Competing with China for Clean Energy Future

It comes as no surprise that China is competing with us for global economic supremacy – in business and technology and, as world energy supplies become scarcer, for resources as well. While we are busy fighting two wars, the largest oil spill in history, a recession, and playing partisan politics, China has been ramping up a clean energy economy that has the potential to vault it ahead as a world leader. China has set a long-term development goal of doubling its alternative energy industry by 2020, though its private sector hardly needs incentives; the People’s Republic is already the largest manufacturer and exporter of clean energy technology, from solar panels to windmills.

Against this background, the United States Senate recently failed to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. There is plenty of blame to go around, from the partisan politics played by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to the hundreds of millions of dollars in dishonest attack ads paid for by the oil and coal lobby. The Republicans were obstinate and obstructionist, the Democrats were weak and uninspired. In the race to create jobs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce pollution, we are not simply falling behind; we are not even playing the game.

Even an obvious lesson from the most disastrous environmental tragedy in our country’s history was lost on Washington: offshore drilling is clearly a terrible answer to meeting America’s energy needs. With two percent of world reserves and 25 percent of consumption, the United States cannot make a dent in our growing dependence on foreign oil, even if we were to drill on every available deposit. Anyone who says that increasing domestic reserves will increase our energy security is either misinformed or pandering for votes.

More importantly, if the name of the game is economic growth, how can we consider drilling offshore now that the BP oil disaster has shown the crippling impacts of a disaster on coastal economies? South Carolina in particular should not be included in the federal government’s 2012-2017 Gas Leasing Program. Independent, scientific assessments simultaneously rate the Mid- and South-Atlantic as having the least amount of oil and natural gas resources while being the most environmentally sensitive of all Outer Continental Shelf regions.

Just like in any business, cost-to-benefit analysis should guide our energy policies, not politics. To drill in South Carolina, as some state politicians propose, would be to take a huge risk for a tiny prospect of return. We elect our representatives to make discerning choices, not throw the kitchen sink at our problems. Our energy challenge requires a strategic response, not an “all-of-the-above” approach.

Furthermore, how can we consider leasing South Carolina’s coast for exploration when we have yet to fundamentally fix the root of BP oil disaster? The agency responsible for leasing federal land for resource extraction – The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (formerly the Minerals Management Service) is being investigated for drug, sex and bribery scandals. South Carolina has a long and vocal tradition of mistrusting the federal government. Where is that resistance now? Why are our state leaders showing so little concern about the federal agency that would be managing the energy resources three miles off South Carolina’s coast?

A growing spectrum of Americans on both the right and the left believe Washington is broken. At least part of the answer lies in the way special interests have bought off politicians and put corporate greed above the common good. How else do we explain the billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives given to an oil industry that does not stand by the American consumer? Meanwhile, public officials ignore the clear advantages of creating incentives for a clean energy economy. A recent study concluded that investing $100 billion in the clean energy economy would create four times more jobs than in the oil industry. Developing a clean energy economy now means more jobs in domestic construction and manufacturing, which would jumpstart local markets across the board.

If our elected leaders want to show true vision and leadership, they will realize that developing a clean energy economy will not only jumpstart an eager labor force, but will also help create a cleaner, safer, and more secure world for our children. The federal climate bill failed in part because many politicians are unable to see this future, but those of who represent the leaders of tomorrow do. It is my sincere hope that we see a renewal of leadership, especially coming from our own Sen. Lindsey Graham, who demonstrated commitment to the issue when it was first brought to the floor.

The United States is at a crucial juncture in history, and we have important decisions to make. Will we fall behind our global competitors, like China, by continuing to invest in the technologies of the past, or will we put true American ingenuity to work, develop an economy for the future, and rise to the challenge? The choice is ours.

