Congress grills oil executives over profits, subsidies, and global warming

Members of the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee held a hearing called “Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the Pursuit of Alternatives” with five representatives from top oil companies including Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP America, and ConocoPhillips.

Chairman Markey opened the hearing with an acknowledgment that the national gas price reached a record high of $3.29 yesterday, and said that Americans are hoping to be told on April Fools’ Day that skyrocketing prices are a massive hoax. He said that the poorest 20 percent of Americans are now spending approximately 10 percent of their income on gas, while oil company profits have nearly quadrupled. Markey said he hoped the oil companies would explain this disparity and divulge plans to invest these massive profits in research for renewable energy, and claimed that Americans “shouldn’t have to break the bank to fill the tank.”

Congressional representatives expressed personal and constituent dissatisfaction with the current oil situation. Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) said that US oil dependency forces America to rely on nations who are not its allies. Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) said that the oil companies should expect to see a major backlash from Congress, shareholders, and the American people as a result of big oil executives profiting instead of investing in clean energy alternatives. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) said that his constituents are losing jobs because they can no longer afford to drive to them. Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) emphasized that America does have the capacity to be energy independent, but questioned if it has the will to take steps towards implementation.

The oil company executives expressed a need for fewer restrictions against domestic drilling, and highlighted other factors independent of oil companies that contribute to rise in oil prices. John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil, claimed that price increases are not controlled by oil companies but rather result from relentlessly rising demand, obstructions to accessing domestic oil, shortened capacity, and other external factors.

Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman for Chevron Corporation, called on Congress to “help to open up the 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that is off limits” and claimed that America cannot “expect other countries to expand their resource developments to meet our needs as we limit our development without good reason.”

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of ConocoPhillips, said that America needs to continue to develop all kinds of energy and cannot expect alternate energy to replace fossil fuel in a few short decades. He speculated that based on the current situation, fossil fuels must still supply two-thirds of American energy in 2030. Lowe also expressed a need for utilization of domestic fossil fuel reserves, and suggested that there is huge potential for drilling in Canada. As for development of alternate energy, Lowe said that ConocoPhillips is the largest blender of ethanol fuel and has formed a relationship with Tyson foods to create fuel out of animal fat products.

Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, said that the United States will consume more oil in 2030 than it does today. He emphasized that taxing one form of energy to increase research for another will be harmful to production and the economy.

Discussion on Population Growth and Climate Change Effects

At the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Environmental Change and Security Program presentation on Population and Climate Change: Relationships, Research, and Responses, Brian O’Neill, Scientist and Director of the Population and Climate Change Program, said some examples of human impact on the environment are forests dwindling, fisheries collapsing, cropland shrinking, large water shortages, and global warming.

The United States, he said, is the world’s largest greenhouse emitter. However, the Population Reference Bureau 2007 World Population Data Sheet forecasts that Africa will grow by 107% by 2050. Lack of access to and use of family planning, he said, is an important cause of population growth in Africa and other areas of the world.

From health surveys, it seems that there is an unmet demand for contraceptive use. Unintended pregnancy, O’Neill said, is the factor in continued population growth that is "the most amenable to program and policy intervention." Worldwide, 80 million pregnancies (38% of all pregnancies) are unintended.

O’Neill said that the cost of inaction will be high, because if today’s birth rates remain unchanged, world population will grow from 6.7 billion to 11.9 billion by 2050, which would undermine efforts to preserve the natural environment.

Joseph Speidel, Adjunct Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, said slowing population growth would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and although not noticeable immediately, by the middle of the century there would be significant results. Population-related policies can be considered "win-win" in respect to climate change, he said. With a lower population size, CO2 emissions would be lower as well.

Recent analysis of historical data, Speidel said, supports a "roughly proportional direct effect of population size on emissions." Scenarios of future emissions have not explicitly investigated the implications of slower population growth, but that preliminary work indicates that effects of aging and urbanization may significantly affect the outlook for future emissions. How much less costly, he asked, would long term climate change goals be if we could assume a lower population in the future?