Respuestas a esta discusión

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el febrero 19, 2009 a las 9:11am

Asunto: E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

February 19, 2009

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.

Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding. Ms. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding but she pointedly noted that the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., is April 2, and there is the wide expectation that she will act by then.

“We here know how momentous that decision could be,” Ms. Jackson said. “We have to lay out a road map.”

She took a first step on Tuesday when she said that the agency would reconsider a Bush administration decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-burning power plants. In announcing the reversal, Ms. Jackson suggested that the E.P.A. was considering additional measures to regulate heat-trapping gases. The White House signaled that it fully supported Ms. Jackson’s approach, deferring to her to discuss the administration’s response to the Supreme Court case.

Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, also pointed to statements on the subject during the presidential campaign by Heather Zichal, a top adviser on environmental and energy issues.

Ms. Zichal, who is now deputy to Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator for climate and energy policy, said last fall that the Bush White House had prevented the E.P.A. from making the endangerment finding “consistent with its obligations under the recent Supreme Court decision.” She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency’s decision-making process.

If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.

“We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule,” Ms. Jackson said. “We don’t want people to spin that into a doomsday scenario.”

Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency’s asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They say that the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances like carbon dioxide. Using the law, they say, would capture carbon emissions from new facilities, but not existing ones, blunting its impact. They also believe that a broader approach that addresses all sectors of the economy and that is fully debated in Congress would be better than a regulatory approach that could drag through the courts for years.

The finding and proposed regulations would be issued in sequence, with ample opportunity for public comment and not in a sudden burst of regulatory muscle-flexing, Ms. Jackson said. The regulations would work in concert with any legislation and not supplant it, she added.

“What we are likely to see is an interplay of authorities, some new, some existing,” she said.

That is not likely to assuage critics, including many Democrats from states dependent on coal-generated electricity and manufacturing jobs, where such regulation could significantly increase costs. Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who has long championed the interests of the auto industry, said that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the E.P.A. would set off a “glorious mess” that would resonate throughout the economy.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, warned Ms. Jackson during her January confirmation hearing that she should not undercut Congress’s authority by using the agency’s regulatory power to address global warming. Mr. Barrasso called the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon “a disaster waiting to happen.”

Many environmental advocates, however, said the E.P.A.’s action was long overdue, but added that it was only as a stopgap until Congress passed comprehensive climate change legislation.

“It’s politically necessary, scientifically necessary and legally necessary,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, a plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

But, Mr. Bookbinder added, Congressional action is preferable to the agency’s acting on its own. “We are loudly advocating for tailor-made legislation as the best means of addressing carbon emissions,” he said. “Trying to address climate change via a series of rule makings from E.P.A. is a distant second best.”

As Ms. Jackson navigates the complexities of carbon regulation, she will be advised by Lisa Heinzerling, a former law professor at Georgetown who wrote the winning Supreme Court briefs in Massachusetts v. E.P.A. Ms. Heinzerling is now the agency’s lead attorney for global warming matters.

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the former head of the agency’s office of air and radiation, said that a finding of endangerment from emissions of heat-trapping gases did not initiate immediate regulation but started a clock ticking on a process that typically took 18 months to two years.

“Potentially, it’s a huge mess, not only for E.P.A. but for state regulatory agencies, because the Clean Air Act is second only to the Internal Revenue Code in terms of complexity,” said Mr. Holmstead, now director of environmental strategies at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the “Dunkin’ Donuts rule.”

But Mr. Bookbinder and other supporters say the regulations can be written to exempt these potential emitters. Ms. Jackson said that there was no timetable for issuing regulations governing carbon emissions and that her agency would not engage in “rash decision making.”

But she also said that the Supreme Court decision obliged her to act.

“It places E.P.A. square in the center of the discussion on climate and energy,” Ms. Jackson said. “People are waiting.”

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el febrero 3, 2010 a las 11:38pm

GE Oil & Gas Chief Says Iraq Is Challenging, Boom to Take Time
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Eduard Gismatullin

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- GE Oil & Gas, the General Electric Co. unit that provides equipment to oil companies, said Iraq is a “challenging” market and there’s no prospect of a boom for suppliers for at least a year.

