Green Options

In a concise letter to the heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Agriculture as well as to the White House, a broad and diverse coalition of major consumer and industry associations has implored the EPA to slow down as it heads towards what seems to be a quick decision on allowing E15 (85% gasoline, 15% ethanol) blends to be sold at fueling stations for use in all vehicles—even those not originally designed for use with ethanol.

The letter writing coalition* represents virtually every retail gasoline provider, virtually every automobile manufacturer and a large majority of motorcycle, marine, and non-road equipment manufacturers in the US.

The EPA already allows the use of up up to 10% ethanol blends (E10) in all gasoline-powered vehicles and many states have adopted their own rules regarding the subject. Owners of small engined machines have been generally resistant to the ethanol blends, saying that higher amounts of ethanol can harm them.

Big Oil, Big Money, Big Slap in the Face.

Unfortunately, I fear that slap won’t register properly with enough people in the status quo, those who cling to oil and more oil as if it’s the only way forward.

During a commercial break from MSNBC’s coverage of the final night of the Democratic National Convention held in Denver, the American Petroleum Institute, the trade organization for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, ran a spot touting domestic oil and gas reserves that Democrats are keeping us Americans from reaching.

Rising prices at the pump, big jumps in home electricity bills, certain increases in global energy demand and, of course, the mounting global climate challenge, have people wondering if technology is the answer. Technophiliacs will argue until silicon wafers start spewing from their major orifices that technology is indeed the answer, and that all we need is more investment in R&D to help us find that silver bullet, or to borrow a term from Stanford economist Jim Sweeney, “silver birdshot.”However, while I do see technological advances as part of the solution, I am concerned that an over-reliance on technology will make us complacent about seriously addressing the politics of our major energy and environmental concerns.

Last week’s Newsweek/American Petroleum Institute panel at Stanford that I was invited to helped shed light on the very technology v. behavior problem I addressed above.** The panel moderator, Newsweek Senior Editor of Business and Technology, David Jefferson kicked off the event by admitting that, while he is certainly cognizant of the pressing environmental issues we are currently facing, he could be doing be more. He candidly admitted that he drives a Mustang convertible, that he has installed compact fluorescent lightbulbs in his outside lights, but not his indoor ones, and that he does not shy away from using his home’s thermostat, although he is also not afraid of throwing on a sweater if it is a little chilly.

Kennedy set the event off on an interesting note by taking an editorial position that struck me. Kennedy said something like, “it is not about changing consumer behavior,” and this is where Kennedy and I have a theoretical and philosophical divergence.

[Note: I included the photo above as evidence of the rapidly changing world of media. Five to ten years ago, who would have guessed that oil executives would ever sit down with green bloggers to talk about energy policy? Certainly, not me. Pictured left to right are Maria Surma Manka of Maria Energia, me (Tim Hurst) of Green Options & EcoPolitology, Paul Siegele of Chevron, and Brian Westenhous of New Energy and Fuel].