowatts of solar power generation on his or her roof and wants to add more to accommodate the EV charging, Demont-Heinrich said that the ease or difficulty of that project would depend on whether one had installed a solar inverter that can handle another "string" of solar panels. He said that micro inverter systems may be one type of system well-equipped for this type of upgrade.
Most people, even those with solar panels on their roofs, draw from the electricity grid, and that grid is not always reliant on one's solar panels -- particularly at night or on cloudy days. And night-time is when most EV advocates want to encourage people to charge their EVs -- when there is less strain on the grid and when there are greater opportunities to rely on wind power. This is no reason to give up on the idea of solar-powered driving, said Demont-Heinrich. He argues that with solar panels, you're doing a significant amount of EV charging off the sun, and you're cleaning up the grid overall when your excess solar power feeds back into the grid.
Debate continues to rage on in Washington, DC about how to answer rising gas prices, and at today's press conference President Obama addressed the issue.
The president nails it when he talks about the need to move away from oil, but his interest in expanding domestic drilling only serves as an impediment in moving America off of oil. All of our energy should be spent developing alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels.
Read on for Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune's response to President Obama:
As one might expect the debate over what to do about high gasoline prices is raging on in Congress and among the media. This morning Congressman Randy Forbes sent out an online survey to constituents asking them to share their opinion on how America should achieve energy independence. Unfortunately, Congressman Forbes sent a slanted survey clearly favoring his fossil fuel agenda, and does not even have a form for constituents to actually share their opinions with him.
Here's the text of Forbes' survey:
With prices at the pump spiking to a national average of $3.51 a gallon, where should the United States focus its efforts to reach energy independence?
a) Explore renewable sources energy like wind, solar, and geothermal power.
b) Increase domestic oil drilling.
c) Engage in an "all of the above" approach that combines alternative sources of energy with traditional sources like oil and natural gas.
d) Impose "cap and trade" style restrictions that rely on taxing companies' carbon emissions.
e) I am unsure.
Via Lowell's Blue Virginia, the Roanoke Times editorial board blasts presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell's "1950s" energy plan:
McDonnell needs to realize that if Virginia wants to become the energy capital of America, the commonwealth must look to the future of renewable energy. The state simply doesn't have huge reserves of fossil fuels.
Take coal, for example. The National Mining Association estimates that Virginia has about 770 million tons of recoverable coal. Compare that to the 17.6 billion tons in West Virginia, or the 75 billion tons in Wyoming.
Oil is perhaps worse. In an online chart of proven reserves published by the U.S. Department of Energy, Virginia doesn't even merit an entry. Even if the most optimistic estimates of offshore reserves prove accurate, Virginia would be a minor player.
Check out the coal and oil reserve maps at ShowUSA. Even states like Iowa and Alabama have better shot at being the "coal capital" than Virginia. And forget about oil -- Virginia vanishes from the top 25 altogether.
Now look at the renewable energy map. The first thing you notice is that renewable resources are much more equitably spread among the states than fossil fuel deposits. The next thing is that while Virginia ranks 18th on the list, it's not a distant 18th -- and as a tech leader, Virginia is in much better position to take full advantage of the resources we have than other states ahead of us on the list. And if we do take advantage of Virginia's clean energy resources, we can create jobs, lower consumers' energy bills and preserve our planet.
The diary below is reprinted from an RK piece I did on May 27, 2008. I believe it's relevant once again, given that Bob McDonnell is saying stuff like this:
According to one estimate, there are 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off Virginia's coast. A study by a professor at Old Dominion University, forecasts that natural gas production alone off Virginia's coast would create 2,578 new jobs, and produce $271 million in state and local revenue. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates said no to Virginia jobs and yes to the special interests.
By the way, I've been searching around for this "study" and still haven't found it. If anyone has any ideas, please email me at lowell@raisingkaine.com - thanks!
*********************************
There's a lot of misinformation out there about how much oil and gas might be off our coastline, and how much of a difference this might make in terms of our energy supplies, prices, etc. Based on 17 years of working at the Energy Department, my understanding all along has been that there's not a great deal of oil and natural gas off the U.S. east coast, let alone off Virginia's coast, certainly not by world standards and certainly not sufficient to make much of a difference in the big picture.
Still, I wanted to be sure, so I checked with one of the top oil and gas experts at the US Energy Information Administration. Here's the response (bolding added by me for emphasis):
A total of ten oil and gas lease sales were held in the Atlantic in 1976 and 1983. Forty-seven exploratory wells were drilled. Five of these wells drilled offshore New Jersey discovered hydrocarbons in non-commercial quantity and were abandoned.
In its most recent assessment (1995) the United States Geological Survey assigned no undiscovered technically recoverable oil or gas resources to State-jurisdiction waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
In a July 2006 addendum to its 2006 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) assessment, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) assigned mean undiscovered technically recoverable resources of 1.5 billion barrels of oil and 15.13 trillion cubic feet of gas to the MMS Mid-Atlantic Planning Area (located off Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina) portion of the Atlantic OCS.
