http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels2 America has the technological know-how and the resources to move http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:41:25 -0500 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2 In the summer of 2006, Americans from coast to coast http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:41:25 -0500 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states2 Extensive scientific evidence demonstrates that global http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states2 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:41:25 -0500 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 The early effects of global warming are already evident across the United States and worldwide. The year 2005 was the warmest on record. Left unchecked, temperatures will continue to rise, and the effects of global warming will become more severe. This report examines trends in U.S. global warming pollution nationally and by state and concludes that the failure to limit emissions from burning oil, coal, and natural gas has allowed global warming pollution to grow out of control.Human activities over the last century – primarily burning fossil fuels – have changed the composition of the atmosphere in ways that threaten to dramatically alter the climate in the years to come. In a December 2005 speech, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated, “The Earth’s climate is nearing, but has not passed, a tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far ranging undesirable consequences.” These consequences, he said, would “constitute practically a different planet” and include sea level rise, heat waves, drought, more intense hurricanes, decreased crop yields, water scarcity, and the spread of infectious diseases.The United States is by far the largest worldwide contributor to global warming, releasing a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant. Power plants, cars, and light trucks are the largest U.S. sources of carbon dioxide.Existing technology could substantially reduce global warming pollution by making power plants and factories more efficient, making cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and shifting the country to clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. These solutions also would reduce our dependence on oil, reduce air pollution, protect pristine places from oil drilling and mining, and save consumers money.Unfortunately, the United States has rejected mandatory limits on global warming pollution, opting instead to allow global warming pollution to increase unabated. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed nationally and in most states.Using data compiled by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, this report examines trends in carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel combustion nationally and by state for the four decades spanning 1960 to 2001. Our major findings include the following:Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Booming• Between 1960 and 2001, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide almost doubled, jumping from 2.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1960 to almost 5.7 billion metric tons in 2001, an increase of 95 percent.• In the 1990s, carbon dioxide emissions grew more quickly than in the 1970s and 1980s, increasing steadily at an average rate of 1.5 percent each year. The Energy Information Administration estimates that emissions grew by 1.7 percent in 2004, increasing to almost 6.0 billion metric tons.• Regionally, carbon dioxide emissions rose most rapidly in the Southeast and Gulf South between 1960 and 2001, increasing by 163 percent and 175 percent, respectively.• Among the states, Texas ranked first in the nation for the highest emissions of carbon dioxide in 2001, releasing 12 percent of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions. In 1960, Texas emitted 240.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide; by 2001, the state’s emissions had grown to 668.5 million metric tons, an increase of 178 percent.• Twenty-eight (28) states more than doubled their carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001. The 10 states that experienced the largest overall increases in emissions in this period include Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and Arizona.Driving the Boom in Carbon Dioxide EmissionsA dramatic growth in oil emissions from the transportation sector and coal emissions from electricity generation fueled the rapid increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001.• Carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion jumped 1.1 billion metric tons from 1960 to 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The transportation sector drove this rapid increase. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil burned in the transportation sector increased by more than 150 percent over the period, largely due to a substantial rise in vehicle travel and the stagnating fuel economy of vehicles. In every other sector, carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion peaked in the 1970s (Figure ES-1).• Carbon dioxide emissions from coal climbed 1.1 billion metric tons between 1960 and 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Increased electricity generation from coal-fired power plants fueled this rapid growth. Emissions from coal combustion in the electricity sector skyrocketed from 1960 to 2001, increasing by 370 percent, as demand for electricity boomed. At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial sector declined steadily after 1966 (Figure ES-2).The longer we wait to reduce global warming pollution, the harder the task will be in the future. Key components of an action plan to protect future generations from global warming include:• Establish mandatory limits on global warming pollution that reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years, by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.• Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by making our homes and businesses more energy efficient, making our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and generating more electricity from renewable energy sources. