Energy Priorities
The happiest person in the audience at this week’s State of the Union address appeared to be Tom Harkin of Iowa. When the subject turned to ethanol the Senator grinned from ear to ear and all but danced in the aisle. I can’t blame him for smiling. I could almost hear a band playing We’re in the Money. The price of corn doubled last year. New emphasis on ethanol means even greater demand for Iowa’s most important crop. It’s very good news in that state.
But I live in a metropolitan area where air quality and cost of transportation are bigger concerns. I don’t object to using ethanol to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are all patriots aren’t we? But it isn’t clear to me that replacing gasoline with ethanol does anything for my cost or quality of living. For one thing my family spends more on heating and air conditioning than on gasoline, a lot more. Our electricity bill alone would more than pay for what we spend at the pump. I realize many people drive more than we do but still, the price of an automobile is a much larger transportation factor than the cost of fuel. I like round numbers so let’s say a $20,000 car is good for a hundred thousand miles and averages 20 miles per gallon. Put a gallon of gas at $2.50. That works out to about 20 cents per mile for depreciation and 12.5 cents for fuel. It ignores both the time value of money and maintenance costs. Have you priced a new set of tires lately?
Another thing, ethanol cost more than gasoline and gets poorer mileage. The federal government subsidizes it but if you think that means we don’t pay for it I’ve got some ocean front property in Iowa you might be interested in. Also, I’m not aware that ethanol burns any cleaner than gasoline so what does that do for air pollution?
Altogether I’d rather see the emphasis on total fuel cost and efficiency, not just gasoline. We don’t have a gasoline crisis. We have an energy crisis. Home heating oil in the North East contributes to our foreign dependence too, not just automobile drivers in Western states. Maybe we could make clean burning kerosene from lignite coal and add a little of that. Do they make catalytic converters for fuel oil furnaces? What about better roads and public transportation? This isn’t just a problem in Dallas and Houston as anybody who has driven on the New Jersey Turnpike knows. How much fuel is wasted by cars stalled in traffic? And speaking of stalled cars, when are we ever going to do something about clunkers needing tune-ups?
I was disappointed in that part of the President’s speech, but you probably guessed that. Since at least as far back as the Carter administration we have needed a comprehensive approach to energy issues. For us now to single out gasoline with passing reference to alternative sources is not enough. It may even be damaging when all things are considered. I would much rather hear a call for complete energy independence. Couple that with a serious commitment to cleaning up the air and we’d be getting somewhere. For now we are left with a catchy slogan, “Twenty in Ten.” How lame is that?
So Tom Harkin beams and I wait for a new President, not that democrats are any better. As best I can tell their “energy independence” bill consisted entirely of eliminating some oil and gas exploration tax incentives. I think I’ll write my congressman.
But I live in a metropolitan area where air quality and cost of transportation are bigger concerns. I don’t object to using ethanol to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are all patriots aren’t we? But it isn’t clear to me that replacing gasoline with ethanol does anything for my cost or quality of living. For one thing my family spends more on heating and air conditioning than on gasoline, a lot more. Our electricity bill alone would more than pay for what we spend at the pump. I realize many people drive more than we do but still, the price of an automobile is a much larger transportation factor than the cost of fuel. I like round numbers so let’s say a $20,000 car is good for a hundred thousand miles and averages 20 miles per gallon. Put a gallon of gas at $2.50. That works out to about 20 cents per mile for depreciation and 12.5 cents for fuel. It ignores both the time value of money and maintenance costs. Have you priced a new set of tires lately?
Another thing, ethanol cost more than gasoline and gets poorer mileage. The federal government subsidizes it but if you think that means we don’t pay for it I’ve got some ocean front property in Iowa you might be interested in. Also, I’m not aware that ethanol burns any cleaner than gasoline so what does that do for air pollution?
Altogether I’d rather see the emphasis on total fuel cost and efficiency, not just gasoline. We don’t have a gasoline crisis. We have an energy crisis. Home heating oil in the North East contributes to our foreign dependence too, not just automobile drivers in Western states. Maybe we could make clean burning kerosene from lignite coal and add a little of that. Do they make catalytic converters for fuel oil furnaces? What about better roads and public transportation? This isn’t just a problem in Dallas and Houston as anybody who has driven on the New Jersey Turnpike knows. How much fuel is wasted by cars stalled in traffic? And speaking of stalled cars, when are we ever going to do something about clunkers needing tune-ups?
I was disappointed in that part of the President’s speech, but you probably guessed that. Since at least as far back as the Carter administration we have needed a comprehensive approach to energy issues. For us now to single out gasoline with passing reference to alternative sources is not enough. It may even be damaging when all things are considered. I would much rather hear a call for complete energy independence. Couple that with a serious commitment to cleaning up the air and we’d be getting somewhere. For now we are left with a catchy slogan, “Twenty in Ten.” How lame is that?
So Tom Harkin beams and I wait for a new President, not that democrats are any better. As best I can tell their “energy independence” bill consisted entirely of eliminating some oil and gas exploration tax incentives. I think I’ll write my congressman.
posted by Onfoot at 7:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home