“Iraq is a potentially interesting market for us,” Claudi Santiago, head of GE Oil & Gas, said in an interview in Florence, Italy. “It’s very fragile and over time we know that there are opportunities.” It won’t “be a booming market in the next 12 months” because of political and security concerns.

Iraq faces technical and labor challenges to raise its oil output to its target of at least 11 million barrels a day in the next decade. Santiago said it will take time for explorers to decide what equipment they need in Iraq before they place orders. A “huge” amount of equipment that GE installed in Iraq before war and sanctions stopped investment now needs upgrading, he said.

Exxon Mobil Corp., PetroChina Co., BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the world’s largest oil companies, have agreed to develop fields in Iraq, the holder of the world’s third-biggest crude reserves. The Middle East nation said it needs $200 billion in investment to increase oil production fourfold.

Oil companies that have agreed on production contracts with Iraq, promised targets for increased output. BP and China National Petroleum Corp. will invest about $15 billion over 20 years to boost production at Rumaila, Iraq’s largest field, to 2.85 million barrels a day from 1.07 million barrels a day in December.

‘On the Ground’

“Equipment on the ground in Iraq needs to be expanded and improved,” Andy Inglis, who heads BP’s exploration and production unit, said yesterday in an interview in London. “This is going to be a period of build-up, it’s about mobilization of our equipment, creating effective use of it. But it’s not an immediate ramp up.”

The oil service industry slowed after prices plunged from a record $147.27 a barrel in 2008 to a low of $32.40 a barrel, forcing producers to postpone projects.

For GE Oil & Gas “this year could be another year of single digit growth for our business,” Santiago said. “It will take another nine months to confirm that the world is moving to truly healthful economic recovery, though this is going to be bumpy for a while.”

GE Oil & Gas revenue was $2.3 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, 5.6 percent of Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric’s total and 9.7 percent higher than in 2008, according to financial statements on Bloomberg.

Drilling and workover expenditure in the Middle East and North Africa region has the potential to increase by almost a third to $27.9 billion by 2014, according to forecasts from Douglas-Westwood Ltd., an energy consultant.

‘Sustained Growth’

“The outlook for sustained growth is largely dependent upon crude prices, but several markets will be key, namely Mexico, Iraq, Russia, and the deepwater,” Scott Gruber, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York, wrote in a Jan. 29 report. Global oil service markets “are mixed but are broadly in the process of bottoming.”

Oilfield service providers and manufacturers doubled fees between 2004 and 2008. After crude prices plunged, oil producers were able to renegotiate contracts. BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward yesterday pledged to push the industry “very hard” to reduce costs further.

“We have gone through a deflation over the last 18 months. Now, we are moving more into a stable kind of period, which will be good,” Santiago said. “Big swings don’t help the industry to stabilize” and plan operations.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net.

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 17, 2010 a las 3:17pm

Ponencias y documentos técnicos GASODUCTO-DIA

Archivos adjuntos:

• PONENCIA APEV-GASODUCTO 16 de octubre 2010.docx, 228 KB
• Casa Pueblo GASODUCTO Parte I.pdf, 140 KB
• Casa Pueblo GASODUCTO Parte II.pdf, 189 KB

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 17, 2010 a las 3:19pm

Posición ANDA-Estudiantes Derecho:

Archivos adjuntos:

• ANDA-Comentatios DIA Finales (Todos).pdf, 279 KB
• Salvador Tió Coleman-Comentarios Gasoducto - Agro.pdf, 83 KB

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 17, 2010 a las 3:21pm

UTIER-DECLARACION PRESIDENTE, ANGEL FIGUEROA JARAMILLO:

Archivos adjuntos:

• DECLARACION DE PRENSA UTIER.15 DE OCTUBRE DE 2010.docx, 22 KB

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 22, 2010 a las 10:13am

Las vistas de la DIA-P del gasoducto se celebraron el pasado sábado en Adjuntas, Barceloneta y Bayamón. (Archivo)
Por Gerardo E. Alvarado León / galvarado@elnuevodia.com

El informe sobre lo ocurrido en las vistas públicas de la Declaración de Impacto Ambiental Preliminar (DIA-P) del gasoducto estará listo este viernes, apenas seis días después de su celebración, informó ayer el presidente de la Junta de Calidad Ambiental (JCA), Pedro Nieves Miranda.