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/new-energy-for-campuses--energy-saving-policies-for-colleges-and-universities Our country is dependent on an old, outmoded, fossil-fuel energy system that is simultaneously speeding environmental degradation and making us less secure. There is a better way. The Apollo Alliance has a plan to improve national security by reducing dependence on oil from unstable and undemocratic governments through investments in a resilient energy system, and by supporting new renewable distributed generation. The Apollo Alliance plan will also revitalize the economy, expanding markets for American technology, investing in workers, and improving competitiveness and productivity, even as it protects consumers and the environment. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/new-energy-for-campuses--energy-saving-policies-for-colleges-and-universities Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/solutions-to-americas-oil-crisis-a-federal-agenda-for-reducing-oil-demand-and-protecting-consumers America is too dependent on oil, and consumers are paying the price. For the last two years, gasoline prices have been creeping upward. In 2003, a gallon of regular gasoline averaged $1.56; so far in 2005, the same gallon has averaged $2.20, with prices in some areas spiking close to $4.00 in August and September.The recent rise in oil and gasoline prices is the result of increasing demand bumping against both natural and technological limits in the world’s ability to produce and supply oil. This tight supply/demand balance, coupled with increased market concentration in the oil industry, has left consumers vulnerable to price spikes at the pump.The long-term limits on oil resources underscore the important ways in which oil does not operate like other commodities. While market theory would suggest that oil production would simply increase every time demand increases, the geological limits of oil belie this assumption. Should demand continue to increase—as is anticipated under current policies—the most likely scenario is for prices to continue to rise, placing an even greater strain on the American economy and consumers.Meanwhile, oil companies have raked in record profits. ExxonMobil alone made $25 billion in profits in 2004 and is on pace to surpass that amount in 2005. Essentially, high gasoline prices are helping fuel a massive transfer of wealth from average consumers to large multinational oil companies that benefit from America’s oil dependence.With consumers being drained at the pump and America spinning into a worsening spiral of dependence, it is well beyond the time for congressional action. Congress has opportunity to parlay the oil industry’s record profits into proposals that will reduce America’s dependence on oil and protect consumers in the long-run.This paper outlines two policy solutions to address this problem.Solution #1: Make our cars more fuel efficient.The best way to cut America’s oil dependence and shield consumers from spikes at the pump is to make cars and light trucks go farther on a gallon of gasoline. Congress and the Bush administration should increase the fuel economy of the country’s fleet of cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon and eliminate perverse financial incentives that encourage manufacturers to produce and consumers to choose gas guzzlers over more efficient cars.Solution #2: Prioritize consumer savings over oil industry profits.Growing oil demand, shrinking supply, and anti-competitive nature of oil markets provide compelling reasons for Congress and the Bush administration to take immediate action to end the current transfer of wealth to the oil industry and transition consumers to a less oil dependent economy. We must redirect some of the record oil company profits into measures that will dramatically reduce our oil consumption. To this end, we propose:• Repealing all existing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Under current law, the oil and gas industry would receive $10.7 billion in tax breaks between 2005 and 2009. Congress should immediately repeal all existing tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and shift these incentives toward conservation solutions that will help consumers.• Instituting a windfall profits tax. Congress should immediately enact a windfall profits tax on oil that will recoup a portion of the oil industry’s record profits. The windfall profit tax would only apply when the price of crude oil exceeds $40 per barrel. With the estimated $26 billion in revenue generated in 2005 alone from repealing the tax breaks and establishing a windfall profits tax, we can pursue policies to ease America’s oil dependence and save consumers money. For example:• Congress could double the tax credit available to consumers purchasing more fuel efficient cars and remove all restrictions on the number of fuel-efficient cars eligible for the credit. In addition, Congress could expand the credit so that it applies to all vehicles that meet the fuel economy and air pollution criteria, regardless of the technology utilized. Every $2 billion of the windfall profit invested in expanding this tax credit would allow approximately 318,000 more consumers to benefit.• Congress could increase funding for public transportation, such as light rail. Currently, for every $4 that the federal government spends on highways, only $1 is invested in mass transit. This car-dependent transportation system fuels America’s over-reliance on oil. Diverting $8 billion of the windfall profits each year to public transportation would effectively double the federal government’s investment in mass transit. Similarly, for $8 billion, the federal government could build more than 200 miles of light rail—resulting in a 20 percent increase in light rail infrastructure nationally. Alternatively, the revenue could be used to reduce fares on existing public transit systems. With $8 billion, the federal government could enable everyone who rode public transit in 2003 to ride for free.• Congress could increase funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), a federally funded program that helps low-income households meet their home energy needs through immediate bill payment assistance and weatherization upgrades to make homes more energy efficient. Applying just $2 billion of the windfall profit toward this program could help four million more needy households this winter, when home heating costs are expected to be high.America’s energy problems are not going to go away on their own, nor can we depend on the market to solve them. The U.S. government needs to step in and help move America toward a more efficient, less oil dependent, energy future while protecting consumers’ wallets, rather than oil companies’ profits. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/solutions-to-americas-oil-crisis-a-federal-agenda-for-reducing-oil-demand-and-protecting-consumers Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/saving-americas-arctic-dispelling-myths-about-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is truly one of America’s last wild places. It contains no roads, trails, or structures, so you must fly, boat, or walk to get there. It is a pristine habitat, one that supports large populations of migratory birds, caribou, muskoxen, all three species of bear, wolves, Dall sheep, and snow geese. The annual migration of the 129,000-member caribou herd evokes images of the long-gone buffalo herds of the Great Plains.The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the only area along Alaska’s entire North Slope that is not currently open for oil and gas exploration. Unfortunately, oil companies such as ExxonMobil and their allies in the Bush administration and Congress are pushing to drill in the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, endangering one of America’s last wild places for a few months’ worth of oil and gas.Drilling advocates have made several different arguments to try to garner more support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These arguments simply do not stand up to the facts.• Drilling Myth: Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will lower gasoline prices and make America less dependent on foreign oil. Turning the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge into a sprawling industrial complex would do little to ease our energy problems in the short or long term. At its peak, the Arctic Refuge likely would provide less than one percent (0.7%) of projected world oil production and would decline thereafter, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Given the small amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge, EIA also estimates that drilling in the Refuge would reduce gasoline prices by less than a penny-and-a-half a gallon and not until 2025. Moreover, since oil prices are set on the world market, OPEC producers and other oil-exporting nations could cut their output to counter any increase in U.S. output to keep oil and gasoline prices high.• Drilling Myth: The oil industry can drill without harming the environment. According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska’s North Slope experienced 4,532 oil spills between 1996 and 2004, an average of 504 spills annually. Overall, reported spills increased by 33 percent between 1996 and 2004, peaking in 2002. These spills released a total of 1.9 million gallons of crude oil, diesel, drilling fluids and waste, and other substances into the delicate Arctic environment. In 2004 alone, 554 spills were reported on the North Slope, or one spill every 16 hours.• Drilling Myth: The oil industry could develop the coastal plain using only 2,000 acres. Drilling proponents who argue the oil industry can limit development to 2,000 acres are only referring to surface acreage covered by production and support facilities and are excluding seismic or other exploration activities, which have had significant impacts on the Arctic environment to the west of the coastal plain. Oil field development in America’s Arctic includes a vast network of seismic exploration trails, gravel mines, roads, drill pads, pipelines, processing facilities, operating and housing facilities, and waste and sewer treatment plants that stretches across 1,000 square miles of tundra and has changed the Arctic ecosystem forever.Drilling for oil in this pristine haven for wildlife would disrupt and ultimately destroy one of America’s last remaining truly wild places. Instead of pushing to drill in the Arctic Refuge, the Bush administration should act to make our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline. Simply closing certain regulatory and tax loopholes for gas guzzlers would reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1.5 million barrels per day in 2025 and save consumers more than $30 billion, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Moreover, a 2001 UCS study showed that increasing fleetwide fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2012 and 55 mpg by 2020 would save nearly 5 million barrels of oil a day after 18 years and 1.5 million barrels per day after only eight years. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is no substitute for a real energy policy to reduce America’s dependence on oil. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/saving-americas-arctic-dispelling-myths-about-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/exxonmobil-exposed-more-drilling-more-global-warming-more-oil-dependence We stand at a crossroads on energy policy in the United States. Our dependence on oil is costing consumers at the pump, draining the economy, endangering our national security, and polluting the environment. For better or worse, the decisions our elected officials and business leaders make to address this problem will have repercussions not only at home but worldwide.The United States is simply too dependent on oil. The United States holds only two percent of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world’s total petroleum production.1 Oil pollutes the environment from the point of extraction to combustion, leaving a trail of oil spills, smog-forming air pollution, and global warming in its wake. Consumers also pay a price in the form of unpredictably high gasoline prices at the pump while oil companies are earning record profits.Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have responded not with a plan to lead our country away from oil dependence but with more of the same. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have rejected efforts to cap global warming pollution and make a significant investment in renewable energy technology. They have called for oil and gas drilling in pristine places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the same time, they have rejected efforts to make cars go farther on a gallon of gas—an efficiency measure that would reduce our dependence on oil while saving consumers money at the pump.ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, has not only echoed these short-sighted policy decisions but led the charge to craft and implement them. In contrast to many of its peers in the oil industry, ExxonMobil has acted consistently to move our country backward, not forward, on energy policy.- ExxonMobil is still actively pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.- ExxonMobil continues to deny the urgency of global warming, fund junk science to cloud the issue, and actively inhibit domestic and international efforts to cut global warming pollution.- ExxonMobil is making record-breaking profits because of high gasoline prices but refuses to invest that windfall in renewable energy to ease America’s oil dependence.- ExxonMobil continues to challenge the 1994 court ruling ordering the company to pay $4-$5 billion in punitive damages to fishermen and others injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.In ExxonMobil’s ideal world, the U.S. and other countries would use more and more oil, not less, allowing the company to collect even higher profits in the short term. Automakers would continue to produce gas-guzzling cars despite advances in fuel-efficient vehicles. The U.S. and other countries would relax their environmental rules to allow the company to drill to the ends of the Earth, even in our most precious places. In ExxonMobil’s ideal world, the U.S. and the rest of the world would ignore global warming science and continue to let global warming pollution climb precipitously.ExxonMobil has the power to wreak significant damage on the world’s environment, but it also has the power to direct the oil industry and American decision-makers toward a new energy future. The “Exxpose Exxon” campaign is calling on ExxonMobil to:- Commit to not drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and pull out of Arctic Power, the single issue lobbying group dedicated to drilling in the Arctic Refuge.- Support mandatory caps on global warming pollution and stop funding junk science to obscure the facts about global warming.- Pay all of the punitive damages awarded in 1994 to fishermen and others injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.- Save consumers money at the pump and ease our oil dependence by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency and supporting stronger fuel economy standards to make cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline.As the world’s largest and most profitable oil company, ExxonMobil should shed its past as an irresponsible oil company and move forward as a responsible energy company—one committed to more than drilling to the last drop. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/exxonmobil-exposed-more-drilling-more-global-warming-more-oil-dependence Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600 http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/going-nowhere-the-price-consumers-pay-for-stalled-fuel-economy-policies Every Memorial Day weekend, families and friends pile into their cars and drive to the beach, national parks, and other popular tourist destinations. This Memorial Day, with gas prices soaring above $2 per gallon in some parts of the country, consumers will pay more for these weekend trips than in years past.Politicians at the federal level are putting the blame for rising gas prices on everything from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to fuel additive requirements. While OPEC clearly plays a role in determining gas prices, this finger pointing overlooks the fundamental problem: America is too dependent on oil. As long as demand for oil continues to climb, consumers will remain vulnerable to price spikes at the gas pump—whatever their cause.In 1975, in response to the oil embargo, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to increase automobile fuel economy standards, protect consumers from high gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The law recognized that the only way to reduce foreign oil dependence was to reduce U.S. demand. It requires that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) review and increase automobile fuel economy standards as technologically feasible. Although the technology does exist to safely increase automobile fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the next 10 years, NHTSA has not enacted a meaningful increase in fuel economy in almost three decades.As a result, this holiday weekend, Americans will be paying more at the gas pump and using more foreign oil than they should be, given technology available today. Specifically:• Americans will pay almost twice as much at the gas pump—$72 million more—this Memorial Day weekend than they would with a 40 mpg fuel economy standard;• Americans will use 35.7 million more gallons of gas than they would under a 40 mpg fuel economy standard; and• Americans will consume 1.8 million more barrels of foreign oil this Memorial Day weekend than they would with a 40 mpg fuel economy standard.The Bush administration should be looking for ways to save consumers money at the pump and wean us from oil—foreign or domestic—in the long term. Instead of taking advantage of automobile technology to achieve a 40 mpg standard, the administration is pushing an energy policy that emphasizes the technologies of yesterday and has opposed all meaningful increases in fuel economy. In fact, the administration has proposed new fuel economy standards that would make it easier for gas-guzzling SUVs to get even fewer miles per gallon.While consumers continue to pay more at the pump, oil companies are recording huge profits. In 2003, the top five oil companies enjoyed net profits of $60 billion. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has done nothing to protect consumers from oil company mergers and instead has pushed an energy policy that rewards the oil industry with taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax breaks. http://www.ohiopirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/going-nowhere-the-price-consumers-pay-for-stalled-fuel-economy-policies Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:48:48 -0600