rssThe One-Track Mind of T. Boone Pickens
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 at 4:22 pm
- 10 Comments
Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who’s leading a “virtual march” on Washington this week to push his energy plan, participated in a Center for American Progress Action Fund panel this morning on the need for a national smart electricity grid. But as his co-panelists, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and CAP President John Podesta discussed the hurdles facing a smart grid, Pickens kept changing the subject to discuss his favorite topic (and, he hopes, source of future wealth): natural gas.
“You have only one resource in America that will compete head-to-head with oil, and that is natural gas,” he said.
A few minutes later, as Reid distractedly tore up little pieces of paper (either a nervous habit or some sort of cover-up), Pickens reiterated, “If you’re gonna reduce foreign oil, you have only one resource. That’s it. There’s only one resource that you have here that can do that … which is natural gas.”
Pickens has drawn praise from both Democrats and Republicans for his push for cleaner fuels, but his single-minded focus on natural gas at a panel on an entirely different topic led me to question his commitment to greater environmental reform. After the panel, I asked him about it.
Me: You see natural gas as mostly a solution for the trucking fleet, right?
Pickens: Yes.
Me: As for other stuff, do you find your views generally in line with what Sen. Reid is proposing?
Pickens: Yes.
Me: So if you were in the Senate, you would vote for a cap-and-trade bill?
Pickens: No, I’m not saying I’m for cap-and-trade, ’cause I haven’t seen it. I want to see what they have in cap-and-trade. But you gotta watch out, you don’t want to be putting taxes on industry, cause right now it’s a horrible time. … So cap-and-trade, I don’t know what it’s going to do to us.
Dallas Morning News reporter: Do you agree with the need to put a price on carbon?
Pickens: I’m not sure. It makes me nervous as to how you’re gonna get there, and how you’re gonna measure the carbon, for one thing. And what’s gonna happen if you put a carbon tax on utilities, that’s just gonna passed through to consumers. That’s the only way they can do it.
…
Me: Is getting off of coal as big a priority for you as getting off of oil?
Pickens: No, it’s not.
Me: So it’s the national security element that really matters most to you?
Pickens: That’s it. The national security is A1 with me.
Now, I don’t mean for a second to diminish the importance of energy independence to our national security. But in the long run, simply moving us from one fossil fuel to another is not much of a climate solution.
Then again, maybe the long run isn’t on his mind. Said Pickens, “I’m eighty-years-old, so I’ve gotta do this pretty quick.”
–
TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.
Follow Aaron Wiener on Twitter
10 Comments
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Throwing oil and natural gas in the same boat by labeling fossil fuels is misleading. Look at how clean natural gas is. Pickens is right and you need to do more research.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Aaron -
But in the long run, simply moving us from one fossil fuel to another is not much of a climate solution.<//i>
I believe you're missing one of his basic points (I'll note where I disagree with Pickens below):
We're not talking about the very long term, post-2050. We're talking now. And it turns out that the technology is already here that would:
- significantly start reducing imported oil sooner, not later.
- is cleaner, and less carbon intensive.
- is in America domestically.
Natural gas is a great transition fuel; and we have a lot more natural gas in the U.S. (and more is able to be extracted all the time), than we have oil. We have in no way peaked in natural gas inside the U.S., unlike oil. And the technology for diesel engines has really been perfected the last ten years; one of the reasons the port of Los Angeles felt comfortable in going ahead with the requirements that most of the trucks using the ports over the next few years must be alternative fuel vehicles, most of it natural gas.
Boone's concentration on trucks is also correct, when you look at the usage.
I'm' an aerospace engineer; I love all (well, almost all) technology. But almost all hybrids are still burning petroleum-based fuels; affordable electric vehicles are not only not here yet – or even a couple of years away – they are not really applicable at all with respect to the huge amount of fuel petroleum fuels burned by trucks.
I don't agree with Boone that it is only a national security and balance of trade issue. But if his nagging and evangelizing can change our policies so that transition to (U.S. based, cleaner) natural gas is given as much – or more – priority to longer-term EVs, he'll end up doing more good than he knows.
Pickens kept changing the subject to discuss his favorite topic (and, he hopes, source of future wealth
That's unfortunate. Look, the guy is in his 80s, and already a billionaire. I follow this area; and the only reason we have a natural gas fueling infrastructure and advanced ng-diesel engines ready right now that we do is partly to this guy having been investing in them with his own money since the '90s. I believe he deserves a little more seriousness than the occasional snarky comment; you aren't that am on the subject, in my view.
Cheers.
fyi: I have no financial interest at stake here. Unfortunately.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
I agree with the other posts in that natural gas is great as a short term replacement for oil in terms of both environmental friendliness and energy independence. The caveat is that we must move to other sources in the long term. Unfortunately, I do not believe Boone can be trusted given his wealth and his age, and I really wish they would limit his clout in the decision making process.
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Jason,
Thanks for the note. Natural gas is indeed much cleaner than oil, and if we managed to replace all of our oil-based fuel with natural gas, it would be a huge step forward. But it still wouldn't be enough. Transportation only generates about a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions. Without major changes to other areas of our economy (such as industry) and improvements in efficiency, we can't get near our emissions reductions targets.
So while I agree that natural gas is a big improvement over oil, I take issue with Mr. Pickens' stance that emphasizes the shift to natural gas over all else.
Hope that clarifies a bit,
Aaron
Comment posted April 1, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
“very long term, post-2050″
I'm sure you realize that's WAY to late to make significant changes to our climate policy. I appreciate the value of Mr. Pickens' work, but I believe his approach is rather narrow, at least as he elaborated it today.
Pingback posted April 2, 2009 @ 1:00 am
[...] Read the rest here: The Washington Independent » The One-Track Mind of T. Boone Pickens [...]
Comment posted April 2, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Pickens is pretty awsome, a true patriot. I think anyone that hasnt – needs to go and check out his plans for our country. http://www.pickeneplan.com
or his life story at http://www.tboonpickens.com This guy is a true American.
Pingback posted April 3, 2009 @ 4:04 am
[...] The One-Track Mind of T. Boone Pickens – The Washington Independent – 4/1/09 Lauro Bustamante, Mayoral Candidate – San Antonio Current – 4/1/09 [...]
Comment posted April 3, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Our dependence on foreign oil is not only a security issue but also an economic time-bomb, waiting to explode on us with the next oil price shock (currently on hold for the present economic crisis). There is much hand-wringing now over the huge federal deficits, but our trade deficit is just as dangerous as both act to pressure the value of our currency. If oil returns to $150/bbl or greater, our massive imports of it will result in as much as a trillion dollars leaving the country every year. THAT is the money that would have been used to research and deploy the carbon-free solution for trucks that we all agree is the end game. That is also the money needed to solve the rest of global warming and fix health care and education. An immediate investment in CNG will have much greater returns later in solving our bigger issues.
Comment posted April 3, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Our dependence on foreign oil is not only a security issue but also an economic time-bomb, waiting to explode on us with the next oil price shock (currently on hold for the present economic crisis). There is much hand-wringing now over the huge federal deficits, but our trade deficit is just as dangerous as both act to pressure the value of our currency. If oil returns to $150/bbl or greater, our massive imports of it will result in as much as a trillion dollars leaving the country every year. THAT is the money that would have been used to research and deploy the carbon-free solution for trucks that we all agree is the end game. That is also the money needed to solve the rest of global warming and fix health care and education. An immediate investment in CNG will have much greater returns later in solving our bigger issues.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