Taking local action against offshore oil

Many South Carolinians are finding themselves enraged by the idea that a Deepwater Horizon-type disaster may be making its way into South Carolina waters. Only seven days after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe the Mineral Management Service and Big oil companies met in Charleston to discuss the future of offshore drilling in S.C. Many coastal residents, who do not want tar balls on their beach are wondering what they can do as individual citizens to at least slow the process. Residents of San Luis Obispo, California found themselves in a similar position in the late 1980’s, and they acted. The county was able to create and pass a measure prohibiting any onshore support facilities within their counties jurisdiction. So coastal residents, talk with your local representatives and urge them to consider similar measures so that our coastline does not end up horrifically scarred for who knows how many years, sorry to be so frank Gulf residents.

Oil: A Temporary Solution to a Permanent Problem

No matter how hard we might wish we could simply drill our way to energy independence, it is simply not possible, and the sooner we learn this, the better. Dirty fossil fuels like oil and gas are not the future. They are a temporary solution at best, one that we’ve been lucky enough to enjoy for over a century of rapid industrialization. But as countries like China, India, and Brazil enter into new stages of their industrial revolutions, resources are only going to become much more scarce, perhaps much faster than we’d originally planned.

For example, China has already begun stockpiling uranium, the compound essential for nuclear reactors. China’s own Prime Minister has personally traveled to Nigeria and made deals that are expected to drive up the price of uranium by over 30 percent next year. The same is inevitable for oil and natural gas. Unless the United States wants to deal increasingly with other nations, many of whom are hostile to our values—such as countries in the Middle East and the oil barons in Russia and China—we need to act now.

Unfortunately, unlike some proponents maintain, drilling for oil and gas domestically is not the answer either. Even if we drilled in every square inch of available water, the United States still would not have enough to support our ever-growing energy appetite. And besides, creating new rigs offshore takes years of bureaucratic blue tape, exploration, and lease bidding to become feasible solutions. By that time, we could have been well on our way to developing real energy solutions, like solar, wind, and biomass. Creating a green, independent future will take time, so why waste it by developing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

SC Energy Forum code name for big oil

This past Tuesday, Conservation Voters was as disappointed as we always are when we see a letter written by a proponent of offshore drilling who captures his or her audience with misguided “energy independence” rhetoric. (Read the Sun News article here:) But this time we were especially outraged when we realized the source.

The South Carolina Energy Forum sounds noble enough—“a growing community of concerned citizens committed to two goals—achieving energy security for our country and holding our elected officials more accountable in shaping energy policies."

But make no mistake: the South Carolina Energy Forum is a front group for the oil companies, and the American Petroleum Institute in particular. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that they are fighting hard to expand offshore drilling. And they are working to attack industries like wind, solar, and biomass that have real potential to replace fossil fuels. 


That is why Conservation Voters wants all of its supporters to become aware of the true nature of this misleading “South Carolina Energy Forum.” After all, do we really want to find out what happens when we keep big oil in charge? They already had their chance, and unfortunately for all of us, they blew it.

More resources:
-The SC Energy Forum’s Website can be found at: . Write in to express your discontent over big oil purposefully misleading the American people and unjustly taking charge over SC politics.
-The Sun News article can be found at: . Comment to help inform the public about the true intent of this agency.

Building energy resources, building up the economy

With an unemployment rate of 12.5 percent and record foreclosures, South Carolina needs something to smile about. The president recently gave us that when he announced his support for offshore drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf, a position that will help ensure a brighter energy and economic future. Developing the nation’s energy resources could boost the economy and add thousands of good jobs in our state.

Today, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports more than 9.2 million jobs nationwide. In South Carolina, 67,000 men and women are directly or indirectly employed by the industry, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study. And a study by ICF International says the development of offshore oil and natural gas could provide the state with 2,247 new jobs by 2030.

