Bush: Short Term Conservation Needed
Posted by Glenn on September 26, 2005 - 3:23pm in The Oil Drum: Local
"We can all pitch in by being better conservers," Mr. Bush said after being briefed on the situation at the Energy Department. "People just need to recognize that these storms have caused disruptions." In addition to urging consumers to cut back, he said federal employees should use carpool and public transport and not take non-essential trips.
Of course, he's talking about short term conservation efforts, but it's nice that he is at least acknowledging that demand is part of the equation too.
At the same time, he's also promising as much from the SPR as is needed and not making any bold gestures at improving long term conservation efforts, or even asking for a return to the 55mph speed limit.
All agencies should conserve fuel so we can reduce overall demand and allow extra supplies to be directed towards the hurricane relief effort. In particular, agencies should temporarily curtail non-essential travel and other activities that use gasoline or diesel fuel, and encourage employees to carpool, telecommute, and use public transportation to reduce fuel use. Federal agencies should also take action to conserve natural gas and electricity during periods of peak consumption by shifting energy-intensive activities to non-peak periods wherever possible and by procuring and using efficient Energy STAR-rated energy intensive appliances and products.So, uh, does that mean that government workers can use their newly approved credit card limits of $250,000 to buy Energy STAR products?
From a NYT article called "Here Is Your New Federal Credit Card. Here Is Your New Purchase Limit" (published Sept 18, available on LexisNexis or if you have Times Select):
The government buys everything from warships to paper clips, the latter being an example of a "micropurchase."Wouldn't it be ironic if encouraging people to "procure" ENERGY Star products actually ended up being more wasteful of taxpayer money?Before this month, micropurchasing with government-issued credit cards meant anything up to $2,500 on a single shopping trip, with certain purchases relating to homeland security allowed to reach $15,000 domestically and $25,000 abroad.
On Sept. 8, the definition of "micro" was stretched, by quite a bit. When Congress approved $51.8 billion in Katrina relief, the ceiling on individual purchases with the cards ballooned to $250,000. Overall credit limits can be much greater.
The thought of individual employees able to charge up to a quarter-million dollars per trip with only the plastic in their wallets, directly payable by Uncle Sam, has government watchdogs agog.
"I am astounded," said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that monitors waste and fraud. "This is theoretically a fiscally conservative Republican Congress. I don't get it."
In making the case for the typical American to join in on energy conservation efforts, it's worth considering that this would probably be an extremely unpopular move. We should be trying to make conservation an appealing choice, and I think this does the opposite. Is the gain in fuel efficiency worth it?
I think the efficient speed limit idea works on many levels, and while unpopular at first to some, I think people would ultimately respect that this is a valid response short of a tax or shortages.
It certainly beats closing schools, like they did in Georgia.
But I'm open to other suggestions. What yours PDXpat?
I think the public would be much more receptive to improved fuel efficiency requirements, which are more obviously associated with conservation in people's minds.
Some states have different speed limits for trucks and for cars, and for these purposes they have a legal definition of what constitutes a truck (in his state, I think it was any vehicle over 4 tons).
His suggestion was just to lower the limit to 2 tons. All of the big SUVs would have to slow down while everyone else zips past them.
Not really a practical suggestion, but still kind of funny to think about.
If places like California, which have different speed limits for cars and trucks, had enforced the SUV=truck idea from the start, SUVs would never have taken off.
Sigh...
Here's a tangental article that puts the situation in a different but very clear light:
OPEC may not be able to meet oil demands
Experts warn of an oil supply crisis in the next two decades
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=18808
(or should it be big friend...?)
http://wonkette.com/politics/funny-pictures/big-dick-cheney-whats-new-pussycat-036725.php
(forgive me, my comedic integrity could not pass that one up.)
How does this work? If a supplier has X to sell on an open market, don't buyers have to want to buy more than X for the scenario Mr. Shihab-Eldin describes to be true? How can panic affect this? Are they buying more than will be ultimately used by consumers? I would think that once enough crude for the segment of time the supply is meant to cover has been purchased, demand for that crude would drop.
And I suppose that is the real question - whether the general listener will take away an impetus for conservation, or a distrust in the economy.
It would be nice if a little conservation took root in American culture ... but I'm not sure I'm ready to be that optimistic.