Ese día, además, estará completado el informe técnico a cargo del área de asesoramiento científico de la JCA, que discutirá la “adecuacidad de la discusión” del documento ambiental.

Ambos informes y el expediente del proyecto les serán entregados a la Junta de Gobierno de la JCA, que determinará si la DIA-P cumple o no con la Ley de Política Pública Ambiental. Nieves Miranda indicó que la Junta de Gobierno puede tomarse el tiempo necesario para hacer sus conclusiones.

Señaló que el informe de lo acontecido en las vistas públicas está siendo redactado por los oficiales examinadores que las dirigieron. A raíz de la emergencia energética que declaró el gobernador Luis Fortuño, la JCA preparó unas guías que le dan cinco días a los oficiales para preparar su informe.

“Ahora no estamos adoptando ninguna posición sobre el proyecto. De la Junta entender que hay comentarios que no fueron atendidos por la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE) en la DIA-P, se le pedirá que aclare el detalle. Si todo está bien, se le dice que cumplió”, expresó Nieves Miranda.

El funcionario se mostró satisfecho con lo que describió como una “amplia participación” a las vistas públicas, que se celebraron simultáneamente en Barceloneta, Adjuntas y Bayamón.

De otra parte, el director de Planificación y Protección Ambiental de la AEE, Ángel Luis Rivera Santana, aseguró que el gasoducto atiende la crisis energética actual y es cónsono con el compromiso de la corporación pública de proveer un servicio eléctrico confiable y al menor costo posible.

Entre las razones que tiene la AEE para utilizar gas natural en lugar de petróleo, Rivera Santana mencionó: el bajo precio del combustible, la reducción en los costos de mantenimiento en las generatrices, la disminución de emisiones atmosféricas y la mejora a la economía local que se espera traiga.

Comentarios sobre la declaracion de impacto ambiental (DIA-P)

1. Cuerpo de Bomberos

Deben someterse planos para conocer cómo se controlará el flujo de gas en caso de emergencias. Debe adiestrarse al personal para atender casos relacionados a gas natural.

2. Departamento de Transportación y Obras Públicas

Que se prepare una Evaluación Ambiental Federal en cumplimiento con la Ley Pública Ambiental Nacional (NEPA), ya que el proyecto impacta varias vías de acceso del Sistema Nacional de Carreteras (NHS).

3. Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña

Impacta negativamente sitios arqueológicos, por lo que se recomienda hacer estudios para identificar y delimitar los recursos. Pudiera solicitarse un cambio en la ruta para evitar impacto a yacimientos.

4. Compañía de Turismo

Habrá impacto directo en la zona turística Vega Alta-Dorado-Toa Baja, específicamente en la PR-165, el balneario Punta Salinas y el hotel Comfort Inn.

Podría haber impacto por la fragmentación de hábitats y paisajes debido a la servidumbre de 150 pies de ancho que el proyecto requiere. Pudieran afectarse bosques del centro montañoso de Puerto Rico.

5. Agencia Estatal para el Manejo de Emergencias y Administración de Desastres

Recomienda un Plan de Emergencias y la realización de simulacros periódicos.

6. Departamento de la Vivienda

Endosa el proyecto condicionado a que no afecte la construcción de 40 proyectos de interés social. La tubería pasaría a sólo 173 pies del residencial Zenón Díaz Valcárcel, en Guaynabo.

7. Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados

Pide que se use el inventario de tuberías y materiales adquiridos por la AEE para el Gasoducto del Sur.

8. Autoridad de Desperdicios Sólidos

Aclara que los escombros (madera, arena, piedra, papel, tierra, plástico, asfalto, entre otros) no pueden ser dispuestos en los sistemas de relleno sanitario o vertederos.