Our Gulf Coast neighbors in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas receive more than a third of the revenues collected by the federal government for offshore energy production. South Carolina could reap these economic benefits, too. A September report by the Southeast Energy Alliance estimates that a similar revenue-sharing program could provide our state with up to $250 million a year from oil and natural gas exploration and production along the Outer Continental Shelf. These funds would play a vital role to help fill the budget gap, fund critical health care needs and support infrastructure and education projects.

Despite the obvious benefits, some people continue to oppose offshore drilling. But with an overwhelming majority of American’s supporting offshore drilling – 72 percent, according to a Rasmussen survey – energy development should be treated as an opportunity, not a problem.

The president’s decision is an encouraging one, but he still supports damaging cap-and-trade legislation and $80 billion in tax increases on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. These proposals would discourage investment, further inhibit domestic energy development and destroy existing jobs – not create the new ones that more than 270,000 unemployed South Carolinians desperately need.

As the United States strives to reduce its budget deficit, it’s critical that we explore all paths that could improve the economy and create much-needed jobs. Developing America’s oil and natural gas resources is clearly one such path. We should take it.

Rep. Bruce Bannister

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2010/04/26/1257505/building-energy-resources-building.html#ixzz0mRYaWIdY

Oil companies pursue drilling along coast 7 companies apply for permits

CHARLESTON -- Seven companies have already applied for permits to explore for oil and natural gas along all or part of the Southeast coast. All of them want to look off South Carolina.

They would detonate compressed air guns dragged behind ships, creating a series of seismic blasts in order to read the "echo" beneath the sea floor.

To explore the area off South Carolina alone could cost a company some $4 million or more.



That's why two public hearings will be held in Charleston on April 27 by the federal Minerals Management Service. The idea that potential supplies off the coast aren't large enough to interest energy companies doesn't mean nobody wants to test the water. Oil companies don't usually do the early surveys, geophysical exploration companies do. Then they sell the data they find.

Whether the supplies or the onshore infrastructure is large enough to make offshore drilling profitable usually doesn't get decided until after a few test wells have been drilled.

"You wouldn't want to preclude anything until you had a better understanding" of the subsurface geology, said Walt Rosenbusch, projects and issues vice president of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors.

That's enough to alarm environmentalists. The seismic blasts would be the latest in an intensifying din along a coast inhabited by the critically endangered right whale, among other species of concern.

A series of blasts from a single compressed air gun can blank out the calls of whales and other marine mammal over an area bigger than New Mexico, said Michael Jasny, of the environmental advocate Natural Resources Defence Council.

The animals call to do everything from navigate to feed and mate.

Studies also have shown commercial fish catches drop 40-80 percent during seismic exploration, he said.

"There's an environmental impact. There's also an economic impact," Jasny said.

The federal "scoping meetings" are two of 13 being held along the Southeast coast to get public comments for an environmental impact statement, a preliminary step to deciding whether mitigation and monitoring will be ordered to take place during the surveys. Federal regulations call for companies to share their findings with Minerals Management Service, which makes no bones about its interest.

"It has been more than 25 years since geological and geophysical studies were conducted off the Atlantic coast. This data will enhance, update and supplement information to support future MMS planning decisions for both renewable and conventional energy development," the minerals service news release said.

The Obama administration in March lifted a long-standing ban on new offshore drilling. The S.C. legislature last year gave the go-ahead for drilling off the coast.

The politically charged issue has South Carolinians divided on whether the potential for new energy reserves and revenue outweighs the risks to an $18 billion tourism industry, fishing and other interests.

Derb Carter, Southern Environmental Law Center director, said the seismic blasts would disrupt marine life, and the exploration permits would open the way for drilling.

"The risk and impacts of drilling off the South Atlantic coast are too great and conflict with both the environmental conditions and the economy," he said.

S.C. Sen. Paul Campbell, R-Goose Creek, who championed the state bill, said he hasn't seen permanent environmental consequences from seismic work in the Gulf of Mexico. "If it's a temporary consequence, that's one thing we've got to live with," he said.

