Okay, we can use natural-gas-fired plants as a substitute. They’re cleaner than coal-fired plants, and we have a lot of natural gas available in the US.

“Um, no, we can’t do that. Hydraulic fracturing pollutes drinking water.”

Actually the EPA has said that there’s no evidence of that.

“Well, the EPA study was flawed, and natural gas is still a fossil fuel.”

Alright, fine, we’ll use nuclear energy.

“No, nuclear energy is no good. What are we going to do with all of that waste? Are the reactors safe? Can terrorists sabotage the plants or the waste?”

O-kay, how about wind energy?

“I don’t want those turbines ruining my view. Plus they’re noisy and they kill birds.”

Solar?

“That might be okay. I don’t like how much water it takes to maintain solar panels, though. And solar panels might hurt biodiversity.”

Friend, is there a form of energy that you’d be alright with?

“Whatever works and is sustainable. We should have hydrogen fuel cells.”

But natural gas is usually used to produce hydrogen.

“It can be produced from water.”

Yes, using power from the grid … which is typically going to be produced using natural gas or coal or nuclear energy. And isn’t water scarce in this country?”

“Uh, that’s no good. We need something more sustainable.”

Um … fire?

“Really … are you going to chop down all of those forests?”

Nice sweater-tie combo.

Surely this Friday evening, as you chill in the bar or club or W Hotel lounge and check out this blog on your iPhone — surely you are wondering what Scott McAdams’ views are on important aspects of energy policy. If you are, I would not disappoint you. Here’s what I’ve dug up so far:

Oil and gas production: McAdams believes that drilling for oil and gas should be allowed along the Outer Continental Shelf, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the same source as above, McAdams expressed his support for the failed legislation to raise the cap on liability for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion.

Natural gas vehicles (NGVs): I found no information regarding McAdams’ views on encouraging the adoption of natural gas as an alternative fuel for transportation. Perhaps our friends at the Anchorage Daily News could ask him; or, if his campaign is reading this, they should feel free to post a reply. I also tried to ascertain whether the City of Sitka operates a fleet of natural gas vehicles, but again, a brief search turned up no information.

For what it’s worth, a quick search on the wonderful CNG Prices Web site didn’t indicate that there are any CNG refueling stations in the Sitka area. The closest one listed was 200+ miles to the southeast in British Columbia. Whether that information is current, I don’t know, but Alaska’s lack of CNG refueling infrastructure has been written about before. (And I highly recommend exploring that last link if you’re part of the CNG community or interested in NGVs, as it discusses and further links to an ADN article about one Alaskan’s experiences operating an NGV in Palmer, Alaska, north of Anchorage.)

It would be nice to hear Mayor McAdams’ thoughts about whether, if elected to the Senate, he would support measures similar to those proposed by Boone Pickens and others, to promote the adoption of natural gas vehicles and the development of the necessary refueling infrastructure. McAdams does say that we shouldn’t spend so much money on foreign oil. Now he should take the next step, and explain what he intends to do about it.

Renewables: McAdams says that the proceeds from fossil fuel production in ANWR and along the OCS should be used to establish a renewable energy “Permanent Fund.” McAdams says that this fund could finance the development of renewable energy in Alaska.

McAdams is concerned about the future of Alaska’s energy industry as fossil fuel production at Prudhoe Bay declines, and he views the development of renewables in Alaska as a hedge against ruin for Alaska’s economy.

Nuclear energy: It would be nice to know if McAdams’ rationale for supporting renewable energy extends to support for greater development of nuclear power (such this proposed small-scale nuclear energy project in Galena, a town in central Alaska). His views on the subject are not immediately available.

Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes: Again, his views regarding this subject are unavailable, and those views would be nice to know. Alaska stands to be greatly affected by climate change — at least, an office that advises the governor of Alaska on these issues (an office created by an administrative order issued by then-Governor Sarah Palin) sure seems to believe so. Therefore, you would expect a potential US senator from Alaska to have an opinion as to what should be done to mitigate the onset or effects of climate change.

For what it’s worth, however, the current leader for the Republican Senate nomination in Alaska, Joe Miller, has suggested that climate change may not exist. Says Miller on his Web site:

“I strongly oppose the unconstitutional Cap and Trade legislation. The science supporting manmade climate change is inconclusive. Nothing typifies that more than the metamorphosis in terminology being used. A few years ago, the dire warnings coming from Al Gore and others all spoke of “Global Warming.” The term “Greenhouse Gas” itself conjures up images of the unnatural heat found in a manmade environment. However, since the trend in more recent years has been towards cooler temperatures, those (like Senator Murkowski and others) pushing for cap and trade and other carbon emission reducing legislation have had to change their terminology to “Climate Change.” Should we take drastic measures to combat something that may not even exist, burdening our already struggling economy with billions in new taxes and regulations?”