There are large gas hydrate deposits along the continental slope and rise offshore of Virginia but it will be quite a while before any of it becomes technically, much less economically, producible -- if ever. Its not included in the estimates above.
Just to reiterate: "the United States Geological Survey assigned no undiscovered technically recoverable oil or gas resources to State-jurisdiction waters of the Atlantic Ocean."
With regard to the MMS' "1.5 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and 15.13 trillion cubic feet of gas" in the mid-Atlantic region, that potentially, hypothetically represents about 7% of proven U.S. oil reserves and about 5% of proven U.S. natural gas reserves. However, note that the MMS figures are not "proven," but the much sketchier category of "assigned mean undiscovered technically recoverable resources." In plain English, we don't know for sure if that oil and gas is out there and we don't know if it's economically worth recovering. Probably not.
One other point: total U.S. oil and natural gas reserves make up only a tiny percentage of world oil (under 2%) and natural gas (3%) reserves. The undiscovered oil and natural gas off Virginia's coast constitutes a small-to-tiny percentage of a small percentage (U.S. reserves) of total world oil and gas reserves. And, so far, there's been almost no success in finding oil and gas off the east coast. In other words, this discussion is barely worth having; the bottom line is that oil and natural gas reserves off Virginia's coast are almost certainly not significant from an economic or national security point of view.
At first glance, this would appear to be encouraging news.
Confronted with a sharp change of priorities in Washington, international oil executives are expressing an eagerness to work with President Obama to fashion new policies to tackle global warming.
At an industry conference here this week, the executives struck a conciliatory tone on how to limit the emissions that are contributing to climate change, with many of them sounding like budding conservationists as they stressed energy efficiency and the need to develop renewable fuels.
Believe it or not, one of ExxonMobil's top executives is even backing a carbon tax, "while criticizing a so-called cap-and-trade approach." And Dan Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates says that the oil companies "are not arguing about basic philosophy anymore, but about practical steps."
It all sounds good, so why aren't I getting too excited? Mainly, because looking at these companies behavior - including funding global warming deniers - I don't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em. In addition, I worry that the involvement of oil companies in fashioning measures to tackle global warming will simply water them down until they're worthless, sort of like Virginia House Republicans just did to the smoking ban. Still, I admit to a bit of optimism that Big Oil might really be seeing the political writing on the wall. Should I be optimistic, or is Big Oil simply putting out public relations talking points here? What do you think?
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, Sen. Deeds' Blue Commonwealth interview is particularly disappointing. Here are the relevant excerpts with my comments.
Blue Commonwealth: One of the more vexing environmental problems is obviously coal.
Creigh Deeds: Right.
Good, Sen. Deeds admits that coal is a "vexing" environmental problem. That's a start. Let's see where he goes with this.
Blue Commonwealth: And what makes it vexing is you have on the one hand the environmental impact of coal and the fact that for some communities in our state it's an economic lifeline. How do you balance that, not just looking at policy for this year or next, but when you look out 10 years from now, or 15 years from now, what would you like to see?
This is a question, not Creigh Deeds' answer, but I would sure hope that Sen. Deeds would disagree with the assertion that coal constitutes an "economic lifeline." For an alternative view, how about we ask Jim Webb what he thinks about this (from his book, "Born Fighting").
The people from the outside showed up [in Appalachian coal country] with complicated contracts...asking for "rights" to mineral deposits they could not see, and soon they were treated to a sundering of their own earth as the mining companies ripped apart their way of life, so that after a time the only option was to go down into the hole and bring the Man his coal, or starve. The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. They got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land...Coal made this part of Appalachia a poverty-stricken basket case while the rest of the mountain region remained mired in isolation.
Yeah, that's some "economic lifeline" there. For "the Man," that is. Also, as we've pointed out here previously, coal represents only 6% of jobs in Southwestern Virginia, let alone in the Commonwealth as a whole, where it constitutes a much, much smaller percentage (99.95% of Virginians are NOT employed by coal mining). In other words, so much for that theory. Now, back to the Deeds interview.
Creigh Deeds: The other vexing point is this. More than 50% of the electric power we have in this country comes from coal.
What I'd like to see in the future is alternative sources of energy developed. I also want to make sure - you know, some people say there's no such thing as clean coal. Well, perhaps there isn't.
Huh? First, Sen. Deeds doesn't correct the "economic lifeline" assertion. He then appears completely confused on the issue of "clean coal." There is such a thing, there isn't such a thing, who knows. Coal's a problem, we need to develop alternatives, or not. Maybe there's "clean coal." Etc., etc. With all due respect, does anyone have any idea what Creigh Deeds is getting at here? I'm lost. And does anyone who knows anything about energy believe that large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (necessary for any hope at "clean coal") will be technologically and economically feasible anytime in the next 15-20 years? Nope, didn't think so.
