Energy nominee is no fan of fossil fuel-based energy

With the announcement of his new energy-environmental team last week, President-elect Barack Obama has signaled a clear intention of pursuing policies that differ sharply from those of his predecessor.

While some questions remain unresolved, one thing appears certain:

His choice for secretary of energy, the highly respected Nobel laureate Steven Chu, is no fan of fossil fuels. Chu’s statements and policy positions suggest that he favors a shift away from one of the nation’s — and Houston’s — most important and strategic industries. If that is the case, it might be wise to consider how realistic such a shift would actually be.
In speeches, Chu has called fossil fuels the “culprit” in climate change. He says there is a “very pressing need” to find alternatives to gasoline and advocates converting solar energy into automobile fuel. According to the Wall Street Journal, he has called for “gradually ramping up gasoline taxes” (a position Obama has rejected because of the “additional burden” it would place on families). Once, famously, he termed coal “my worst nightmare.”

Of course, Chu’s positions underscore his larger goal of embracing renewable energy as a strategy for reducing global warming. Make no mistake: Climate change is a major issue that commands close attention and a thoughtful response. At the same time, it would be shortsighted to shape a strategy that ignores the essential role oil and gas must play in the nation’s energy future.

Calling for a wholesale shift from a fossil fuel-based energy economy may be well-intentioned. But it is just not realistic, at least in the near term. Renewable energy contributed only 6.7 percent of the total U.S. energy demand in 2007, the Journal has reported, which is actually down from the 7 percent figure of 1981. This decline has occurred despite the fact that renewables received more federal subsidies in 2007 than any other source, almost $4.9 billion, which was about one-third of all U.S. assistance. This is in stark contrast to the data for oil and natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that petroleum and natural gas made up 63 percent of energy consumption in 2007, with the balance made up primarily by coal and nuclear. What’s more, EIA said just last week, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2009, that use of oil and natural gas can be expected to grow through 2030, and that fossil fuels will still provide 79 percent of total energy use. On the other hand, the Department of Energy projects that renewable energy’s contribution to overall U.S. energy production will likely remain at or near the 2007 levels.

This suggests that even with more research funds — which Chu supports, and rightfully so— the impact of renewable energy is likely to be marginal at best over the next two decades. Oil and gas, by comparison, can be expected to maintain their standing as the predominant U.S. energy source.

But there’s another consequence of shifting away from fossil fuels: reduced employment.

Houston Chronicle