Establece que decir que el total de desperdicios que generará el proyecto es mayor de 100 yardas cúbicas es impreciso.

9. Municipio de Arecibo

No endosa el proyecto

10. Municipio de Dorado

Desaprueba la alineación del gasoducto al oeste del río Cocal. Propone que se mueva hacia el este en terrenos de Toa Baja.

11. Municipio de Manatí

Endosa el proyecto, pero solicita que se minimice el impacto a la finca de piñas Atenas Pine Apple.

12. Municipio de Toa Baja

Endosa el proyecto

13. Departamento de Agricultura

El gasoducto impactaría 13 fincas de la agencia.

14. Departamento de Educación

Endosa el proyecto porque la tubería no impactará ninguna escuela.

14. Departamento de Salud

• No tiene objeción porque la utilización de gas natural tendrá un efecto positivo sobre la salud de la población debido a la reducción de emisión de contaminantes.

15. Oficina Estatal de Conservación Histórica

• Podría requerirse un permiso del Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército de los Estados Unidos a fin de cumplir con la sección 106 del National Historic Preservation Act.

16. Recursos Naturales y Ambientales

• Reconoce el impacto en bosques y áreas protegidas, humedales, sumideros, dunas y la zona kársica, por lo que recomienda mitigación para estas áreas.

17. Municipio de Cataño

• Cuestiona el que la DIA-P establece que el gasoducto podría impactar 26,778 de las 30,071 unidades de vivienda en el pueblo.

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 22, 2010 a las 8:02pm

Ponencia:
FRENTE AMPLIO CONTRA EL GASODUCTO
Yanina Moreno

Archivos adjuntos:

• Ponencia-Frente-Amplio-Via-Verde-16-octubre-2010.pdf, 1.6 MB

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el noviembre 23, 2010 a las 3:51pm

Adjuntos:

INFORME SOBRE COGENERADORAS EN USA

REPORTE INTERINO SOBRE DESASTRE BP

Archivos adjuntos:

• Benchmarking Air Emissions-100 largest electric power producers in USA.pdf, 8.1 MB
• Interim Report on Causes of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Blowout and Ways to Prevent Such Events.pdf, 184 KB

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el octubre 30, 2011 a las 2:47pm

Citizens, Conservation Groups Threaten Federal Lawsuit Over Controversial Pipeline Project in Puerto Rico

OCTOBER 26, 2011

SOUTH ROYALTON, VT -- A coalition of community and conservation groups alerted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this morning that it intends to sue the Corps within 60 days over the agency's handling of a proposed natural gas pipeline line through ecologically sensitive areas in Puerto Rico.

On behalf of these groups, Vermont Law School'sEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic (ENRLC) filed a notice of intent to sue based on numerous violations of theEndangered Species Act. The notice of intent was sent to the Corps' office in Jacksonville, Fla. Read the notice of intent.

In public comments, the groups also have raised concerns about the Corps' compliance with several other federal laws that do not require a 60-day advance notice before filing a lawsuit. The ENRLC is serving as co-counsel for the coalition along with the University of Puerto Rico Environmental Law Clinic, Puerto Rico Legal Services and other attorneys.

The Corps has 60 days to respond to the notice of intent to sue; a lawsuit can be filed after that period. The Corps is expected to issue a draft environmental assessment of the Vía Verde project before the end of the year. The coalition has urged the Corps to hold public hearings and conduct a more thorough environmental impact study before issuing the permit that would allow construction to begin.

"Our clients' objective is to ensure that the Corps fully complies with federal laws designed to safeguard endangered species and sensitive ecosystems as well as to protect the citizens of Puerto Rico from safety risks and other adverse impacts of the proposed pipeline," said VLS Professor Pat Parenteau, senior counsel for the ENRLC.

The 92-mile pipeline, which has provoked widespread opposition overenvironmental and safety concerns, would traverse the island of Puerto Rico. It would run through heavily populated areas as well as mountains, rainforests, natural reserves, karst regions, coastal areas and other sensitive areas inhabited by more than 40 species of endangered wildlife and plants - including manatees, hawks and snakes -- while providing no real cost savings to the Puerto Rican people.

