Obama’s Clean Energy Policy Elevates Efficient Cars Over Efficient Modes

It has a nice ring to it: using oil and gas revenue to shift transportation off oil and gas dependence. President Obama announced a plan to do just that on Friday — but the details of his plan are disappointing if you want to see the conversation on clean transportation go beyond cars.

Hey, it's OK -- they're all electric cars. Photo: ##http://amarkedman.com/2011/05/31/day-222/traffic-jam/##A Marked Man##

The Energy Security Trust would be funded with $2 billion in oil and gas revenues, in what the Washington Post called a “jujitsu” move – using oil and gas money to hasten the elimination of oil and gas as a transportation fuel.

This handy infographic from the Energy Department about what the money will fund shows just how narrowly defined the trust is. Light fuel tanks for natural gas, advanced vehicle batteries, cleaner biofuels, hydrogen fuel-cell technology. But as David Burwell of the Carnegie Endowment’s Climate Program notes, “it has the distinct sound — to use a Zen Buddhist metaphor — of one hand clapping.”

“Certainly, electric vehicles and advanced biofuels are a key tool in drastically reducing the 70 percent of total U.S. oil consumption devoted to transportation,” Burwell said. “However, it misses at least two additional key elements of any oil-back-out scheme — (1) more trip choices and (2) reducing the need to travel.”

Obama has shown an impressive resolve to reduce vehicle emissions but not much desire to reduce vehicle trips. While his transportation budgets have enabled some progress on rail and transit, and his infrastructure initiatives focus on maintenance instead of road expansion, his signature program – the increase in CAFE standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 – would do nothing to reduce traffic, create more transportation choices, or encourage walkable development.

The trust’s goal of “shifting America’s cars and trucks off oil entirely” sounds radical enough, but the plan is actually modeled off of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski’s energy plan, unveiled last month. Among other provisions to weaken environmental regulations and increase the use of coal and nuclear power, the Alaska senator proposes creating an “Advanced Energy Trust Fund” to use oil and gas revenues to fund renewable energy and fuel-efficient vehicles. Her plan would drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf for that.

Obama’s Trust Fund idea, which he first pitched in his State of the Union address, is funded with revenues from rising domestic energy production. He doesn’t mention any new drilling to fund the program. Still, some speculate that he may be trying to model his plan after Murkowski’s to curry her favor. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Murkowski would be a good ally to have.

As people in the transportation industry know, having your money in a trust fund insulates you from the vagaries of the Congressional appropriations cycle. And as a White House aide told the Washington Post, it will provide “a reliable stream of funding for critical breakthrough research” in the transportation sector. A reliable stream of funding for initiatives to take cars off the road and replace them with more efficient modes – rather than just making the automobile-choked morning rush hour on the highway a little less toxic – would also be welcome. 

  • Joe R.

    I think the biggest key to reducing oil demand is reducing the need to travel. Probably 80% of jobs could be done from home if only companies would get out of their “I need to watch my employees to make sure they work” mentality. If a home-based employee doesn’t get the work done, it’ll be fairly obvious in short order. I think another part of the problem here also stems from the concept of paying employees by the hour instead of by the job. You really can’t effectively monitor how many hours an employee puts in if they work from home. And it shouldn’t matter so long as they do whatever job they’re paid to do. Of course, for some reason it seems it might annoy the higher ups if an employee could do their job at home working only 20 hours a week instead of spending 40 hours on site. It’s a shame so many employers are pig-headed in this regard. They could save rent on a ton of office, and have happier, potentially more productive employees who benefit by having no commuting expenses, plus more free time. I’m just surprised the idea of telecommuting hasn’t caught on like wildfire.

    The second way to reduce travel demand is to reduce business trips. Eliminating the business travel deduction, or at least requiring the trip to meet certain guidelines in order to get the deduction, might help. Basically, if the trip is of a meeting or conference nature only, it shouldn’t be able to be deducted in this age of teleconferencing. If there are necessary reasons for a physical presence, then it should be.

    I suppose you could also consider most personal/pleasure travel unnecessary but I’ll stop here. I think if you got just commuting and business travel under control that would go a long way towards reducing oil usage.

  • BBB Accredited Members

    Hey, great stuff, very helpful content, thank u……

    BBB Accredited Members

  • Anonymous

    Good point about Murkowski – hadn’t thought of that – or her Five Energy Objectives – though I’m not sure where this new trust would fit it.

    However, I see the Energy Security Trust as a positive version of the House Republican’s Drilling For Highway Trust Fund Dollars transportation reauthorization bill – but it does the same negative thing on the budget – taking away general fund revenues for a specific purpose, and that doesn’t make for good fiduciary policy. Oil royalties belong in the general fund.

  • http://blackobama.beep.com
    http://blackdiamondobama.beep.com/apps/photoalbum?aid=41136828

    From all of the religious Confession, the Islamic had positive feedback.
    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, called Obamacare seems to be supported by the musulmans. Not for

    nothing…
    Decreasing the population of Christian people with abortion and contraceptive can cause serious changes in the

    percentage religious divisions in a few decades.
    Obama’s program does not Christian at all, and seems that the only supporters are the musulmans.
    He needed time to show his real face. He kept his religion secret, but with his steps he left no doubt about it:

    he does not believe in Christian teachings, nevertheless: he wants to dilute the Christian bloodline.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Would the New Senate Fuel Tax Deal a Death Blow to the Transport Bill?

|
Eight Democrats yesterday joined nearly the entire transportation universe, from road-builders to transit advocates, to warn the three Senate authors of a new climate bill against raising gas taxes without using the money for infrastructure. Their message, translated from the often impenetrable language of Washington: Imposing new fuel fees that are not routed to transport […]

What Went Unsaid at Last Night’s Debate

|
At last night’s presidential debate in Nassau County, the best opening for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to talk about transportation policy came when undecided voter Phillip Tricolla asked the following question of the President: QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department […]

Would Real Men Tax Gas? A Test for Tom Friedman

|
On Monday, Elana Schor highlighted a recent column from occasionally right New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who once again rolled out one of his favorite policy prescriptions — an increased gas tax. Friedman wrote: Tom Friedman (Photo: IvyGate) According to the energy economist Phil Verleger, a $1 tax on gasoline and diesel fuel would […]

The High Price of Cheap Gas

|
At least on the surface, the big declines in gas prices we’ve seen over the past year seem like an unalloyed good. We save money at the pump, and we have more to spend on other things, But the cheap gas has serious hidden costs—more pollution, more energy consumption, more crashes and greater traffic congestion. […]