Creigh Deeds: It's clear to me we cannot burn coal in the future as we did in the past and continue to exist as a people, as a planet. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to consider clean coal technologies. And frankly, those people that say you can't do it, I mean, this is the country where an airplane was developed; this is the country that developed both the wartime and the peaceful uses of nuclear power; this is the country that put a man on the Moon. The only barrier to what we can't do is our imagination and the creativity and the genius of the American mind, so I'm not willing to concede that we can't develop clean coal technology. I'm not willing to concede anything.
OK, so we can't "exist as a people, as a planet" with coal, but we're not "willing to concede anything" in terms of using coal? Is your head starting to spin yet, along with the frantic political spin?
Creigh Deeds: I know this. I know we can't exist if we continue to burn coal the way we have. We have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We have to find ways to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. That's why we have to continue to look for ways to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
But the key to our energy future, it seems to me, is that we can't afford to take any tool off the table. We have to consider everything. We have to consider all of our alternatives and let the science govern what works and what doesn't.
Back and forth...can't continue with coal, but must use coal. [image of "The Scream" painting comes to mind] Then, to top it all off, comes my favorite line of all, that we "can't afford to take any tool off the table." In other words, we're back to coal again. But why? I mean, if it's expensive and dirty, economically and environmentally ruinous to the region where it's mined, why can't we take it off the table? Uhhhhhhhhh. [cue sound of crickets chirping]
Blue Commonwealth: I'm kind of embarrassed. I don't know your position on off shore drilling and exploration.
Creigh Deeds: My position is that, like coal, you can't take it off the table. If we can get royalties, if we can do it in a way that protects our environment, if we can do it a way that does not hamper naval or other military operations offshore - military operations are a huge part of our economy in Hampton Roads in Southeast Virginia, if we can do it a way that doesn't affect our fisheries in a negative way, if we can do it in a way that doesn't affect our tourism industry, which is also a huge part of our economy all over Virginia, then by all means we ought to explore off-shore drilling.
Ugh, here we go again with the "can't take it off the table" evasiveness and/or code language. Let's see: we can't take offshore oil drilling off the table, UNLESS of course it harms fisheries, tourism, the military, etc. Which it almost certainly will (the navy, for instance, is dead set against it). Is that clear?
Creigh Deeds: I think I've got the same position as Jim Webb. In fact, I know it's the same position because we've talked about it. I think my position is probably the same as Mark Warner's, and as far as I know if very close to the position of Tim Kaine.
And the relevance, Sen. Deeds, of your position on offshore drilling supposedly being close to other politicians is...what exactly? How about just stating your case, clearly, and let the voters decide what to make of it, without hiding behind all these popular politicians?
Blue Commonwealth: So, it's fair to say that if off-shore drilling couldn't happen with all those conditions -
Creigh Deeds: Then it wouldn't happen. I just don't think it's fair to say, "Never. Never can we do that." If certain qualifications are met, yeah, yeah, we ought to consider it.
OK, so offshore drilling won't happen...unless it will. Or not. Or something. Again, is that all clear? Maybe clear as mud, or clear as a coal ash spill, or clear as an oil slick on Virginia Beach...
On the surface, the collapse in oil prices from over $140 per barrel to around $40 per barrel threatens to take the wind from the sails of energy efficiency and clean, renewable power development. In addition, an article by Reuters points out, "[the] slowing economy has already started to take a toll on alternative energy projects that looked promising in 2008 when oil costs were soaring." As if that's not bad enough, "financing has dried up" for all projects, including renewable power. Finally, perhaps most worrisome, the collapse in oil prices is already resulting in signs of a reversal in Americans' desire for fuel efficient vehicles, with some "movement back toward SUVs and away from hybrids."
A basic law of economics is that demand for any good or service is inversely related to that good or service's price. The higher the price, ceteris parabis, the less people consume of it. Likewise, the lower the price, the more people consume of it. In the short run, the "price elasticity of demand" tends to be small, but in the longer run, it gets a lot higher. In other words, if oil prices stay low for a while, and/or if people BELIEVE they will stay low for a while, demand for oil will start to rise. Meanwhile, there's also an income elasticity of demand, whereby the lower one's income is, the less one consumes of goods and services. Currently, we're seeing that in spades with the world economic slowdown, including demand for oil. The question, once again, is how long will this last?
Obviously, we will not be in a recession forever. Eventually - the question is really whether it's "sooner" or "later" - the economy will bounce back, as will demand for oil and other goods. As demand for oil starts to grow again, the price almost certainly will rise, potentially putting us right back where we started in this particular "shock to trance" cycle (as Barack Obama calls it). Here's Obama on the subject:
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
Via Lowell's 
The diary below is reprinted from an RK piece I did on May 27, 2008. I believe it's relevant once again, given that Bob McDonnell is saying stuff like this:
At first glance, 
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, 
On the surface, the collapse in oil prices from over $140 per barrel to around $40 per barrel threatens to take the wind from the sails of energy efficiency and clean, renewable power development. In addition, an 
