Allen Buckley For United States Senate - The Environment & Energy

The environment needs to be protected in a practical manner. In this regard, I believe that global warming is happening, and that action should be taken to protect the environment. As the States regularly compete for new industry based on tax breaks, etc., and pollution rarely remains within a State’s borders, it is imperative that a strong federal Environmental Protection Agency be maintained.

Air quality will become a very significant issue in the very near future. Benefits of action will include better health and less health care costs (and Medicare/Medicaid costs) in the future.

While I am in favor of permitting drilling for oil in an environmentally protective manner in virtually any area, I do not believe that additional drilling in the U.S. is going to solve our long-term energy needs. I have heard my Democratic opponent, Jim Martin, claim that a significant part of the run-up in the cost of gasoline is due to actions of oil speculators. However, according to an article in the July 5th-11th 2008 edition of The Economist magazine titled "Don't Blame the Speculators": "Politicians who try to make oil cheaper by restraining speculation will just make things worse." At its end, the article provides: "Despite their dismal reputation, the oil speculators provide a vital service. They help airlines and other big oil consumers to hedge against rising prices, and so to reduce risk - a boon amid the economic turmoil. By the same token, they provide oil producers with much more predictable future revenues, and so allow them to expand more confidently and borrow more cheaply. That, in turn, should help lower the price of oil in the long run. Any attempt to curtail speculation, by contrast, is likely to make life harder for firms and oil more expensive."

We need to create special incentives for clean-burning alternative sources of energy to oil. Such alternative sources would be a potential means of substantial withdrawal from the Middle East. We would need to consider implications upon withdrawal. I believe that hydrogen fueling for vehicles and planes is the solution to many problems. A hydrogen-based, water emissions system that worked on a global basis would: (a) help stop global warming; (b) substantially reduce our need for oil; (c) reduce health problems; and (d) ultimately cost much less than gasoline. Tremendous strides are now being made by BMW, GM, Ford, Honda and other companies to move to hydrogen fueling. In an article by Kevin Ransom for AOL AUTOS, Matt Zuehlk of Ford was quoted as saying, "I still think this is the technology that's going to win out in the long-run picture. I think Hydrogen presents the most plausible long-term path to widespread viability -- both due to driving range advantages, and the zero-emission benefits." See: How Hydrogen Will Work (PDF).

While technology now exists to produce hydrogen at the equivalent of $1.50 to $3 per gallon of gas, the production price is expected to decline dramatically in the future. Very importantly, hydrogen engines are 2 to 3 times more efficient than the internal combustion engine, meaning that $3 for hydrogen equates to $1.50 or less per gallon of gasoline. Hydrogen is now readily made from natural gas, and creation of hydrogen at stations from natural gas may be the best way to get started. It has been estimated that hydrogen can be produced from natural gas for as low as 63 cents per gallon, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% for ordinary vehicles on a "well to wheels" basis. See: Hydrogen Press Release.

Consider the potential economic boon if the U.S. leads the hydrogen charge. As real estate slows, the U.S. needs a new economic catalyst. Hydrogen could be it. No excise taxes should apply to any clean-burning fuel such as hydrogen. Rather, gasoline should carry the burden of federal excise taxes for roads and bridges. It may be that the most efficient system would be one wherein individual filling stations convert ordinary water (perhaps even rain water) to hydrogen and then store it underground. Electrolysis could perhaps be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. An efficient and safe system should be utilized. If such an individual filling station system is the best system, then we need to look at figuring out the best way to implement it. A major reward should be granted for a “turn-key” solution for hydrogen fueling. The reward should be $7 billion for the first company or venture that installs 10 stations and places 1,000 vehicles on the roads in each U.S. metropolitan area with a population of 3 million or more. The vehicles would need to be safe and would reasonably be anticipated to cost less than $2 per gallon in gasoline-equivalent terms. Solar and wind power also provide clean energy, and they should not be taxed.

On October 3, 2007, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Mazda had unveiled a hybrid powered by hydrogen. The car could run on both hydrogen and gas. (BMW has also produced cars that run on both hydrogen and gas.) The hydrogen tank could propel the vehicle over 124 miles. The emissions: only clean water. Mazda’s current plan is for utilization only in Japan. The U.S. needs to jump on hydrogen’s tremendous economic and environmental opportunity as soon as possible.

Solar and wind power also provide clean energy, and they should not be taxed. I also believe that nuclear power can be safely utilized, and its utilization should be expanded. Nuclear power could be the source for creation of hydrogen through electrolysis.

Overall, I like the T. Boone Pickens plan. I especially like the wind power piece. The best use of natural gas must be determined. The market is the best source to determine.

Concerning electric cars, Chevrolet will soon introduce the Volt. As advertised, the car will travel 40 miles on one charge, with the fuel cost equal to 70 cents to 80 cents per gallon in gasoline equivalent terms.

Corn-based ethanol and numerous other sources of ethanol are not the solution. They are a short-term stopgap measure. “(C)orn-based ethanol, the sort produced in America, is neither cheap nor green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers . . . between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year. . . . America should bin its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidizing bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither the world would be greener and the American taxpayer would be richer.” (Source: The Economist - “Castro was right” April 7, 2007.)

The October 2007 edition of National Geographic magazine provides the following concerning biofuels and ethanol: “Biofuels as currently rendered in the U.S. are doing great things for some farmers and for agricultural giants like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, but little for the environment. Corn requires large doses of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer and can cause more soil erosion than any other crop. And producing corn ethanol consumes just about as much fossil fuel as the ethanol itself replaces. . . . Some studies of the energy balance of corn ethanol—the amount of fossil energy needed to make ethanol versus the energy it produces—suggest that ethanol is a loser’s game, requiring more carbon-emitting fossil fuel than it displaces. Others give it a slight advantage. But however the accounting is done, corn ethanol is no greenhouse panacea.”

The environment is an area where cooperation and agreement with other countries is necessary. Any environmental treaty should include all industrialized countries and all countries reasonably anticipated to become industrialized.