Word seems to be getting out about President Obama’s Ocean Policy Task Force and the need for all groups that use the oceans to be included in the discussion. Some 69 members of the House of Representatives have sent a letter to the task force, expressing concern that it could set in place new policies that would block offshore oil development and impose other restrictions that could cost American jobs.

As Doc Hastings, the representative from Washington state put it, “We can protect our oceans without inflicting more economic damage in the middle of a serious recession.”

CEA, which has in the past successfully organized letter-writing campaigns to the Interior Department over contested offshore drilling leases, more recently rallied our members and supporters to weigh in on the Ocean Policy Task Force, and its initial report that proposed a new system of governance of the country’s Great Lakes and coastal areas.

It seems a lot of people agree that this is a very complex and sensitive matter that deserves the input of many parties before any new policy is established.

In recent months CEA has been repeatedly pleased, not just by our members’ efforts to engage in this challenging grassroots work, but also in the results that we’ve achieved. Last month, our letter writers arguing in favor of responsible offshore drilling, out-wrote the other side.

What’s gratifying about the strong response to the Ocean Policy Task Force is that it is so far-reaching. Objections have poured in from places ranging from San Francisco to Louisiana, and representing industries from oil to wind power to fishing. As our own blog-bot (see blog from October 15) said, we all want to do what’s right to protect the oceans. But clearly a lot of people are concerned about doing the right thing in the right way. Keep up the good work!

It’s been estimated that as much as one quarter of carbon dioxide emissions in China results from the production of goods that are exported, largely to the United States and Europe. It’s part of a phenomenon known as carbon leakage, in which reduced emissions in one country result in higher emissions elsewhere, and quite possibly a net increase in worldwide emissions.

It goes something like this: Country A passes legislation reducing emissions (good), but does so in a way that fails to contemplate the global impact of its move (not so good). As a result of the tighter standards in Country A, the cost of manufacturing goods and services there goes up, resulting in increased demand for those same products out of countries B, C and D, where production costs are comparatively low and emissions standards are slim to nonexistent. Country A loses more of its manufacturing base, and jobs along with it, without ever really achieving its main objective of cleaning up the planet. Its emissions legislation has only served to encourage increased output from some of the places with the lowest environmental standards.

The problem of carbon leakage is often cited as an unintended consequence of carbon offsets. But it also relates to the issue of low carbon fuel standards in the U.S. As CEA recently noted, policies designed to favor production of light crude oils, which in general require less energy to produce than their heavier counterparts, could easily create the unintended consequence of increasing the country’s need for foreign oil.

Now, in one sense, all foreign oil is created equal, at least when you’re measuring the amount the U.S. imports from all over the world. But just for a moment put oil from Canada in a category of its own: yes, it’s foreign oil, but it is at least a nearby and stable source that can help support jobs on pipelines and in refineries near the U.S./Canadian border.

A newspaper in South Dakota recently complained the passage of a low carbon fuel standard could kill a new oil refinery project that had been expected to create more than 1,000 jobs, by cutting off supply of heavy crude oil from Canada. This is not oil that could be easily replaced by a U.S. source: Under a low carbon fuel standard, a refinery in Middle America with a healthy supply of oil in its own backyard might have to tap supplies in the Middle East, where the crude is, as they say, sweet.

“Do a little digging,” the story says, “and you quickly find out that the low carbon fuel standard isn’t at all interested in making the fuel in your car today better, cleaner or more affordable. It’s only interested in making those fuels scarcer, more expensive and less available.”

For more information on low carbon fuel standards, visit our website.

If you want to make a dent in the U.S. trade deficit, the multi-billion dollar amount by which imports exceed exports, you could contract the whole national economy: Recessions, for all the pain they cause, can help bring trade deficits in balance by reducing the amount of foreign goods purchased.

Or, you could make a concerted effort to reduce oil imports, a major component of the trade deficit in good times and bad. The U.S. trade deficit, now more than $30 billion, is not necessarily the biggest problem associated with our dependence on foreign oil. Nor is it the first thing that strapped consumers think of when they think about all the ways this prolonged economic downturn has hurt their own finances. But on a macro level, the gaping trade deficit is one more way that those massive volumes of imports hurt our economy.

The country recently got a glimpse of how reducing one single component of the trade deficit – oil – could make a huge difference in the overall total. The Commerce Department reported an unexpected $3.5 billion decline in the trade deficit in August, reflecting … drum roll … a big drop in demand for foreign oil.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that demand didn’t drop because of a more robust domestic energy supply, but only because, after 21 months of recession, consumer confidence and overall spending power has been battered. People are buying less and traveling less and businesses have less freight to ship.

Shortly after the trade deficit posted such a large drop, the Dow Jones Industrial Average passed 10,000, crude oil prices moved above $75 a barrel and nationwide unemployment moved within spitting distance of 10%: A mixed bag of economic indicators, to say the least.

