Having had John McCain’s campaign use her in one of their ads, Paris Hilton is hitting back with her own political ad. Claiming that since the “white haired dude” mentioned her in his ad, she must also be running for president, Paris puts forth her own energy policy.

Not really anything new in what she proposes though, and she’s not backing either of the mainstream candidates. Instead, she’s proposing a “hybrid” approach with limited offshore drilling, and development of alternative fuel solutions. Others have indeed suggested the same thing.

The Vertography Plan
The Vertography Plan though sees this as a compromise. The oil companies have already got drilling rights to 80% of the known remaining deposits in the US, but are doing nothing with most of those rights. The only way they are going to invest in the equipment, and spend the 10 years it would take, to drill for that oil is if the price remains high enough to pay for it. And at current consum

A number of people are questioning the reasons behind the Pickens Plan. The Zaproot video (right) is the first time I’ve seen it claimed that the plan is really nothing more than an attempt to green wash a business plan that is pretty unfriendly to the environment, and has been met with quite a bit of resistance.

The claim Zaproot is making is that the real reason Pickens is pushing his wind farm plan is to cover up the environmental damage that Mesa Water, one of his companies, would cause by draining the ground water from 200,000 acres of land in Roberts County, Texas and piping it to western Texas.

Eminent Domain
The story goes something like this:

First, Pickens’ company, Mesa Water, buys up water rights to the largest aquifer in the US. But not everybody is that into the plan and some refuse to sell to him. To get around this, with help from some friendly politicians, he sets up a water district allowing him to use eminent domain to force the sale of the land he can’t get. Unfortunately for Pickens, even that didn’t work – there was still a lot of resistance to the plan.

Here’s where it gets interesting. According to the folks at Zaproot, the next thing Pickens does is put forward an amendment to a Texas bill that would allow the building of a pipeline alongside a power transmission line. And then we hear about the plan that will free the US from its dependency on oil. How? By creating a massive wind farm, starting in the very same area that his pipeline needs to pass through.

Green or Not?
So, is the Pickens plan a true attempt to get the US using more renewable energy, or is it just a ruse to get away with the creation of a water pipeline that would probably have dire consequences for the environment? At least Pickens has worked out that oil is not the way forward. Problem is that he might not really believe in wind power either.

The plan to use more wind power in the US is certainly good; hopefully nobody will fall for the trick of pairing it with a very eco-unfriendly water pipeline (that said, there’s so much of that in US politics that I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen).

As I mentioned in my previous post about the Pickens Plan, I think there are some good ideas in there, but it is not the best that could be achieved. And this doubt about the motives for the wind farm make me even more convinced that we need to come up with a better plan; one that is not subject to doubts about its motives.

[Via CleanTechnica]

Existing Leases
In fact, given that the oil companies only use about a quarter of the leases they currently hold, and that those leases cover 80% of all known offshore deposits, why isn’t the price already falling? Simple: it is cheaper to import oil that drill offshore, or at least it was. With prices rising, they suddenly see a way to make this local oil profitable – that means more oil company profits, not cheaper prices!

The Miami Herald has some other ideas about what is going on, and the timing of it. None are good for the environment, and none are actually good for the American people. All of them benefit a small group of oil companies, and their political champions who are about to leave office.

A Drop In The Ocean
The other big problem with the offshore oil plan is that there just isn’t that much there. According to the New York Times, the Interior Department estimates there to be about 19 billion barrels of oil available offshore. The Miami Herald article estimated about 20 million barrels are consumed each day in the US at current levels. That means there is less than three years worth of oil out there. And it takes 10 years to start getting it.

Worse still, any spill from one of these offshore drilling operations, or a tanker servicing them, would have a disastrous effect on tourism along the coastlines affected (and all of the top beaches in the US lie along those coastlines). And remember, some of these new areas are in the Gulf of Mexico, where powerful storms like Katrina are becoming more common.

There were claims after Katrina that no oil was spilled, but CBS News has a different story:

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a report stating that as a result of both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the number of pipelines damaged was 457, and the number of offshore platforms destroyed was 113, with a total of 146 oil spills recorded.

A study of environmental impacts written for MMS by Det Norske Veritas and Company and published March 22, 2007 told an even more detailed story.

As a result of both storms, a total volume of 17,652 barrels (or roughly three-quarters of a million gallons) of total petroleum products, of which 13,137 barrels were crude oil and condensate, was spilled from platforms, rigs and pipelines. 4,514 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs.

If those storms are increasing in frequency and strength, building more oil rigs in the areas they affect would seem to be asking for more damage, and more spilled oil.

The Change You Deserve
So, we have seen two plans presented in the last week. One would push for new innovation and act to start getting the US off its addiction to pollution-producing fossil fuels. In doing so it would encourage innovation and investment in technologies that could benefit the world and a new generation of energy companies in the US.

The other option proposed would be to continue to support the addiction to oil, continue to support oil company profits, continue to pollute the planet and to continue to ignore the reality of the situation. By that time, there will be another “middle east” of renewable energy out there ready to sell technology to the US that it could have been developing for itself.

America, it is your choice: you can choose the path of greed, or be smarter than that and take up Al Gore’s challenge to move to renewable energy in less than a decade.

International
For those outside the US, how about taking Al up on his challenge and seeing if you can do better. Rather than an arms race, how about a renewable energy race? Unlike an arms race though, where there are no winners, in a renewable energy race everyone’s a winner!

To quote from the email invitation I received:

Want to fix what’s wrong the economy? The best way is to fix what’s wrong with energy. And that means moving past oil and gas to embrace clean energy — wind, solar and other renewable power and energy-saving technologies.

Investing in clean energy has a huge pay-off — it makes us more energy independent, helps us fight global warming, and creates new economic opportunities and millions of “green” jobs.

Watch the Sierra Club’s video below, and then sign up to attend a party near you, or perhaps even choose to host one yourself if there isn’t one nearby with space available.