The question for McAdams, then, is does he agree with Miller’s assessment of climate change; and does he agree with Miller’s general opposition to cap-and-trade legislation?

What was McAdams’ view on the cap-and-trade regime proposed in the Kerry-Lieberman bill? And if McAdams opposes a cap-and-trade system — either the kind specifically proposed in Kerry-Lieberman, or in general — what would he propose in its place, to address the issue of climate change? Would he back a carbon tax? Would he back a package of tax expenditures, grants, and loan guarantees for renewable energy and alternative fuels? Some combination of the above measures? None of the above? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also, as a general note: The next few upcoming posts are going to be about various aspects of renewable energy, and alternative fuels aside from natural gas. If you’ve followed this blog even a little bit, you know where I stand on natural gas. Now it’s time to mix it up a little a bit, and explore other interesting aspects of the energy industry, and energy policy, economics, and technology.

One semi-exception to the rule: I have a growing interest in alternative fuels, including (but not limited) to natural gas, being used in professional racing. (And I have Renewable Motorsports up in Seattle to thank for that.) So I’ll likely explore that in an upcoming post soon. I think it would be awesome to have different racing circuits where you can only use CNG, or biofuels, or electric batteries, or what have you. I wonder if those circuits already exist. I’ll have to explore and report back to you. If you’re aware of any, bring them to my attention in the comments section below.

No, I don’t worship at a natural gas altar. My God is not a blue flame. And no, I don’t believe that natural gas production is without problems. There’s a reason why oil and gas law is a popular elective in law schools.

I do support natural gas as an alternative fuel because it’s an abundant domestic fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline and diesel in internal combustion engines, is cost-efficient, and is a good bridge fuel to hydrogen-fueled vehicles and electric vehicles. And I believe that NGVs are superior to hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), in terms of minimizing GHG emissions. And I’m wary about pure-electric vehicles (PEVs) because I worry about which energy sources we’ll use to produce electricity for them — displacing petroleum with coal isn’t a win, in my book — and I’m worried about where we’re going to get the lithium needed to power all of those vehicles.

Still, going back over some of my blog posts, I can see how one may get the impression that I’m implacably against electric vehicles, and skeptical of renewable energy to the point where I don’t think that its proactive development and production is worthwhile, or should even be a priority. Which is unfortunate, because I’ve researched wind energy issues for a federal agency, and I have attended an American Wind Energy Association conference, which I greatly enjoyed. I do believe that the production of wind energy, for instance, should be a proactive national priority.

So let me clearly state the following:

• I believe that man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are contributing to an unnatural rate of climate change. If you don’t believe so, I’m unlikely to convince you otherwise. But this longtime weather buff believes that it is a problem, and a problem that ought not to be ignored: not for profit, not for willful ignorance, not for ideology, or for any other reason. It is not a problem that should be blown out of proportion with the available evidence; nor, should the evidence be so easily disregarded, and nor should we delay as a country in taking the most objective, prudent countermeasures.

• I do believe that renewables can be, and ought to be, an integral part of the solution for mitigating GHG emissions. I do not believe that they are a silver bullet. Much has been made of their limitations, which are very real — and I’ve certainly done my share of mentioning those limitations. But the limitations of renewables should not be used as a tool to block their active development. Those limitations should be seen as challenges to be proactively overcome. Do we want to power our PEVs with coal-generated electricity, for instance? If not, then we should displace coal with nuclear energy, natural gas, and wind and solar energy.

• Now, how do we encourage the development of renewable energy? A carbon tax, as some — including some in the fossil fuel industry — have called for? A cap-and-trade system, as some — including some in the fossil fuel industry — have called for? Government subsidies, such as are found in the ARRA/stimulus law? Loan guarantees? Tax expenditures? Renewable energy standards; internal government agency mandates to buy a certain amount of renewable power or HEVs or PEVs? Free market competition, whatever that means? Here’s my position: Do whatever works best, and causes consumers the least amount of pain, and minimizes uncertainty for businesses, while clearly accomplishing the big picture objective of boosting the development of renewables. Figure it out, and do it, proactively. Break the partisan gridlock in this country, overcome the inertia, and just do it.

• As we work to develop renewables with all deliberate speed, let’s don’t forget that fossil fuels do play an important, currently indepensable role in our national energy supply — particularly natural gas. Let’s produce it as safely as possible, and let’s don’t mindlessly demonize natural gas production. Where there are problems with natural gas production, those too must be seen as challenges to be overcome, as opposed to excuses to just try and cripple the industry. NIMBYism, BANANAism, and fear-mongering with regards to natural gas production is counterproductive, and does not advance the cause of cleaner, job-creating, reliable domestic energy production that minimizes GHG emissions.

Not sending Sarah Palin
a Christmas card.