"With its limestone topography and recognizable haystack formations, the forested mountains and caves of the karst region are cherished by Puerto Ricans and they contain some of the most biologically diverse habitat in the world," said José Colón of Citizens of the Karst.

In August 2010, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority submitted an application to the Corps for a wetlands dredge-and-fill permit for the Vía Verde pipeline project. Such permit applications require the Corps to comply with the Endangered Species Act and a host of other federal laws. Supporters of the project say it would reduce the island's high electricity costs, but opponents say the true costs have not been fully disclosed and that the project is unlikely to improve consumer rates and may even worsen them.

The notice of intent to sue accuses the Corps of failing to adequately consider the project's potential impacts on endangered species before issuing a wetlands dredge-and-fill permit under theClean Water Act. The notice also calls into question whether the Corps adequately consulted with theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps' failure to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Services over potential impacts on coastal species, such as endangered corals and sea turtles. These interagency consultations are critical in light of the recent proposed listing of the coquí llanero as endangered. "This tiny tree frog depends on wetland vegetation that only occurs within a 400-acre territory that could be damaged or destroyed by the construction of the pipeline," said amphibian expert Neftalí Ríos.

"The citizens of Puerto Rico are in favor of newer, cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives that can be achieved without this unnecessarily damaging and unjustified project," said Professor Pedro Saadé Llorens, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Puerto Rico. "They believe their energy and environmental needs can be met by providing natural gas to southern coast energy plants and by pursuing efficiency and renewable energy alternatives instead of cutting a six-foot deep trench 92 miles through some of the most pristine ecological habitat in the world. In short, our clients are promoting the best interests of their communities based on sound environmental and economic information."

"The pipeline will cause permanent and unnecessary damage to Puerto Rico's unique and priceless natural heritage," said Jaclyn Lopez, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The coalition includes Ciudadanos del Karso (Citizens of Karst), Federación Espeleológica de Puerto Rico (Speleological Federation of Puerto Rico), Sociedad Ornitológica Puertorriqueña, Inc. (Puerto Rico Ornithological Society), Vegabajeños Impulsando un Desarrollo Ambiental Sustentable (Vegabajeños Supporting Sustainable Environmental Development), Comite Utuadeño Contra el Gasoducto (Utuadeño Committee Against the Pipeline), the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and several individual citizens.

Available to talk to the media are:

• VLS Professor Pat Parenteau: 802.831.1305,pparenteau@vermontlaw.edu
• VLS Associate Professor Teresa Clemmer, acting director of the ENRLC: 802.831.1136,tclemmer@vermontlaw.edu
• UPR Professor Pedro Saadé Llorens: 787.999.9573, 787.766.3063, 787.397.9993, saadellorensp@microjuris.com
• Attorney Hadassa Santini Colberg, Puerto Rico Legal Services: 787.728.8686 ext. 1256, 787.969.2922,hsantini@servicioslegales.org
• Attorney Jaclyn Lopez, CBD: 415.436.9682 ext. 305,jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org

CONTACT: John Cramer, Associate Director of Media Relations
Office: 802.831.1106, cell: 540.798.7099, home: 802.649.2235,mailto:jcramer@vermontlaw.edu

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el febrero 19, 2012 a las 9:59pm

19 de febrero de 2012

Médicos filipinos

(Compartido por Lcdo. Luis Amaury Suarez)

LUIS RAFAEL SÁNCHEZ

El gasoducto ya no va. Sin embargo, el pilloducto ya sí fue. Y tan sí fue que por él se fueron millones de dólares en pago por croquis, maquetas y planos, de uso inútil en lo adelante.Cualquiera diría que se trató de un homenaje a la fantasía llevada a cabo por los médicos filipinos en suelo boricua.

¿Los médicos filipinos?

