On Charlie Rose, EDF leader Fred Krupp endorses domestic drilling for new oil 17

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 9:31 am
   20 Jun 2008

   I just happened to be channel surfing andcaught this segment. He talks about "advanced" biofuels coming in the, you guessed it, "next five years" and  "...conventional ethanol, which has its problems ..."
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

2. 

   JMG Posted 9:39 am
   20 Jun 2008

   No surpriseI wrote a fairly critical review of this guy's new book (Earth 2.0) and it disappeared into the Gristmill grinder somehow.  The stuff above is pretty consistent with the book---he's all about continuing to use coal, carbon sequestration dreams, biofuels, etc. etc.  The whole thing reads like a breathless WIRED or FAST COMPANY wet kiss to the wunderkind who will bring us better living through TECHNOLOGY!  Seems to have very little understanding of the difference between energy and technology or the Second Law of Thermodynamics for that matter ...
   
   The 5% Project

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 9:41 am
   20 Jun 2008

   I'd like to see that review
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 9:58 am
   20 Jun 2008

   Some "Environmental" Groups Clearly NotThis shows why conservative environmental groups can be worse than useless, they can actually cause a significant amount of harm by being on the wrong side of an issue and convincing the public that environmentalists are behind some type of anti-environmental behavior, as EDF is here.

   Permalink

5. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 12:07 pm
   20 Jun 2008

   Correction, WolverineA while back they decided it was a bad idea to keep reminding the rest of us about their funding, so the F was dropped.

   Permalink

6. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 12:10 pm
   20 Jun 2008

   Dave tooSo apparently at least it's not working.

   Permalink

7. 

   Sam Wells Posted 1:32 am
   21 Jun 2008

   And ED means ....Erectile disfunction?  Should have left the "F" on there maybe.
   But there are some compelling reasons to have a very term-term plan to increase domestic oil & gas production, given that there are so "silver bullets" that have an immediate impact. Such a policy should be balanced heavily in favor of a credit program for clean technology, conservation, thermal re-use, R&D, and so forth. Plus, we need to weed out failed strategies such as most any kind of ethanol.
   Strangely, Big Oil isn't so hot on the idea of developing domestic oil and gas as one might think. Many of those in favor of it are often "wildcatter" companies that seek partial investment from the majors and large investors such as GE. An example would be a small three-man company in Connecticut that is developing gas wells off the lower Texas coast, backed by hundreds of millions in GE. Virtually every aspect is contracted.
   But returning to my point, many offshore majors are leaving the Gulf of Mexico, for a variety of reasons. First, the cost of overhead in the US is too high because of labor, insurance, lack of trained labor, hurricanes, and so forth. My understanding is that most inshore and offshore rigs are being towed to Nigeria, Brazil, and elsewhere. Even with higher government royalties, the companies make more money abroad that here in the US.
   This does lead to quite a conundrum, since energy produced abroad and imported into the US must be delivered by tanker, thus increasing CO2 emissions far more than using efficient local pipelines. How can it be cheaper yet make MORE greenhouse gases? Think before you respond that "a carbon tax would take care of all that."
   One interesting result is that with billions invested in LNG terminals, a popular energy policy started about 5 years ago, little if any is actually coming to the US because we're being out-bid by nations in the Far East. Most new LNG terminals have just a shipment or two to cool down the pipes and check the engineering, and can't sell any significant amount domestically. I'd rank that up there with the ethanol boondoggle if you ask me. Just remember the Law of Unintended Consequences ...
   
   sam
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

8. 

   Bart Anderson Posted 7:26 am
   21 Jun 2008

   Co-dependence and oil addictionSam Wells: But there are some compelling reasons to have a very [short?]-term plan to increase domestic oil & gas production Whether we like it or not, I think more drilling in the U.S. and in sensitive areas is inevitable.
   Ironically, more drilling could be part of a rational strategy to move to renewables and a more sustainable energy infrastructure -- it will take oil to build whatever is coming next.
   The problem is that we are caught up in an addiction.  The oil will go to keep us driving in fuel-inefficient vehicles, and to encourage the Chinese and Indians to manufacture millions of cars.
   Imagine a desperate addict. You give him $1000 to get his life started over again, so he can come clean.  What's going to happen?
   The pain of oil addiction is going to have to become unbearable before we will see significant change.
   
