BUSH OFFICIAL CALLS FOR ALL NEW ENERGIES NOW

Apparently Randall Luthi, outgoing Director of the Federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI), is looking for a job in the Obama administration.

His job in the Bush administration is coming to an end and Luthi seems to have realized he will need gainful employment when the sensible people take over Washington. His recent op-ed piece sort of suggests he was just kidding while, under President Bush, he did everything he could to slow the development of the New Energy infrastructure he now says is so urgently needed.

Luthi, outgoing Director, MMS: “We must develop as many energy sources as we can. We must do it quickly and safely. And we must do it within realistic environmental regulations…”

Under Luthi, the slow, reluctant unfolding of the MMS approvals process for offshore wind and hydrokinetic (wave/tide/current) energies admittedly did move slightly farther forward than under his predecessors. But the impediments - an obvious “if you won’t let us drill, we won’t let you do anything” gesture from the Bush administration to environmentalists - were never completely removed.

But now it's all different. Well, it's a little different.

Luthi: “The public wants alternative and renewable energy in our future. So why should we pursue increased offshore development of oil and gas resources in the Atlantic now?”

Good question. Is the answer: Because the Republicans and the oil industry want to drill?

There certainly isn’t enough oil there to make a significant difference in imports or pump prices.

OK, facetiousness aside, the answer to Luthi’s question is the petroleum industry wants to develop the natural gas supplies offshore. Fine. The Obama administration is apparently set to allow that to go forward. It's not like the country won’t be able to make use of the natural gas before it runs out.

None of that has anything to do with developing the ocean’s New Energy resources. And neither did Luthi’s MMS. NOW he writes about how important it is?

Next, there will no doubt be a think-piece from Stephen Johnson, head of the Bush administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, saying how urgent it is to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs). Johnson was the guy who, under direct orders from the White House, blocked release of EPA’s legal conclusion there is no way to avoid regulating GhGs under the terms of the Clean Air Act.

Oh, and about those GhGs. In U.S. Greenhouse Gases Go Up, Bush Talking Point Goes Down, Marianne Lavelle’s most recent post at The Center for Public Intregrity, she cites a just released assessment from the Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) reporting that U.S. GhGs went up in 2007. This completely (and finally?) discredits the Bush contention that voluntary reduction of emissions from business and industry is the solution to the problem.

The soon-to-be ex-President touted the idea of voluntary reductions as an answer to global climate change when 2006 U.S. emissions fell 1.3%. The 2007 1.4% rise in U.S. emissions seems to suggest the previous year was an anomaly in the steady 2000-to-2007 3% growth in U.S. GhGs. Another tenet of the Bush ideology has been proven wrong.

Nevermind. The ideologues were never concerned with proof or statistics. Just as they were unconcerned with legal judgments against them.

In Mr. Luthi’s defense, he hasn’t completely succumbed to good sense. Despite his admission of the urgency of developing a 21st century New Energy infrastructure, his first priority is – yep, that’s right – offshore oil drilling.

Footnote Proving Nuclear Energy Probably Isn’t The Answer Either: Duke Energy bans worker after pot found (AP, November 29, 2008) – “Duke Energy Co. says it has banned a worker from the Oconee Nuclear Station after an investigation showed the contract employee brought marijuana into the facility…[A] small quantity of the drug was found earlier this month in a protected area of the plant located about 30 miles west of Greenville. The plant's security team investigated…[T]he worker was at the plant for maintenance and refueling on the Unit 2 reactor…”

Question: What's the worst thing that can happen to a stoned wind energy maintenance engineer?

Hint: It would also happen to somebody who got stoned and went up to the roof to clean the solar panels.

Answer: A big fall.

Does the stoner servicing nuclear reactors suggest nuclear energy is headed for a fall?

Under Mr. Luthi, MMS produced this fine pamphlett... (click to enlarge)

Diversify energy resources despite low prices at pump
Randall Luthi, December 4, 2008 (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

WHO
Randall Luthi, outgoing Director of the Federal Minerals Management Service (MMS), Department of the Interior (DOI); the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy (DOE)

WHAT
Luthi’s think-piece describes rising energy demand, inadequate supply and the need to develop all domestic sources of energy, including offshore oil and gas drilling, offshore wind installations and hydrokinetic (wave/tide/current) energies.

...But no offshore wind or ocean energy. (click to enlarge)

WHEN
- Luthi was named to head MMS late in 2007.
- He worked at DOI under Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
- He began his career as a congressional legislative assistant and his 2nd job was with Wyoming Congressman (and future Vice-President) Dick Cheney.
- EIA predicts U.S. energy demand will rise 24% by 2030.

WHERE
- Luthi is a Republican from Wyoming, where he runs a beef cattle ranch in Lincoln County.

WHY
- Luthi’s tenure at MMS saw processing with bureaucratic but not real progress in the development of guidelines for offshore wind and ocean hydrokinetic energies.
- Luthi’s legal specialty is the collecting of royalties for the government from the oil and gas companies.
- Luthi explains his call for development of “all” energies with the penetrating insight that “Our nation’s economy is energy dependent…Energy powers our economy, transportation, food production, national defense, our homes and the very essence of our society. Our families and livelihoods depend on having a secure, reliable source of energy at a reasonable price.” This is Republican speak for “If the Democrats cut back on poison-spewing fossil fuels in favor of that new fangled New Energy, be afraid, be very afraid.”
- EIA predicts U.S. energy production will grow but not enough to meet demand. But EIA could not include expected growth in New Energy once MMS and EPA restraints are removed.
- Luthi’s argument in favor of drilling rests on his equating the development of New Energy with trying to “…tax our way to energy security…”
- He also asserts there is too much dependence on Gulf Of Mexico oil and gas resources. He is right. But whuile he thinks this means developing offshore Atlantic and Pacific resources, it could also mean developing offshore Atlantic and Pacific and Great Lakes and Midwestern wind and hydrokinetics energies.
- Luthi points out the remarkable safety record of offshore petroleum drillers without mentioning the dreadful spills that have occurred just this past year in the San Francisco Bay and the lower Mississippi River during transport. It’s all part of the process.

During the Bush years, while government officials worked for more offshore oil and gas drilling, Europe has been building offshore wind and developing ocean energy. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Luthi: “Part of the solution is renewables. The Minerals Management Service was given the authority to manage the offshore alternative energy program including wind, wave and current energy. Even with development full speed ahead, it will take time to make a transition to these alternate sources of energy.”
- Luthi: “A clean environment and energy production are not mutually exclusive.
Yet we continue on a path that leads to more dependence on foreign sources of energy. We’ve been presented unique opportunities to secure our energy future. We can. We should. I believe we must.” (So does NewEnergyNews, but not Luthi’s way.)