Así se hacían llamar unos estafadores consumados, que recalaron en Puerto Rico por los años sesenta del siglo pasado. Se decían especialistas en “cirugía síquica”. Por ello “operaban” los cuerpos sin instrumento alguno, de manera que el riesgo de hemorragia se descartaba de antemano. Como también se descartaban, de antemano, las reacciones a la anestesia, procedimiento que la “cirugía síquica” volvía innecesario.

Mimos, además de estafadores, pues no emitían una sola palabra mientras “libraban” los cuerpos de achaques, los médicos filipinos llevaban la fantasía malvada hasta sus últimas consecuencias. De ahí que, para realizar las “cirugías síquicas”, se vistieran con batas blancas y se cubrieran boca, nariz y cabellera con mascarilla y gorra.

Embobados por la fantasía, o por la estafa, demasiados boricuas malgastaron los ahorros y se endeudaron hasta el forro, en tanto convencidos de que los médicos filipinos habrían de curarlos de achaques. En especial de inflamaciones: amigdalitis, bursitis, faringitis, gastritis, tendinitis y otras miserias emparentadas por el sufijo gramatical “itis”. Un sufijo de origen griego, lo que explicaría el carácter democrático de las inflamaciones. Sobraría decir que los fatulos médicos filipinos no “operaban” a menos que la operación se costeara, a priori. Tampoco aceptaban pagos mediante tarjetas de crédito, planes de salud, cheque personal o de gerente. Menos aún pagos al modo campesino, pagos en becerritos o puerquitos. Los fatulos médicos filipinos sólo confiaban en el papel moneda por excelencia de entonces, el dólar.

Sí, visto con la perspectiva amplia que, según rumor, otorga el paso del tiempo, el pilloducto semeja un homenaje a la incursión de los médicos filipinos en suelo boricua. Más triste aún, confirma el entusiasmo descontrolado por las mentiras que caracteriza a la clase, hoy encargada de la dirigencia gubernamental. Unas mentiras que se remiendan con los hilos de las legalidades sastreriles. Justicia, cuántas injusticias ocurren a la sombra encanallada de tu nombre.

Menos mal que se consiguió detener el avance del pilloducto… por ahora, a diferencia del voto y el escrutinio electrónicos. El estreno de dicho aparato contabilizador, previsto a ocurrir durante las próximas elecciones generales, ha desatado un vendaval de sospechas: la admitida precariedad económica de la compañía seleccionada, su poca experiencia en el asunto, la interrogante acuciosa de si será capaz de trasladar a Puerto Rico el equipo indispensable para realizar un trabajo serio, el hecho grotesco de que se la prefiera, no obstante haber presentado la cotización más alta.

Sin embargo, el voto y el escrutinio electrónicos no desatan tantas sospechas y tormentas como las desatan la atrabilaria puesta en marcha de un plebiscito que juntará chinas y botellas en la misma urna y en el mismo día; plebiscito chapucero, que parece diseñado por una nueva cepa de médicos filipinos. Aduar la cruz bajo la palabra estadidad y la candidatura a la reelección del gobernador actual, justo en los momentos cuando la gestión de éste se subestima, raya en el oportunismo festinado.

Aunque si bien el plebiscito venidero confirma el entusiasmo descontrolado por la mentira, que practica la clase política dirigente, también confirma el apego morboso al inmovilismo de su oposición mayoritaria. Un inmovilismo reaccionario y que, de cara al plebiscito, reivindica una tesis decepcionante y ofensiva: el coloniaje no es el gran problema puertorriqueño, sí es la gran solución. Melones, ¡beware!

Desde luego, la magnitud de nuestro embrollo colonial se resiste a las simplificaciones a las que lo reducen, puntualmente, estadoístas y estadolibristas, independentistas y puertorriqueños renegados: “No se es puertorriqueño, se es ciudadano norteamericano con residencia en Puerto Rico”.