Dealing with a Drilling Debate

In March, President Barack Obama eased restrictions on off-shore drilling. If approved by congress, it could open another 167 acres of ocean to be explored and drilled.

Already seven companies have applied for permits to explore and survey the ocean floor of the South Carolina coast.

Senator Lindsey Graham is onboard; he is proposing a new energy plan, which would pump 37.5 % of any revenue derived from off shore drilling back into the state.

The Republican said that searching for new and cleaner sources of energy are at the top of his agenda.

"I don’t want the next generation of Americans to be more dependent on foreign oil than we are today." The Senator remarked.

Environmental groups like the Coastal Conservation League, however say any oil drilled from off shore platforms will not be enough to drive down cost or curb the countries dependence on foreign oil.


“When you look at the numbers and recognize that the United States has about three percent of global oil reserves yet we consume about 25 percent of what’s produced every year, it becomes obvious very quickly that we're not going to drill our way to independence," said Energy & Climate Director Hamilton Davis.

Davis is also concerned that if approved, building and reinforcing those off shore platform and pipelines could change the coastal landscape.

“"You look at places like the Gulf of Mexico and see huge impacts to their coastal communities in the form of oil refineries, pipelines storage facilities. And they continue to have trouble with spills during hurricanes,

The public will have their chance to weigh in on the issue. Two off shore drilling hearings will be held April 27th.

Graham challenges EPA leader's claims

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham fired off a letter Monday to the Environmental Protection Agency seeking a list of South Carolina businesses that would be affected by rules to control global warming pollution.

Upset by remarks EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson made over the weekend in Columbia, Graham said he remains unconvinced that pending greenhouse gas regulations will affect only large industries. Small businesses also could be vulnerable to the EPA rules, he said.

"My belief is that she is giving assurances that will not withstand scrutiny," said the S.C. Republican, who wants Congress to pass a bill addressing greenhouse gases, instead of letting the EPA rules take effect. "I want to know with specificity, 'What companies in South Carolina do you intend to regulate first - and over time, who is next?'"

In an interview Sunday with The State newspaper, Jackson said the EPA rules will focus on large industries that produce about 80 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S. She said the rules were mandated by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but are not intended to regulate restaurants, apartment buildings and other small businesses - as Graham and state regulators said at a recent meeting in Columbia. They also said small farms, churches, schools and even homes could be affected.

"At this point in time, there's just no basis that says we're going to reach down to small businesses," Jackson told The State.

Jackson said she and President Barack Obama prefer that Congress pass a bill addressing greenhouse gases, but she also said the EPA's first-ever greenhouse gas regulations will help.

The rules will first apply to 300 to 400 companies nationally, and only if those companies want to expand or build new facilities, she said. They would later apply to other companies that release large amounts of greenhouse gases. In May, the EPA is expected to formally declare which industries the rules will apply to. They are supposed to begin taking effect early next year.

Jackson was traveling in the Charleston area on an environmental justice tour Monday and unavailable for further comment.

Rising earth temperatures, fueled in part by man-made greenhouse gases that trap heat, are contributing to rising sea levels and an array of other environmental problems, many scientists agree. Rising sea levels are an important issue in South Carolina, where the state's heavily developed beachfront is a cornerstone of a multibillion-dollar tourism industry.

Graham has been a leader in efforts to control greenhouse gases, but says the EPA's regulations won't be flexible enough. The pollution controls could be expensive for businesses to install.

"I know where this thing goes by regulation," he said. "Once you start, you never stop."

He plans to unveil a bill early next week that addresses climate change, while also looking more broadly at the country's energy needs. The bill is expected to include a fee on oil companies that release carbon dioxide and provisions to promote nuclear power and drilling for oil and natural gas off the Atlantic coast. Graham said he wants to promote jobs and decrease the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Whether such a bill will pass Congress remains in doubt, which is why the EPA regulations are important as a kind of safety valve, clean air advocates have said. The EPA's first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, said last week that regulation through the Clean Air Act may be the only way to attack the problem, according to the Environment and Energy news service.