   Bart
   
   
   Energy Bulletin

   Permalink

9. 

   amazingdrx Posted 8:30 am
   21 Jun 2008

   Enviro (group) Disfunction?It seems the grass roots blood is not flowing to the member(s at the top) intended to penetrate through the barrier of lobbyist disinformation.
   Rendering energy and ag policy reform impotent.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 8:52 am
    21 Jun 2008

    ArtIt's an in-artful approach to give in on every point like these groups always do, ED, NRDC, and other mainstream lobbying (grass roots disconnected), funded by we the eco-people.
    The art of the deal is to make an offer, for instance, limited extra area available for drilling, with new safety and oversight procedures, including the public, with better public access to what is happening, via webcam for instance.
    If the limited permitted drilling results in actual new production that could actually help increase supply enough to stabilize prices, in a safe mannwer, tghen and only then increase drilling area again.  Concentrate on most developed areas first (they are already at risk), to protect wildlife.
    This way we can point to studies that prove our point, drilling for marginal extra oil offshore won't help appreciably on supply or price, only plugin electricity and mass transit can really reduce demand to stabilize the price of fuel.
    This issue is Rove's dream, a way to push swing voters to the right, the very powerful gas price issue, "it's the economy stupid".
    So we counter with, yes it is the economy.  But more drilling won't save it, instead it will encourage the fiction that gas guzzling can continue without killing our economy and the climate.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

11. 

    randino Posted 9:59 am
    21 Jun 2008

    Head smacking moments.The problem is that the big green groups who are State House and Inside the Beltway focused live in a world where access, and deal making are foremost, and principles and values are taken out with the trash every night. One has to remember that their real constituents are not the environmental grunts who are fighting the good fight out there in the hinterlands. Their consituents are funders, and those they can cut a deal with.
    Our only hope in dealing with them and green washing politicians, is to build the environmental grass roots, and the little green groups who fearlessly do battle with the gods of our society, while lovingly kicking the asses of the big greens when they do something stupid. Which they do. On a regular basis.
    Randy Cunningham
    
    Cleveland, OH
    
    Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

12. 

    amazingdrx Posted 10:33 am
    21 Jun 2008

    Yeah"...lovingly kicking the asses of the big greens"
    Still send in money but reduce it a bit and explain what you want them to change their nuclear, fuel farming, clean coal boosting ways.
    To back production based direct subsidies, to renewable/conservation consumers.  The subsidies funded by money now wasted subsidizing nuclear, fossil, and fuel farmed power and fuel.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

13. 

    Sam Wells Posted 11:04 am
    21 Jun 2008

    Anti Bush & Rove & Cheney & McCainThe reasons I support a narrow short-term drilling policy in relatively "good" areas such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico is not because of money or that the US would become more "energy secure."  That's a joke! It simply is a hedge against other countries bidding up the supply side.
    Take Southwest Airlines, which for years used a hedging as a mechanism to keep fuel coming at a reasonable cost, even though rising all the time. SW Air is a good example because they're using electric ground power rather than auxiliary jet turbine power when docked at the terminals - well, imagine if that power was solar and wind? Imagine of that solar and wind power was a hedge against other rising energy costs?
    Perhaps we all want instant gratification, an overnight sensation where coal power would disappear. But one has to work on the margins and chip away a little at a time, changing the economics and the way people think. And I think we're reaching that tipping point pretty fast ...
    
    Onward through the fog

    Permalink

14. 

    Leprof Posted 1:35 pm
    21 Jun 2008

    back to edfJust for the record, the 'f' is back.
    
    Here's the story as I understand it.
    
    EDF had decided to drop the F because they were receiving requests from external groups for funding for environmental projects.
    
    EDF changed its name to Environmental Defense and had the same company that came up with FedEx come up with a new symbol/brand name; they came up with 'e' the lower-case e.
    
    After a few years, e realized that they had far more name recognition as EDF and switched back.

    Permalink

15. 

    Bart Anderson Posted 4:06 pm
    21 Jun 2008

    Not sure how drilling more would really helpSam Wells writes: The reasons I support a narrow short-term drilling policy in relatively "good" areas such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico...  It simply is a hedge against other countries bidding up the supply side.
    ?? I don't get it. The oil would go onto the world market. Yes, for a while the new supplies will keep the price of oil from going as high as it otherwise might. I'm not sure how significant the price difference would be.
    BUT - we will have used the oil up in the short-term, when in the future, oil is bound to be much more valuable. In the future, many countries may engage in energy nationalism and husband their supplies carefully.
    What will we have done with the oil? Used it to build a sustainable infrasture? Almost certainly not. We're still in the addictive mode.
    Maybe you can explain more, Sam?
    Thanks
    
    Bart
    
    
    Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

16. 

    setb Posted 5:48 am
    28 Jul 2008

    Krupp=LiebermanNice, Krupp! Good to have ED come out fully as a non-environmental environmental group. Give 100's of billions away to polluters, more oil drilling-- they're like the Lieberman of green groups!  

    Permalink

17. 

    Tony Kreindler Posted 3:00 am
    29 Jul 2008

    For the Record ...Fred Krupp did not endorse expanded drilling. His comments were taken out of context in this post, and he has provided a clarification on Grist here.
    
    www.edf.org

    Permalink