Nuestro magno embrollo colonial nos ha reducido a pueblo monotemático. Que si el estadoísmo homogéneo. Que si el estadolibrismo de pelaje vario. Que si el independentismo puro. Que si el independentismo contaminado. Que si el ejército numeroso de desencantados y realengos. Un noventa y nueve por ciento de los puertorriqueños no sabe hablar de otra cosa, ni quiere hablar de otra cosa, ni se atreve hablar de otra cosa que no sea de la alucinación del estatus. Aparte de que apostamos, con la propia vida si es menester, a que la única razón válida, en cuestiones de estatus, es la razón ciega que defendemos.

“El sueño de la razón produce monstruos” bautiza Francisco de Goya uno de sus gloriosos aguafuertes. A lo mejor algo nos beneficiaría una “cirugía síquica” colectiva. A lo mejor va llegando la hora de incentivar el regreso a Puerto Rico de los fatulos médicos filipinos. Honorables legisladores, ¡presupuesten el embeleco!

• ▶ Responder

Vínculo permanente Respuesta de OFICINA VIRTUAL APEV el febrero 24, 2012 a las 10:14am

Time for the Oil Reserves?

President Obama Should Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Lower Gasoline Prices

SOURCE: AP/Ben Margot

Gasoline prices are displayed at an Oakland, California, station earlier this month. U.S. retail gasoline prices rose to a national average of $3.59 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

By Daniel J. Weiss | February 23, 2012

• PRINT
•  
• EMAIL
•  
• TEXT-SIZE: A A A 
• SHARE:     

Americans are rightly concerned about rising oil and gasoline prices. On February 21 oil closed at $106 per barrel, while the average gallon of gas in the United States cost $3.59.Bloomberg reports that prices could continue to rise:

While gas prices tend to rise through the first half of the year, this is the earliest the average price per gallon has breached the $3.50 mark. If this pace continues, the national average should hit $4 a gallon by May, if not sooner.

This is not good news for consumers or for the economy. High oil and gasoline prices slow economic growth and take a real toll on families’ already-strained budgets. They are difficult to lower in the short run because it is very hard to promptly increase oil supplies. Meanwhile, demand for gasoline does not decrease even as prices increase because most people cannot quickly and significantly reduce the amount they drive.

There is one proven tool for temporary reductions in oil and gasoline prices that can forestall reduced economic growth and help middle-class families: selling oil reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

President Barack Obama plans to speak about high oil and gasoline prices today in Florida. He will remind Americans that oil production is up and consumption is down, which means that families are saving money on fewer gasoline purchases even though prices are rising. The payroll tax cut extension will provide an average of $40 more per paycheck and will also help ease some of the strain of higher gasoline prices. It is unlikely the president will announce the sale of reserve oil during the speech, but it remains an option if prices continue to climb.

Why are oil and gasoline prices so high?

Oil and gasoline prices are rising now for a myriad of reasons. Growing demand from China and India has boosted consumption, and Libyan production has yet to return to its prewar level of 1.6 million barrels per day. Pat Garofalo of ThinkProgress reports that the price is going up “despite lowest [U.S.] demand [for oil] since 1997.” He cites Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service, who says that speculators are helping to drive up oil prices:

Much of the increase is due to speculative money that’s flowed into gasoline futures contracts since the beginning of the year, mostly from hedge funds and large money managers. “We’ve seen about $11 billion of speculative money come in on the long side of gas futures,” [Kloza] says. “Each of the last three weeks we’ve seen a record net-long position being taken.”

Another major source of high prices is Iran’s threat to cut off oil exports to Western nations that are pressuring it to abandon its nuclear weapons program. On February 19, for instance, Iran announced that it would stop sales to England and France. Although these two nations buy very little Iranian oil, fear that Iran would stop supplying other, more dependent countries boosted the spot price for oil by $3 per barrel overnight. This was also partly driven by speculators taking advantage of fears about future production cuts. And since the price of oil accounts for nearly 80 percent of the price of a gallon of gas, this cost jump will boost gasoline prices too. 

What can we do about high oil and gasoline prices?

There are very few policy measures that can rapidly reduce oil and gasoline prices, but selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to oil companies can help. The reserve was created in 1975 as a hedge against serious oil supply disruptions such as the Arab oil embargo of 1973–1974. It has a capacity of 727 million barrels of oil and is currently 96 percent full with 696 million barrels.