In his letter Monday, Graham asked Jackson if she has a list of companies affected by the regulations, what the rules would cost each company and how many jobs "could be lost" if the EPA rules take effect.

"I remain concerned about the impact regulations could have on South Carolina's economy," Graham's letter said. "EPA actions limiting their ability to locate, operate, or expand in South Carolina will not only impact these industries directly, but will cause numerous small businesses to close due to the lost business opportunity.'

Pollution rules meant for big companies, says EPA Chief Lisa Jackson

Agency head refutes S.C. concerns that state's small businesses will be targeted


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa P. Jackson dismissed state concerns Sunday that new federal climate rules will hamstring South Carolina's small business community with red tape and expensive requirements.

In an exclusive interview with The State newspaper, Jackson said her agency will focus the nation's first greenhouse gas regulations on large industries that produce about 80 percent of the pollution linked to global warming. She labeled as unfounded reports in South Carolina that the rules would apply to businesses like restaurants and apartment complexes.

"Not while I'm head of the EPA," Jackson said before an environmental justice conference in Columbia. "I don't know where that comes from, except that people are rightly afraid of stuff they don't understand."

But Jackson said "it doesn't make sense" that the EPA would place the burden on small businesses.

"You go after the big folks. You don't start with the little ones," she said. "It wouldn't be in anybody's interests."

Jackson was responding to criticism last month from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and regulators from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. Both favor a new law passed by Congress to control greenhouse gases, instead of looming EPA regulations.

During a meeting with business leaders March 29, Graham and DHEC officials said the regulations could extend to small businesses, such as restaurants, apartment buildings, family farms - and possibly large homes or churches. Under questioning by Graham, DHEC air bureau chief Myra Reece said some small business owners are "going to wake up and you're going to find yourself regulated."

Reece said Sunday the jury is still out on how the rules will apply. The EPA is expected to formally decide in the next month which industries will be affected. The new rules would require pollution control devices to curb greenhouse gas releases, a requirement that could cost industries millions of dollars.

"We're waiting to see what's in the final rule," Reece said. "Even then, I guess there's going to be a lot of litigation, and the courts will ultimately decide what happens."

Jackson and House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., are to meet with Chamber of Commerce officials in Columbia this morning. They expect to discuss the greenhouse gas rules with business officials, Clyburn said.

The EPA rules have been contentious nationally because they will, for the first time, control carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Rising earth temperatures, fueled by industrialization since the late 1800s, are contributing to rising sea levels and an array of other environmental problems, many scientists agree. Sea level rise is an important issue in South Carolina, where the state's heavily developed beachfront is a cornerstone of a multi-billion dollar tourism industry.

The EPA rules will extend to both vehicles, as well as so-called "stationary sources," or industries that create global warming pollution. The regulations result from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the EPA has authority to regulate and control greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster has joined at least eight other states in legal action that could stop the new greenhouse gas rules. McMaster has said the rules would cost South Carolina jobs - a point Jackson disagreed with Sunday.

McMaster, DHEC and Graham say that instead of trying to control greenhouse gases through EPA regulations, Congress should pass a law that controls the pollution while providing flexibility to businesses. Graham and Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., are expected to propose a comprehensive climate and energy bill this month.

Jackson said Sunday that she and President Barack Obama also favor a bill over regulation through the EPA, agreeing that it would provide more flexibility. Still, the prospects of Congress acting anytime soon are uncertain.

"It's always best to have the input of Congress on these kinds of things," Clyburn said. "But if people are going to filibuster everything we do, then let's go the regulation route."

Jackson said the rules won't apply to large industries until next year at the earliest, but even then, they would only kick in only when a big company wanted to build a new plant or make a major expansion. Some 300 to 400 large industries would be affected initially, she said. Those include power plants, paper mills and other industrial facilities.

