American Petroleum Institute point of view

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute spoke to Energy & Environment reporter Monica Trauzzi.  The full interview is here

Gerard said, ". . . the president's own economists will tell him that 30 years from now, over 50 percent of our energy will still be oil and natural gas."

Memo to President Obama:  DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE ECONOMISTS!

If we continue to pump CO2 into the air for the next 30 years, as Bill McKibben's "Do the Math" tour demonstrates, we will be toast.  (see www.350.org)

Gerard called on President Obama to stay true to his promise for an "all of the above strategy," which he claims is supported "with over 73 percent of [U.S. Americans] supporting expanded production of oil and natural gas."   I think that 73% figure is probably true.  However, about 70% also recognize that global warming is real and and is a serious problem.  The explanation for this contradiction is that most people do not realize how much we have to cut fossil fuel use by to actually stop the increase in CO2 that is causing global warming.  As I have argued, the earth can only absorb about 7 billion tons of CO2 per year.  We have 7 billion people on the planet, which means we each get 1 ton per year per person.  With current U.S. per capita CO2 at 18 tons per person, we have to cut CO2 by 95% to be sustainable.  This means we need 100% electric cars running on 100% renewable energy.  And we need serious energy efficiency and conservation efforts to minimize natural gas. 

Similarly Gerard argued, "Today, the support for Keystone Pipeline exceeds 68 percent of the American public."  Again, most people don't understand that we have to not only stop expanding oil drilling, such as the tar sands, we have to actually cut back using the oil that is already available.  I think the fact that 32% of the people don't support the Keystone Pipeline is a great base to build on.  We need the President to take a firm stand against the pipeline.

He also argues, "over 90 percent understand that production of oil and natural gas equals jobs, good paying jobs."  This is a key point.  For example, the Chevron refinery in Richmond, CA does, in fact, offer good paying jobs.  Chevron spent $4 million in the latest city council elections in Richmond to make sure that people sympathetic to Chevron were elected.  My feeling is that people in Richmond do support the jobs, but they don't support the pollution.  At this point in time, I think the best strategy is to oppose expansion of Chevron in their attempts to process dirty tar sands and shale oil.  I think this is more politically feasible than calling for a shutting of the plant entirely.  At the same time we need to be planning for the day, perhaps a decade or two away, when climate disruption will be so severe that the need to cut back existing refineries will be evident to all (with the exception of the oil companies, who will no doubt fight to the bitter end.)

Finally, Gerard stated, "We contribute over $86 million a day and pay an effective tax rate of 44 percent. Now that's contrasted to other industries who pay an average of 26 percent. So if you want to know who's paying their fair share, it's the oil and gas industry."  I don't have the facts to argue with this, but my impression is that the oil and gas industry is highly subsidized through various loopholes.  And with the incredible billions in profits they are raking in, I can't feel too sorry for them being burdened with taxes.  And it would be nice if they paid for all the damages that global warming is causing.  I would welcome anyone with a good analysis of these figures.