One topic that may be neglected in the upcoming post-mortems is what effect would a Murkowski loss have on the conduct of energy policy in the United States? After all, Murkowski is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The answers won’t be known for some time, but here are some things to consider:

1. If Senator Murkowski loses, as it stands today, the Senate Energy Committee would have a total of zero members from the top three petroleum producing states in America (TX, AK, and CA). There would still be membership from three of the top five natural gas producing states, but the #1 and #3 producers (TX and OK) would remain shut out.

2. Barring a committee reshuffling (accepting another leadership position, for instance, or being passed over for some reason), and assuming his own re-election this year, the new Ranking Republican Member on the Senate Energy Committee (Sen. Richard Burr) would come from a state, North Carolina, that is tied for last nationally in petroleum, natural gas, and coal production. North Carolina does rank sixth in the US in nuclear energy production.

3. If Joe Miller wins, it’s possible that he could be assigned to the Energy Committee, and Alaska would retain a seat there. What Alaska won’t retain is Senator Murkowski’s seniority, and influence with the Senate Republican Leadership — she was the Senate’s fourth-ranking Republican. What effect will that have on Alaska’s energy interests?

4. A Joe Miller win would, without doubt, throw gasoline on the fire that is Sarah Palin‘s political influence on the right. One question might be, would a show of force like this by Palin increase the chances that she might run for president? But as someone who’s not convinced that she’s running — I tend to believe that she’s focused on building a lucrative personal brand — I think a more relevant question is, to what greater extent will Palin now be able to substantially influence who the GOP nominee will be in 2012? And what will her endorsed candidate’s views on energy be?

Overwhelming evidence meaning … what, exactly? Sixty years of drilling without contaminated groundwater and studies by government agencies apparently aren’t enough evidence, so I’m interested to know what comprises “overwhelming” evidence.

Natural gas production promotes, not hurts, the cause of greener energy production. If we could increase the number of natural-gas-fueled vehicles on our roads, and displace coal as an energy source for electricity with natural gas, our country would greatly benefit, in terms of emissions mitigated.

Natural gas, as part of a balanced energy diet, can strengthen our economy’s bones and teeth. It’s a shame that Gov. Paterson isn’t helping to promote it.

Tweeps of the Week
for August 13, 2010

1. @uhcpp: University of Houston’s Hobby Center for Public Policy. It was recently annonced that the director of the Hobby Center, Professor Jim Granato, will serve as president of the Greater Houston NGV Alliance, a group that will promote the benefits of natural gas as a transportation fuel. This sounds like an exciting new venture.

2. @tbd. TBD.com, the new Web site for Allbritton’s two television news properties in Washington, DC: WJLA Channel 7, and the all-local-news cable channel formerly known as NewsChannel 8 (now TBD TV). No, I don’t like that I can’t see ABC7 news online anymore, but the new TBD Web site is fresh and relevant to DC locals, and DC expats like me who still like to keep tabs on local events. (They rocked in their coverage of yesterday’s severe weather in DC, and their interactive traffic map is stellar.)

I also like that the social media staff and top editor (@ErikWemple) are accessible and transparent about their editorial judgment and processes. It took me some time to get over the loss of my WJLA.com security blanket, but yes @mjenkins, the site has grown on me. TBD is now my home page. I must relent, as hating is futile.

3. @MJGerson. Michael Gerson, syndicated columnist and former wordsmith for President George W. Bush. He was a great fill-in for George Will on This Week last Sunday, and I’ve enjoyed hearing and reading his recent thoughts on various issues.

And of course, be sure to follow the usual suspects:

Energy Tweeps
4. @LaOilGasAssoc: Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA)
5. @pickensplan: Boone Pickens
6. @angaus: America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA)
7. @reginahopper: Regina Hopper, President & CEO, ANGA
8. @Chesapeake: Chesapeake Energy
9. @CHKbarnett: Chesapeake Energy, Barnett Shale
10. @CHKhaynesville: Cheapeake Energy, Haynesville Shale
11. @CNGNow: CNG Now
12. @NGVsNow: NGVs Now
13. @World CNG: World CNG

(Also be sure to follow LOGA’s Energy List on Twitter.)

Washingtonians should follow.

Journo-Tweeps
14. @jimtankersley: Jim Tankersley, Chicago Tribune, Washington Bureau
15. @KateGalbraith: Kate Galbraith, Energy & Environment Reporter, Texas Tribune
16. @gretawire: Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
17. @HillaryHoward: Hillary Howard, WTOP-AM, Washington
18. @jimcantore: Jim Cantore, Weather Channel

UT Longhorns Energy All Stars
19. @castlen: Castlen Kennedy, she of the Green American Road Trip, UT public policy and energy, and a well-respected energy professional

(You should especially follow Castlen’s tweets today, as she tweets from NGA America’s Natural Gas Vehicle Conference-Summit in Boston.)