Jackson's visit to South Carolina was part of an environmental justice tour the EPA and the Congressional Black Caucus launched earlier this year. Jackson, the first African American to head the EPA, said there's little doubt that black and disadvantaged neighborhoods have suffered from pollution that other communities have not faced. She said the EPA is working to change that.

During the town hall meeting Sunday, which drew about 200 people at Allen University, Jackson heard concerns of pollution in poor and African-American neighborhoods across South Carolina.

Jackson and DHEC officials pledged to investigate questions from one local resident about an industry near Allen University and Benedict College that was said to be making people sick.

After environmentalist Susan Corbett complained about DHEC approving permits for a battery recycling plant in eastern South Carolina, Jackson said the state agency has a hard job and is trying to help the public, as the EPA does. But Jackson said the EPA is available when people are concerned with state-level efforts to protect the environment.

"We're supposed to stand up and say 'Hey, we'll review it,'" Jackson said, adding that all states should have equal environmental protection. "It cannot be easier to pollute in one state versus another."

Today, Jackson will visit a North Charleston elementary school that lies within an aging industrial complex. The EPA has tested to see if toxic chemicals from nearby industries have made air quality unsafe for school children at Chicora Elementary. She also will visit the Savannah River Site near Aiken today. Earlier Sunday, Jackson toured several communities in Spartanburg County where residents say they have suffered from industrial pollution.
Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537.

S.C. drivers may see $3 gasoline by start of summer

South Carolina drivers have in the past enjoyed some of the cheapest gas in the nation, but that could soon change as prices edge closer to $3 a gallon.

The state is one of the 10 most vulnerable to a gas price spike While all drivers would be affected by gas hikes to the $3 range, drivers in South Carolina as well as Mississippi, Montana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Texas, Maine, Georgia and Idaho would be hit harder, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The organization ranked the states based on the percent of income spent on gasoline by the average driver.

Greenville-area stations reported average gas prices of $2.656 Friday while the national average was $2.862. Gas prices are being driven by the recent increase in crude oil prices, which touched the $87 range but has now dropped to the $86 range.

Crude has traded between $68 and $84 a barrel during the past six months. In the past two months, crude prices have been climbing as world equity markets rose and U.S. refining climbed from a 16-month low.

Upstate gas prices are 5.5 cents higher than a month ago and about 76 cents above a year ago.

The U.S. driving season begins around Memorial Day, sending gas prices somewhat higher. Gas prices often begin rising in March as refineries switch over to their summer blends, said Brendon Byrnes, spokesman for AAA Carolinas.

Although U.S. consumption has increased slightly, demand still is lower than before the recession hit despite some signs that the economy is improving.

“The main reason we’re seeing this uptick is the price of oil because the speculators have a great deal of optimism about recovery,” he said.

David Bodde, a Clemson University economist with expertise in energy, agreed.

“It looks like a financial phenomenon,” he said, adding that seasonal factors could also play into the rising costs. “I would bet that big investors are placing bets on the economy improving. You can’t find it in the supply and demand side.”

In some ways, it doesn’t matter that much what happens with U.S. consumption because the new demand will be in China and India. North America is considered a replacement market – people buy new cars to replace older ones. Many times, the replacements are more fuel efficient than ones previously owned.
n China and India, however, many consumers may be buying their initial vehicles.

Some economists fear that the $3 range is such that consumers might try to reduce their gasoline consumption and slow other spending, perhaps stifling the fragile economic recovery now underway.

“I think it is one of the biggest risks we could face this year,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wells Fargo Economics Group. “While $3 is significant, when it gets to $3.50 a gallon, the price pulls people away from other spending.”

Stephen Schork, an oil trader and analyst, agreed about the $3 level.

“It's a price where you start to see demand destruction begin to kick in,” he said.

