At CEA, we spend a lot of time focusing on the real needs of real people and the ways they are impacted by domestic energy policy. This blog has frequently addressed the plight of American truckers and the nonstop economic strain they’ve faced in the wake of the oil price spike in 2008 and the ensuing recession that caused demand for their services to drop. Indeed, the trucking sector is a critical component – and one of the unsung heroes — of American commerce.

But this week, when a volcanic eruption in Iceland severely disrupted European and trans-Atlantic air travel, we got to thinking about the non-stop economic strain that the airline sector has faced.

Clearly, stories of Americans being unable to afford their European vacations will never play as well as stories of people struggling to cover the costs of their commutes to work. We sigh about pain at the pump but joke about the strategies — like selling pillows and tasteless food — that  airlines resort to in order to make ends meet.

But the airline industry does a lot more than deliver tourists to the Eiffel Tour. It touches the entire economy. And, it has been struggling for as long as most of us can remember. This headline, Airline industry wonders why it even tries anymore quotes analysts saying that the disruption caused by the volcano – whose name we are not even going to bother spelling – is hurting the industry even more than the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

BUT, it also stresses that airlines also have a chronic problem: “the inexorable headaches involved in varying fuel prices.” It’s the same problem that truckers have struggled under for so long: It’s very difficult to run a business when you cannot predict how much one of your key supplies is going to cost.

Like truckers, who have often complained that unpredictable prices are a bigger burden than high prices many airlines say volatile fuel prices are their biggest concern. The fact that airline executives such as Delta Air Lines President Ed Bastian are talking about oil price volatility now, when they have so many other concerns, speaks volumes about the burden of this oil price wild card.

Of course, airlines, truckers, workers with long commutes, and other transportation-focused types feel this pain the most. But it reaches much further. Most industries are to some degree, energy-intensive. And most industries are on uncertain ground today, still reeling from a severe economic downturn. They all stand to benefit from a strong domestic energy sector, where the supply and the prices are steady.

A few facts about the nation’s national forests:

• They comprise 8.5% of all land in the United States.
• Although the National Parks Service manages them, they are not national parks. Commercial use of national forests is permitted and in many cases, encouraged.
• Logging is permitted in many national forests such as Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
• Much of this land is also open to farming, and mining.

The country’s national forest land, in other words, is not what many people might think it to be. The management of these lands often focuses on harvesting natural resources, while preserving the natural ecosystem, and finding the right balance between the two. In fact, the National Forest Service was established with a “multiple use mandate.”

That little primer should help explain CEA’s interest in a series of public hearings being held this month and next to discuss new rules for managing 155 forests and 20 grasslands in the country’s national forest system. Read much of the recent news coverage of these hearings, and you’ll discover it has been overwhelmingly one-sided, focusing on the very important issue of conservation, but not addressing the equally important matter of making the most of the natural resources on these lands, and doing so in a responsible manner so that people can continue to enjoy these lands and wildlife may continue to thrive.

We suspect the very one-sided nature of the coverage of the debate has a lot to do with a misunderstanding of the national forests and their intended use.

Currently, the U.S. Forest Service is reviewing a proposal to drill an exploratory well in the Shoshone National forest in Wyoming.  CEA supports the thorough review of any proposed drilling projects on these national forest lands, but not the categorical rejection of any and all responsible drilling, in Wyoming, or elsewhere. We don’t want proposed projects like this to be rejected before their environmental and economic impact are even examined.

After all, we’re talking about close to 10% of the country’s land. It stands to reason that some of these lands have valuable natural resources. Placing them off limits without even reviewing proposed projects could put the future development of a range of renewable and non-renewable energy sources at risk. It is important that our national forests be managed in a way that respects the multiple-use mandate established by Congress.

Today, one day after April 15 when many of us have sent that check into the IRS and are feeling a little poorer, it should go without saying: No one needs a new gasoline tax.

And yet, there’s some serious talk that lawmakers in Washington could introduce a proposed new tax as early as next week.

What are they thinking?

As we all were reminded back in 2008, gas is not a luxury, but a basic necessity. To impose a new tax would be to impose the most regressive sort of tax, in which those with the least means pay the highest burden.

Low incomes, after all, do not correspond with short commutes. Even the most run down jalopy requires fuel. The average American family consumes 2,000 gallons of gasoline a year and for most of these families, gas is already a substantial expense. Some those families have cut back on vacations and impulse purchases during these hard times, but they still have to find a way to work, get the kids to school and get around town for basic errands like grocery shopping.

This argument might sound simplistic, or even quaint, were it not for the fact that just two years ago when gas prices spiked, many people were forced to choose between going to work and buying food.

Supporters of a gas tax may point to point to consumption as a choice, or argue that renewable fuels offer a multitude of alternatives to filling up at the pump.

These are foolhardy arguments. The fact is, only a small minority of folks lives close enough to their place of employment that they can walk and most of the country lacks access to the sort of door-to-door public transportation that will get them where they’re going in a timely manner.

As for alternative fuels, we’re all for them. But the only way we can see wind power working for your daily commute is if you live on the beach and can windsurf to work. More and more alternative energy is being used every day, but it will be decades before enough infrastructure is in place to make a meaningful difference. People are hurting now.

Gasoline prices have, thankfully, abated since the summer of 2008. But we still haven’t addressed the cause of that panic or adopted policies that will ensure a more steady supply of domestic oil and more predictable prices. As another summer approaches, we wait in trepidation to see what prices will do. Our energy policy still needs a lot of work.

So does our economy. Millions are out of work, working fewer hours, or earning less for their labors than they were a year ago. These people need policies that provide a little economic relief, not create more stress.

2010 is shaping up as a milestone year for the wind power industry, which continues to see an abundance of new capacity added in multiple states. Last week the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released its annual report showing that the domestic wind energy industry installed more than 10,000 megawatts in 2009, about the same amount of generating capacity you’d get from three large nuclear power plants, and enough to power 2.4 million homes. Some 36 states now have utility scale wind power projects and all 50 states have jobs in the wind power sector, the report found.

But you’re just as likely to be hearing about the setbacks that the industry has suffered, most notably the latest blow to the long-contested Cape Wind project off Massachusetts, which an advisory council on historic preservation recommended not be approved.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has yet to make a decision on whether to approve Cape Wind, and even that final ruling is sure to be contested in lawsuits that could drag on for years. But the bigger point here is that at a time of unprecedented interest in renewable energy, there is still massive opposition to a renewable energy project that ought to be a no-brainer: a windy site located close to dense population centers.

Nor is Cape Wind unique. In Rhode Island, plans for a smaller wind farm off Block Island also hit a roadblock recently.

Ditto the windy waters off Lake Michigan, where talks for a large-scale wind project have been met with considerable opposition.

To be sure, each of these projects has its own set of complex environmental issues and cost-benefit analyses to address. Yet, so many of these debates continue to center on the visual impact and whether said wind farm would be an eyesore.

Earlier this year, we explained why offshore wind plants are generally considered the most effective way to quickly ramp up supply.

As it stands, the United States still has no offshore wind farms, while much of the rest of the world from Europe and China embraces the image of windmills on the horizon as a symbol of strength and resourcefulness.