Thursday night saw the inaugural Energy and Environmental Security Initiative lecture at the University of Colorado School of Law. The lecture was given by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, an early undeclared candidate for the '08 Democratic nomination for President.
It is unclear why Gov. Vilsack was invited to give this lecture, but it might have everything to do with Iowa's record on renewable energy. Iowa has not only ramped up ethanol production and use (which does not impress me all that much, seeing as how ethanol is bound to have a negative EROI as long as it comes from corn), but has become one of the nation's biggest producers of wind power (which does impress me).
Others polologists have described Vilsack as being in "full-presidential mode" at the lecture, but I came away with a different feeling. While everything Vilsack does now must be viewed through the '08 lens, Vilsack's EESI lecture was toned-down, staid, and entirely policy-oriented. What Vilsack did not show was Bill Clinton tendencies to be both wonky and a happy Labrador eager to soak up and give licking adoration to anybody and everybody who would take it.
The meat of Vilsack's energy vision for America came as three strategies for energy security. First, Vilsack proposed, America must tackle conservation. CAFE standards must double in ten years [NB: only if Mr. Levin gives up his Senate seat] and the U.S. must create a market-driven cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions. The cap-and-trade will encourage conservation more than any other strategy, but the states will need to lead the federal government in driving it.
Second, the federal government must substantially increase support for alternative fuels and do it more intelligently. For example, the federal ethanol subsidy currently goes to the oil industry rather than the retailer. In addition, the ethanol subsidy is not tied to oil prices: when the prices of petroleum-based fuels are high and ethanol is competitive with gasoline, ethanol producers still get the subsidy.
Third, we need new technologies and strategies to use existing resources in a better way. Gov. Vilsack expounded on clean coal: He clearly sees that coal will be a significant component of America's energy future, and since we will be using it, we need to use it intelligently.
Gov. Vilsack expects three things to happen if we implement his energy strategy. First, the U.S. can retain the moral high ground and its position of leadership in energy and commerce. Second, we can generate a more competitive and healthy economy. We can create job opportunities here that cannot be shipped overseas. Third, the U.S. will be safer as it diminishes its dependence on foreign energy.
Mr. Vilsack wrapped his energy vision into a vision of common purpose. America currently has no sense of national community, no common cause that pulls all citizens together. Gov. Vilsack proposed that tackling our energy problem could be the issue that calls everybody together to common purpose. He finished with an altered version of the Athenian Oath, which can be summed in it last sentence: "Thus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us."
Energy and energy security is clearly something that Gov. Vilsack has given quite a bit of time to thinking about. In this he might be two steps ahead of every challenger he gets for the '08 Dem nomination, other than Gov. Richardson. But Gov. Vilsack still must live in a politician's world of ugly compromise and this came out clearly during his Q&A session when he tried to navigate through a minefield of free- vs. protectionist trade, farming subsidies, subsidies for inefficient but politically-crucial crops, and related issues.
As the session wound down and the huge pink elephant in the room was still being ignored, I asked him the question that needed most to be answered, especially if we have any hope of going to a hydrogen world: "what about nuclear?" As if on cue, before the Governor could get three words out about compromising on nuclear, somebody from the peanut gallery prejudged his reply (and got the Governor's meaning backward) and started yelling. It was a perfect reminder to Gov. Vilsack: if you're going to try to pave this road, be prepared for the snakes and monkeys.
Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the 
Comments
# 1 | suz | November 21, 2006 11:38 AM
would increased CAFE standards necessarily further tank the michigan economy? is there a feasible way forward that US car makers could get behind? or would they have to take a big hit and deal from national interest not company interest? is it possible to develop technology that would bring back that old chestnut: 'what's good for GM is good for USA'?
what did the Governor say about nuclear power?
suz
# 2 | kevin v | November 21, 2006 12:49 PM
I can't possibly see how it would, despite what the big 3 brass and the unions say. In fact, if Detroit actually had its head in any position other than firmly up its ass it would realize that streamlining their ops and taking the lead in energy efficiency would bolster their business, not hurt it. Rather than responding to Japan eating their lunch by running crying to the feds, the big 3 might try digging in and playing the game, making better cars. They should take increased CAFE as a challenge that will make themselves stronger, instead of what they will do, which is obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. Of course, the big problem that Detroit has isn't about auto technology, it's about pensions, as Malcolm Gladwell beautifully illustrated in the New Yorker in August. If you follow Gladwell's article, what's good for GM is national health care.
Vilsack started to say that one issue that needs to be tackled on nuclear is dealing with the byproducts, especially bomb-viable byproducts, then he got cut off by some jackass in the crowd who wouldn't shut up and we never got back to the issue.
# 3 | Lab Lemming | November 24, 2006 3:27 AM
Why is it that everyone is going on about clean coal these days, but you never hear any mention of clean cement? It seems to me that carbon sequestration is as vital to the cement business as it is to the coal business, and technically, it should be easier to exclude air from cement emissions than from coal burning.
# 4 | Marlowe Johnson | November 28, 2006 12:13 PM
LL - I've often have the same beef about the glaring neglect that process emissions get in CO2 reduction discussions and cement production is certainly one of the largest sources.
Kevin - You may want to check your sources on the ethanol-energy balance question. While corn-based ethanol from coal plants isn't as good as cellulosic/sugarcane/or cornNG, the majority of studies out there do suggest that it still has a positive energy balance. As far as I know only Patzek and Pimentel have suggested otherwise, but for some reason they get an inordinate amount of press coverage. Kinda reminds me of another environmental debate...
# 5 | kevin v | November 28, 2006 3:04 PM
MJ - you're right, I just like the PP analysis better than the others analyzes I've seen. I think there's a lot of wishful thinking on ethanol, but I'm also totally agnostic on the subject and will wait for further analyzes in the coming years...
LL - #'s from EPA (therefore for the US but I'd assume it roughly holds for the world) say that cement's contribution of CO2 is two orders of magnitude lower than the CO2 contribution from fossil fuel combustion and coal is about 30% of fossil fuel burning in the US....
# 6 | Marlowe Johnson | November 29, 2006 2:02 PM
Hi Kevin,
While I agree that there is indeed a lot of wishful thinking on ethanol and far too much hype about its benefits (from a AGW perspective), I'm curious as to why you prefer the PP studies over the rest that are out there -- AFAIK, their methodology has been pretty much debunked (e.g. their inputs are all out of date). It seems to me that you support them because of the conclusions they reach rather than because of their soundness from a methodological perspective...
# 7 | kevin v | November 29, 2006 4:36 PM
Marlowe - as I said, I'm agnostic and open to other info. Of the analyzes that I've read, especially Patzek's 11-July-06 screed supplement to his Science letter taking on the Farrell analysis, I'm more convinced by Patzek's arguments than by Farrell's. As well the letter to Science in the 23-Jun-06 issue by Cutler Cleveland and Charlie Hall (who has been doing this EROI work longer than anybody). But I accept that Farrell defends their work by saying that they're almost talking apples/oranges. In a sense he's right, but I think he was off-base when trying to say that EROI is inferior to their metric.
But please do provide links/sources b/c I'm always willing to read more on the subject. I haven't seen anything that /pretty much debunks/ Patzek's work, but that's because I haven't seen it, not because I don't want to see it. I looked for a Farrell response beyond his Science letter's page response on 23-Jun-06 and never found anything (and another check now and I still can't find anything).