The recession is clearly not over for many Americans, but as more and more signs of a nascent recovery start to emerge, the country finds itself back at the same crossroad it has visited so many times in the past, with yet another opportunity to make meaningful changes in broad energy policy. It shouldn’t have to take the worst economic downturn since the great recession to achieve a big drop in oil imports. Hopefully next time, it won’t.

Last week we offered a general overview of the Obama administration’s new Ocean Policy Task Force and expressed our concerns that this well-intentioned effort to help the world’s oceans thrive could result in a set of arbitrary restrictions on different industries that depend on oceans and coastal waters. This week, we direct you to the concerns of the American Wind Energy Association, which has done a good job of articulating how easily a well-intentioned plan may veer of course.

You can read AWEA’s full, 14-page response to the Task Force’s initial report here. Essentially, while the wind energy industry fully supports efforts to improve the health of the world’s oceans, it worries that imposing arbitrary limits to industrial activity in offshore waters (and the windy skies above them) could choke off efforts to expand wind power in the U.S. at the very point that the industry is gaining widespread support.

Wind and oil have a lot in common. They are both major sources of power, they have both identified offshore waters as some of the areas that offer the most potential, and they have both encountered resistance from a broad array of groups that stand under an “environmentalist” label, but often have no bigger concerns than that an oil rig or a wind mill on the horizon ruins the view. Which does seem to beg the question: Does a solar panel ruin the “view” of a house? And why do we so often object to images that represent the responsible harnessing of our natural resources?

But anyway, the wind sector, like the oil sector, has watched in frustration as other countries allow responsible use onshore and off, while progress here at home is put on hold.

“For offshore wind to make a significant contribution,” AWEA wrote in its formal response to the Ocean Policy Task Force, “the process of permitting and building the first generation projects of U.S. offshore wind farms as well as developing the needed supply chain and industry-specific infrastructure must get underway.”

The movement toward achieving a balanced domestic power industry and reducing our dependence on foreign oil has seen enough delay. Please continue to make your voice heard to ensure that the Ocean Policy Task Force does not lead to further setbacks. Both the oil sector and the wind sector have made a lot of progress in recent months. We need to keep the momentum going.

Energy Explained , a new web portal launched today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), celebrates Energy Awareness Month with the most comprehensive energy education resource available from the U.S. Government.

The site explains where gasoline comes from, what determines the price of electricity, how much renewable energy the United States uses, and hundreds of other energy topics.

“Energy touches us in many ways every day, from the electricity that lights our homes to the fuel we use in our cars,” said EIA Administrator Richard Newell. “Energy Explained uses plain language and clear graphics to help explain a sometimes complex, but vital subject.”

Energy Explained allows easy navigation between major energy topics:

• What Is Energy?
• Use of Energy
• Energy and the Environment
• Nonrenewable Energy Sources
• Renewable Energy Sources
• Secondary Energy Sources

Energy Explained includes a “rate this page” feature so visitors can easily give EIA feedback on any page.

Visit Energy Explained at: www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained.

The battle to achieve a balanced energy policy for the U.S. recently got a lot more complicated. Thus far, much of the debate over where we can drill for oil has focused on the country’s coastal waters. But in light of a June 12 memorandum from President Obama establishing an Ocean Policy Task Force, it appears that all the world’s waters will come under closer scrutiny.

In a letter explaining the formation of this new task force, President Obama says we have a stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, and to protect them from the environmental challenges they face.

CEA, of course, supports this goal of developing policies that help the world’s oceans thrive. But we are concerned by the urgency with which the task force was instructed to, essentially, fix all the ills of the world’s oceans – especially considering this matter is barely on the public’s radar screen.

Recently this new task force produced its first interim report, proposing policies that could significantly impact all sorts of activity, including oil exploration and production and possibly bar them.

Now, this new Ocean Policy Task Force is weighing a multitude of issues, not just oil, and certainly not just offshore drilling. But with serious talk so early in this process of setting up a governance system with little to no input from commercial industry, there is a big danger the American energy industry could emerge as one of the big losers of any new ocean policies. This system of ocean governance the task force has drafted could, in fact, limit the country’s ability to develop its own offshore energy, including oil, natural gas, and renewable energy.

Recently, CEA successfully organized a massive letter writing campaign in support of responsible drilling in our coastal waters. Today, we’re asking all our members and supporters once again to start writing. The public comment period on the recommendations outlined in the task force’s interim report closes on October 17.

Like we said earlier, topics such as ocean governance and ocean ecology are as vast as the ocean itself. Likewise, the formation of a system that will enable our oceans, our people and our industries to all thrive is a lot more complicated than we can cover in this post. Check this blog for future updates and details on the Ocean Policy Task Force’s proposals, and all the different groups of people and business who might be impacted.

Our parting message for the moment, though, is Don’t Wait. Make sure your voice is heard now. A draft letter to the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality is available on our web site, along with the mailing address and other contact information. You can also submit your comments and concerns electronically here.

Remind our policy makers about all the ways that a robust domestic energy industry supports the country. And remember that your voices are heard.