Well, that thought has crossed my mind also, but someone does serve in that role, and that would be Samuel A. Bodman; we visited him here some time ago here in an effort to learn more about him, and part of what we found is that his background isn’t so much comprised of oil and energy-related businesses as it is with the “specialty chemicals” industry, notably the element Coltan from the Democratic Republic of the Congo where Bodman’s company, Cabot Corporation (according to the UK-based human rights group Rights and Accountability in Development) “aid(ed) the rebels (there) by conducting business...essentially inadvertently aiding a violent conflict that contributed to widespread human rights abuses.”
Also, from this link, we received an explanation as to why gas prices were threatened to soar to about $4 a gallon last year (unfortunately, that may take place this year – the story even discussed the possibility of $6 a gallon in ‘07, if you can believe that)…
Tesoro Corp. of San Antonio, the second-largest refiner in the western U.S., said first-quarter refinery use dropped because oil companies delayed until this year maintenance that could have been done in 2006. The portion of U.S. refining capacity that was in operation in the first quarter declined to 87.3 percent from 88.9 percent a year earlier, according to Energy Department data.The maintenance was delayed so as not to decrease output in the wake of high prices after Katrina hit, thus maximizing profit.
All of this is actually a long setup to a Letter to the Editor from Bodman that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times (here), and I wanted to focus on this paragraph in particular…
Since the start of this administration, the federal government has spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources. Last year alone, the Energy Department announced more than $1 billion to spur the growth of a robust, sustainable biofuels industry — with a focus on cellulosic ethanol. We also continue to make critical investments in solar and wind power, hydrogen fuel cells, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, cutting-edge clean coal plants and advanced nuclear power technologies. And we’re already seeing results — in our national laboratories and, more important, out in the marketplace.Uh huh…
This tells us the following…
The proposed (2009) budget significantly boosts spending on coal and nuclear technologies and the DOE Science program, with a smaller increase for biomass and biorefinery R&D. However, funding within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program is cut by 28%, down to $1.256 billion, with the reductions coming mainly from funding for hydrogen technology, solar energy, vehicle technologies, facilities and infrastructure, and the weatherization program.Also, this tells us the following (from February ’07)…
WASHINGTON -- Weeks after pledging major investments in renewable energy, President George W. Bush is calling for cuts at Colorado's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, drawing complaints Monday from two of the state's Democratic lawmakers.Oh, and by the way, it’s currently about $3.35 a gallon at the Shell station near Le Manse Doomsy, just to let you know.
A centerpiece of Bush's State of the Union speech this year was a 20 percent cut in gasoline use by 2017 made possible in part by increasing the use of renewable fuels.
Colorado's Democratic lawmakers criticized Bush's proposed budget, delivered to Congress on Monday, for increasing spending on fossil fuel and nuclear development while cutting the Energy Department's renewable research lab by 3 percent.
Bush's proposed budget would decrease funding for the Golden, Colo., lab to $181.5 million from $187.5 million, they said. The lab does the nation's primary research on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
"Where is the balance in this budget, and where is the dedication to energy independence?" asked Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. "The president needs to walk his talk, and if he will not, I will work with the new Congress to increase funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Energy independence is so critical to our national security, our energy security and our economy that we cannot afford to shortchange programs that will move us forward."
No comments:
Post a Comment