“That’s always a factor,” Bodde said. “The situation probably is a little bit out of the hands of the Saudis,” who tend to think a fair price of oil is in the $70s.

“We’re trading outside that range now,” he said, adding the Saudis and OPEC tend to want to get the most for oil they can without tipping Western economies into a conservation phase.

“Once you make a structural change in the U.S. fleet, you’re not making a behavioral change,” he said. The Saudis don’t want that because it would lessen demand for crude oil and could affect the price.

The last time prices spiked was July 2008 when they hit more than $4 a gallon, slamming the brakes on consumption and helping push the country deeper into recession. Crude oil prices hit $147 that month but fell to $33 by December. Crude was selling at nearly $86 a barrel Tuesday.

Vitner said that while $3.50 gas could change behavior, he doesn’t think the impact will be as severe as it was in 2008, especially in South Carolina.

With an unemployment rate of 12.5 percent for most of the year and the average length of unemployment more than three months in duration, one of four South Carolina workers has been out of work during that period.

Regardless of price, unemployed workers tend not to drive much, he said. So a drop in consumption wouldn’t be as drastic as it was in 2008 when motorists parked their cars as much as possible.

Bodde said he doesn’t think gasoline in the $3 to $3.50 range would tip the economy into another recession alone.

But “it darn sure doesn’t help things. It could be a contributing factor” if other factors remain weak, he said.

Vitner said that about half of South Carolina’s population lives in rural areas. They have longer distances to drive to work and so would be hurt more by higher gas prices. Also, most of the beach vacation travelers to the state arrive by vehicle – another sector of the state’s economy that could be hurt by higher gas prices.

“Our ongoing oil addiction is draining our wallets and our economy, and rising gas prices will only add to this burden,” said Deron Lovaas, transportation expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That's why we need to move forward with clean energy and climate solutions that will not only strengthen our national security and our environment, but will also help revitalize our economy.”

Byrnes said that “South Carolina is probably not as likely to hit the $3 level as North Carolina,” which has prices about 15 cents higher per gallon.

However, over the past two years, gas prices rose about 70 cents between March and the middle of June. If that holds true, the state’s gas prices would zoom past the $3 mark. South Carolina’s average gas price was at $2.57 in early March.

“We expect the rise to be slightly muted this year because of the high unemployment and the high supply,” he said.

Obama lifts the moratorium on off-shore oil exploration

For all the talk of partisan politics in Washington, it is worth noting that a Democratic President has lifted the moratorium on exploring offshore drilling for oil and gas. One could take the view that President Obama is hoping to garner support from Republicans for the federal climate and energy legislation, due to be introduced in the Senate next week. But if so, why make the announcement BEFORE the effort to win votes is under way? Could it be instead that the President has heard the advice of South Carolina's Senator Lindsey Graham, who says that the way to unite Americans on issues of energy and the climate is by framing the debate around national security and energy independence? After all, we send over $1 billion a day to regime hostile to our values and our own generals call the intersecting concerns of climate change and foreign oil a dual threat to our national security and economic well being.

Here in South Carolina we are fortunate -- there is little oil off our coast and probably not much gas. But there is a great deal of wind potential and so the more attention we give to finding homegrown energy sources the sooner we will come to appreciate that our clean and renewable sources -- wind, sun and biomass -- are also our most abundant. The pending federal energy legislation will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help us become energy independent, create jobs and increase our energy diversity. Senator Graham has known this all along. Hopefully the rest of his party will get behind him and support a comprehensive solution.

Lindsey Graham Leads on Clean Energy

Lindsey Graham vows legislation on carbon emissions

COLUMBIA – Churches, schools, restaurants and even large homes could fall under new federal regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases, say state officials who want Congress to tackle the issue instead of the federal environmental agency.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he plans to do just that, joining in a bi-partisan bill that will be filed next month to pre-empt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and provide a new cap and trade system that he said could help reduce the national debt, encourage the production of more alternative energy and move the nation closer to energy independence.

