I don't understand why folks always assume oil companies are to blame for our energy gluttony. It's akin to blaming Wendy's for your weight problem, or RJR for your cigarette addiction costs.Umm, that's not what I said. I don't blame the oil industry for our
energy gluttony. Read it again.
It's really pretty easy to understand. Oil companies have a huge investment in the infrastructure they have built over the last couple of decades, all geared towards fossil fuels. If there was a shift in energy consumption away from fossil fuels, that investment would become a liability. Not good for their bottom line, not good for their shareholders. So, with the huge amount of money the industry has, much has been thrown towards governments to protect their interests, and reduce incentives towards alternative sources of energy.
Look at what Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Chevron Corporation said to the Cambridge Energy Research Associates Executive Conference (in 1994!):
Quote:
I'm very much alarmed by this emerging consensus, because I believe the effort to achieve that goal . . . the effort to tilt the playing field away from oil and toward alternatives . . . the related effort to regulate away the last and least impact of petroleum . . . these are genuine threats . . . with the potential to do great harm not only to the petroleum industry but to the interdependent global economy as well.
A clear example of this threat showed up in last year's proposed BTU tax. As you'll recall, the essential proposal called for taxing all fuels according to their BTU content. Except for oil. The tax on oil was to be essentially doubled beyond the level set by BTU content.
The extra tax handicap amounted to a "sin-tax," like those placed on tobacco and alcohol.
Outside of our industry, nobody seemed to find that a strange comparison.
Unless some note of reason and proportion can be interjected into the public discourse, I fear the petroleum industry could face a future of continual disruption . . . and relentless attrition.
We have got to respond to the alarmist charges against oil. We're going to have to do a world-class job of bringing the facts before the public.
(Source: Chevron Oil
Unfortunately, the major thrust of alternative fuels has been one of environmental impact, not depletion of crude oil and it's aftermath, or that of renewable energy sources. For example, in 1990, the president proposed, in his Clean Air Act, many provisions that would lead to the introduction of alternative fuels. The petroleum industry fought that bill, and won, by instead offering an RFG (reformulated gasoline) plan designed to reduce emissions. Their argument was that it would take years and years to realize emission reductions in the current fleet of vehicles (and the changes required to those vehicles), while RFG could reduce them immediately. Yet another example of how powerful interests can, and do, protect their bottom line. (Source: EPA)
Hey, it's always been the same throughout history. When you have a large, powerful industry with lots of money behind it, they always fight to prevent alternatives from entering the market which will directly impact their pockets. Their investments are huge and they need to protect those investments, even if it's not in the best interest of the rest of the world. Has nothing to do with consumption, has everything to do with money.
Cheers,
Brad
