GoodFuels

Liberty from Foreign Oil

As the Statue of Liberty’s crown reopens to the public this Independence Day for the first time since September 11, 2001, it’s a good time to consider what true liberty and independence means. To paraphrase the famous quote from one of our founding fathers, Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me foreign oil.”

Jay Hakes, author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence,” says September 11, 2001 was a preview of America’s future — one possible future.

On September 12, 2001 the United States awakened from a nightmare, finding itself standing at a crossroad, facing a choice between two very different futures: One choice would lead the country to increased dependence on foreign oil and a future dominated by terrorism and war. The other choice would lead to American energy independence and a world economy that is no longer desperate for oil.

On the main page of Hakes’ website “American Energy Independence,” there are photos of two paintings by artist Michael D’Antuono.

“The first painting titled “Dependence” depicts a burqa-clad Statue of Liberty encircled by vultures in an apocalyptic environment clinging to a barrel of oil instead of a book and a gasoline nozzle raised above her head in place of her torch.

The second piece titled “Independence”, offers an optimistic alternative to the first with our Miss Liberty this time embracing a solar panel and wind turbine as eagles and doves glide through an idyllic blue sky.”

Hakes has a great way of thinking about Energy Independence we should all consider as we fill up our cars and prepare to watch the fireworks bursting in air this holiday:

Energy Independence is a civilization changing idea, like freedom, one that should be thought of much like we think of our national independence—our liberty, which is both an ideal and a physical reality. Energy Independence can and should be pursued with the same patriotic spirit that fought for, won and sustains American democracy and freedom.

The phrase “Energy Independence” is a slogan embodying an idea that resonates with the character of America—it is a call for return to economic balance and protection from vulnerability created by over-dependence on petroleum to fuel our cars, trucks and airplanes—it is a public outcry voiced by citizens demanding government leadership in energy production, distribution, security and fuel choice.

God Bless America!

What Chu Said in Iowa

Energy Secretary Steven Chu was in Des Moines Monday to announce more than $16 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in Iowa during a news conference with Governor Chet Culver. But his announcement took a back seat to some of the comments about ethanol he made during Q and A with reporters.

First, Chu indicated that he supports approval of the waiver that would allow up to 15 percent ethanol blends for standard vehicles currently being considered by the federal government. “I don’t want to prejudge what they’re going to find, but if the existing automobile fleet can handle 15 percent, I would say let’s make that a target and go to 15 percent,” Chu said. “This is very important for decreasing our oil independence.”

Chu also suggested that car manufacturers ought to make all new automobiles flex-fuel capable. “I’ve been told it costs about $100 in gaskets and fuel lines to turn a car so that it can go all the way to E85,” Chu said. “But a new car , it would only cost $100 out of $15,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to put in those fuel lines and gaskets so that we can use any ratio we wanted?” He said that while mandating that companies make all vehicles flex-fuel is “beginning to be discussed” by the administration, they first want to “see about whether the current fleet can take 15 percent or 13 percent ethanol.”

When it came to the issue of indirect land use change and how corn ethanol can measure up using the calculations proposed by EPA under the Renewable Fuels Standard for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, Chu had to do some dancing. “The Obama administration has made it very clear that they would rather get to where we need to get to in terms of decreasing our carbon footprint by legislation not by regulatory things,” Chu said when questioned about the matter. He then launched into a discussion about the potential cellulosic sources for biofuels hold for farmers.

Asked more specifically about the EPA proposal, Chu said, “It’s out for peer review and we’ll see how it plays out.” That comment prompted Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), a member of the House Agriculture Committee who was also at the press conference, to say to the secretary, “I hear what you’re saying, I’ve heard it loud and clear, and we’re very concerned about it and there’s a fairly large group that’s making this come to the table for discussion.”

Here is an audio file with Chu’s answers to some of the questions posed. The audio from the reporters was not audible, but you can pretty much figure out what they were asking.