Presidents have the authority to sell reserve oil under the following circumstances described in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act:

Drawdown and sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may not be made unless the President has found drawdown and sale are required by a severe energy supply interruption or by obligations of the United States under the international energy program.

(2) For purposes of this section, in addition to the circumstances set forth in section 3 (8), a severe energy supply interruption shall be deemed to exist if the President determines that -

(A) an emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;

(B) a severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and

(C) such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.

There have been reserve oil sales under every president since 1991.

• President George H. W. Bush sold reserve oil before the first Iraq war in anticipation of supply disruptions that did not materialize.
• The Republican Congress required two sales of reserve oil in 1996 to reduce the federal budget deficit.
• President George W. Bush sold oil in 2005 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Last year President Barack Obama sold 30 million barrels of reserve oil to offset the disruption of Libyan oil production during its civil war. Our partners in International Energy Agency, or IEA, nations sold 30 million barrels of their reserve oil, as well. (The IEA is an intergovernmental organization dedicated to responding to physical disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors.)

Reserve oil sales reduce oil and gasoline prices. (see chart below) For instance, last year the administration announced its sale of SPR oil on June 23 with completion on September 30. The IEA sale occurred during this time too. From the time of the announcement to the time of final sale, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil dropped by 17 percent, while the price of gasoline fell by 6 percent. Such a decline would reduce $4 per gallon gasoline to $3.76 per gallon.

There is also a legitimate concern about adequate oil reserves in case of a severe Iranian supply disruption, but we have ample supplies in the SPR to withstand it. Iran exports 2.2 million barrels of oil per day worldwide, and none of it comes to the United States. The United States could replace these Iranian exports to other nations for 60 days, and our reserves would still be 80 percent full. And after completely offsetting a 180-day disruption in Iranian oil supplies, the SPR would still be 40 percent full.

Iran has also threatened to cut off the Strait of Hormuz through which 17 million barrels of oil travel every day. This is about one-fifth of worldwide consumption. There is enough oil in the SPR that the United States could replace this oil for three weeks, and its reserves would still be half full. The bigger challenge in that scenario is that the SPR can release no more than 4.4 million barrels per day.

Conservative proposals won’t help

In response to rising oil and gasoline prices, conservatives will trot out a number of tired measures that could benefit Big Oil but won’t provide relief to consumers such as:

• Approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring dirty oil sands from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. Time magazine concluded that, “Keystone would have little immediate [price] effect.”
• Expand offshore oil drilling into currently protected areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, though it will take up to seven years to produce any additional oil. The Energy Information Administration found that this would have little impact on prices or supply.
• Drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, even though it would take10 years to produce any oil.
• Suspend the 18-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax, which would reduce funds for badly needed highway repair and transit projects. This would also cost jobs.
• Waive the summer pollution reduction requirements for gasoline in metropolitan areas with severe smog problems. This would reduce gasoline costs by only a few cents per gallon but would increase smog that harms children, seniors, and others.

Obama adopted long-term measures to reduce oil and gasoline costs

President Obama has overseen a growth in oil supply and a reduction in demand—both of which can reduce prices. Since 2009 there has been a significant increase in U.S. oil production. It now produces a majority of its oil for the first time in 15 years. The Houston Chronicle reports that:

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272… Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

This domestic production improved our energy security and reduced the amount of money we send overseas for foreign oil. But the aforementioned factors have kept prices high.

As significantly, the president modernized fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles for the first time in more than two decades. By 2025 cars and light trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas and will save more than 2 million barrels of oil per day. The improved standards will also save drivers $8,200 in lower gasoline purchases over the life of their vehicle compared to 2010 standards.

High gasoline prices impose real costs on middle- and low-income Americans. President Obama’s plans to increase oil production while improving fuel economy for vehicles will provide real relief. For immediate relief from high gasoline expenses, however, history shows that selling a small amount of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will lower prices.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress.

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup 
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org

• ▶ Responder

• ‹ Anterior
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Siguiente ›
• Página