“This administration is not going to back off,” Graham told a group of business and environmental officials. “They are going to regulate carbon. If Congress doesn’t get involved, it’s going to be a disaster for this state and it’s going to be a disaster for every state.”

The EPA regulations stem from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and a subsequent finding by the agency that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to human health.

Last fall, the agency announced that it would regulate such emissions from light-duty cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act, opening the door to regulation of stationary sources, including factories and power plants.

But because the agency is proceeding under the Clean Air Act, far more sources of greenhouse gas emissions could be regulated, meaning hospitals, restaurants, small businesses, commercial office buildings, schools and even large homes could end up having to pay fees and submit permit applications if they are being built or modified, said Myra Reece, chief of air quality for the state Department of Health and Environmental Control.

While EPA is seeking to increase that standard and isn’t expected to begin implementing the first parts of its regulations until next year, the prospect that churches and hospitals might be considered polluters has triggered a backlash from states.

Earlier this month, state Attorney General Henry McMaster joined with other states in a lawsuit challenging the EPA regulations. McMaster argued the new rules would cost the state jobs at a time of high unemployment and that the issue should be addressed by the state’s Legislature and Congress, not by a federal agency.

Many state legislatures have passed resolutions urging Congress to pre-empt EPA.

State environmental officials say their agency has urged EPA to push the emission thresholds much higher to catch the major air polluters, not hospitals or small businesses. If the current EPA regulations go forward, they say, permits such as the one they granted Boeing in under a month could take years.

Otis Rawl, president and CEO of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, asked Graham if EPA’s regulations were a form of “forced politics” by the administration of President Barack Obama, in effect creating harsh rules to prod Congress to do something.

Graham said he believes some of that is true but added that EPA acted far more quickly than members of Congress expected.

He said the solution is legislation that would pre-empt the regulations by exempting most of the sources EPA would regulate, such as offices, schools and hospitals.

Legislation also could create a carbon dioxide emission cap and trade program. Graham received criticism from within his own party last year after he joined forces with Democrats to propose such a carbon cap and trade bill.

He says the new legislation to be filed next month will apply a cap and trade system by industry sector instead of economy-wide as had been proposed.

“The cap and trade approach (for the whole economy) to regulating carbon would have been an economic disaster,” he said. “It would have run up utility bills for consumers. It would have put major projects at risk.”

In the new approach, Graham said, trading wouldn’t be applied to the oil and gas industry. Doing so, he argued, would send American refineries elsewhere.

Fees would be assessed on companies that create carbon products, such as oil companies, he said, and the money would be used either to reduce the national deficit or allow it to be spent on low-income Americans for use in transportation needs.

“It would set a price on carbon which would make hybrid cars more valuable,” he said. “The only way you are going to get away from foreign oil is to find more and use less.”

Trading of carbon credits would be restricted, he said, to prevent speculation.

Heavy energy users, such as companies that produce aluminum, cement and steel, would be removed from the cap and trade system for years because the technology doesn’t yet exist to capture carbon, he said.

Farmers would get credits for using techniques that don’t emit carbon dioxide.

The new legislation, Graham said, allows “more time, more tools -- the standards are more easily met, it’s more business-friendly.”

The bill would also allow offshore drilling, encourage nuclear power production and alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind power and bio-fuels. Such legislation could double the business of General Electric’s wind turbine plant in Greenville, he said.

“The goal is to reduce foreign oil dependency by a third in 15 years,” he said.

Doing nothing, he argued, “means South Carolina and other states get hit with burdens we can’t possibly bear.”

“The Supreme Court has allowed the regulation of carbon through the Clean Air Act,” he said.

“The question is, is Congress going to be smart enough to stop it? I want to stop the EPA from regulating carbon and allow elected officials to come up with a statutory scheme that not only cleans up the air, it creates jobs instead of losing jobs and gets this country on the path to energy independence.”