20. @davidwogan: David Wogan, he of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and hardcore algal biofuels research, UT engineering & public policy

21. @mclott: Melissa Lott, awesome energy blogger, former White House CEQ and DOE, UT engineering & public policy

Still, when I read articles such as this one from USA Today, I shake my head:

“At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

“Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

“Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

“The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.”

CBS News adds additional reporting:

“Defenders of federal salaries say they reflect the higher skills and education often required for their jobs, and many are paid more because they’ve stuck with their jobs so long.”

As I pointed out to a friend as we were discussing this, there are two aspects of that last excerpt that annoy me:

• a) There are a lot of highly skilled and educated individuals in the private sector who are currently unemployed, thanks to this extended economic downturn; and

• b) Many workers in the private sector do not enjoy protections similar to the the civil service protections that federal employees have. This relatively greater job security allows federal employees to “stick” with their jobs longer than comparable private sector employees. So it is weird for a federal employee to criticize a private sector employee for having a lack of longevity in his or her job, as if a private sector employee were necessarily less dedicated to his or her work, by comparison.

I’m not denigrating public service as a choice of career. Those who wish to enter public service, and are willing to develop the necessary quantitative skills and policy knowledge to do so, should be encouraged to do so.

What I am wondering, however, is whether the federal workers in charge of this moratorium process actively relate with the difficulties of those workers who have lost their jobs, or those businesses that are hemorrhaging money due to this ongoing drilling moratorium. Don Briggs, the president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, writes that the oil and gas industry accounts for 15 percent of household income in the state of Louisiana annually — the equivalent of $12.7 billion. How much money and how many jobs have been lost in Louisiana, and in the Gulf region overall, in the roughly two months of the moratorium, to date?

We already know that Baker Hughes has moved one-seventh of its employees in the region to overseas assignments. How much could those 300 people have contributed to the region financially, through sales taxes, property taxes, and personal consumption?

Hopefully, the relevant federal officials in Washington are thinking about these issues, as they receive and cash their own paychecks. Yes, living in the Washington, DC area is expensive. Yes, federal employees often feel that they are underpaid, and have mortgages to pay, or student loans to repay, or families with expenses of their own. But at least they are receiving steady paychecks and some good benefits. They are apparently doing better than a lot of their counterparts in the private sector. There are many people in Louisiana who would happily take that deal.

There are a lot of good people and organizations that I follow on Twitter, which means that my #ff’s tend to take up a lot more than 140 characters. So instead of blowing up Twitter each week, here is a list of 20 of my favorite tweeps — including some I’ve newly discovered and others whom I recommend (Tweeps of the Week). I’ll link to this page each Friday on Twitter, to remind you to visit them.

Energy Tweeps
1. @LaOilGasAssoc: Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA)
2. @pickensplan: Boone Pickens
3. @angaus: America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA)
4. @reginahopper: Regina Hopper, President & CEO, ANGA
5. @Chesapeake: Chesapeake Energy
6. @CHKbarnett: Chesapeake Energy, Barnett Shale
7. @CHKhaynesville: Cheapeake Energy, Haynesville Shale
8. @CNGNow: CNG Now
9. @NGVsNow: NGVs Now

(Also be sure to follow LOGA’s Energy List on Twitter.)

Follow these tweeps.

Journo-Tweeps
10. @jimtankersley: Jim Tankersley, Chicago Tribune, Washington Bureau
11. @KateGalbraith: Kate Galbraith, Energy & Environment Reporter, Texas Tribune
12. @gretawire: Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
13. @HillaryHoward: Hillary Howard, WTOP-AM, Washington
14. @jimcantore: Jim Cantore, Weather Channel

UT Longhorns Energy All Stars
15. @castlen: Castlen Kennedy, she of the Green American Road Trip, UT public policy and energy, and a well-respected energy professional

16. @davidwogan: David Wogan, he of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and hardcore algal biofuels research, UT engineering & public policy

17. @mclott: Melissa Lott, awesome energy blogger, former White House CEQ and DOE, UT engineering & public policy

Tweeps of the Week
for August 6, 2010

This week’s version: Three ladies whom I respect

18. @camanpour: Christiane Amanpour. Much of the criticism directed at her is unfair. I like her precisely because she’s not a DC insider, and because she brings an international perspective. Truth is, US domestic policy often has global ramifications, and vice versa. (Our energy policy, for instance, is a prime example of this.) Give her a chance.

19. @lisamurkowski: Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member of the United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. A thoughtful Senator with a bright future.

20. @energytopics: Michelle Hindmarch. Her energy news tweets are thoughtful, diverse, relevant, and full of win.

Do you have a favorite tweep who’s not listed here? Reply to this post and submit them, which your brief review (25 words of less) of why that tweep is of interest to you.