With oil prices cut in half and gasoline near (or below) $2 per gallon, is now a good time for the U.S. to end its century-long addiction to oil?

The topic was raised by none other than the 'liberal bastion' of The Wall Street Journal Monday (subscription required0 with energy analysts and policy makers weighing in.

BloggingStocks Monday asked Energy Trader Jim Dietz to evaluate some of the major recommendations discussed.

• Four-day work week: "It's possible, but the best plan would be voluntary, allowing companies to opt in/out and adopt plans that meet their production needs," Dietz said.

• Mandated higher MPG for vehicles: "This is almost certain to be proposed by President-elect Obama, and will likely pass the Congress. It will reduce gasoline and diesel consumption."

• Mandated flex-fuel cars: "Another measure likely to become federal law and it would take pressure off oil consumption."

• Tax credit for fuel-efficient vehicles: "Another oil saver, and it stands a better than 50% chance of being passed by the next Congress."
  

• Federal funds for next-gen vehicle: "This will likely be included in any rescue package for General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. A next-generation vehicle would be a game-changer, energy wise, but it's years away."

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

Coal. Detestable coal.

Politically incorrect coal.

The stuff of Dickens' England. Black-lung disease. Strip-mining. And global warming.

Coal is the 'Rodney Dangerfield of energy forms,' because, like the late comedian, it gets no respect.

Have you ever heard of a positive association regarding coal? As a child in the United States, way back in the twentieth century, you dared not misbehave prior to the holidays, lest you get, coal in your stocking.

(No one ever spoke of a reprimand involving 'getting oil in your stocking.' No sir. Oil is considered 'black gold.')

Well, in the near future you and many others may look favorably on collecting coal, and a lot of it, if current trends continue regarding that other notable energy form, oil.

The odds of a 2007 Energy Bill passing the Democratic Party-led U.S. Congress, with President Bush's blessing, "Are still likely," according to a Washington-based, public policy lobbyist with knowledge of the matter.

"The bill will need a few revisions, but I'd say it's a 70/30 go, in favor of the bill being signed by the president," the lobbyist told Bloggingstocks Tuesday, on condition he not be identified by name.

The lobbyist, who represents primarily Democratic Party-based constituencies, said the the bill's renewable energy component and potential tax increases remain the hangups in the bill.

Modification likely

"More than likely President Bush will get the renewable energy component modified, but the Democrats may gain extra footing with better solar/wind energy credits," he said.

The bill current would require utilities to generate more power from renewable energy. Lawmakers from the Southeast U.S. have said they're concerned that utilities in their states will not be able to meet the requirement, due to a lack of wind power, The Wall Street Journal reported.

With the U.S. Federal Appeals Court of San Francisco's ruling that threw out proposed fuel economy standards, look for a renewed effort by the current U.S. Congress to pass new, tougher standards, possibly by year's end, a source familiar with various lobbying groups told Bloggingstocks.

Based in Washington and familiar with Democratic Party and energy-issue constituencies, the source told Bloggingstocks that some legislation, albeit minor, was now likely.

"Don't expect miracles, but the public sentiment and Congressional support appears to be there for a modest increase in CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standard," he said, speaking on condition that he not be identified by name. He added that to-date the Bush Administration has resisted raising the CAFE; if the administration does so again, it's unclear whether Congress would have the votes to override the veto.

In 1908, a Ford Model-T traveled 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline. In an attempt to return to those halcyon days, the U.S. voted late Thursday night to pass a new energy bill that sets lofty CAFE goals for the American car fleet.

Along with mandating a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 and energy-efficient appliances and lights, the measure will require the fuel industry to raise ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Slightly less than 5 billion gallons were produced in 2006.

The first engine to use ethanol as a fuel was built in 1826.

In recognition of the damage to the nation's grain crop prices that increased ethanol production would wreak if it were based on corn, the measure mandates that most of that increase come from cellulose (think wood pulp).

The auto industry, in an embarrassing admission of its continuing inability to forecast consumer demand (if you remember its attitude about the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1960's, you know what I mean), was prepared to filibuster the bill, but the Senate was able to garner enough votes to override. However, the Republicans were able to use this lever to pry out of the bill language that would have taxed the petroleum industry to create a fund a program promoting fuel efficiency. They also were successful in removing a requirement that 15% of the nation's electricity be generated via windmills, solar power and the like.

President Bush's approval on the bill is still in question, though, as he opposes many of the measures including one allowing the government to punish companies found guilty of price-gouging.

In many arenas, the Republican and Democratic parties have little to distinguish between them, but this bill sharply differentiates their approach to the energy problem. This compromise seems to me seems, a strong vote for more of the same policies that have maintained the status quo for generations.

Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) paid way, way more per pound for its coffee in 2006, the company will announce this morning -- more than any other major coffee company (according to Starbucks' own claims, anyway). In 2005 and 2006, the average commodity market price paid for coffee was $1.04 per pound; and, it's certain, far less for The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG)'s Folgers brand or Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE:KFT)'s Maxwell House tinned coffee.

Starbucks (the company reports with obvious pleasure) paid a premium price of $1.42 per pound in 2006, up from $1.28 per pound in 2005. In doing so, the company believes it allows coffee farmers to make a profit, and gives them a "sustainable livelihood." The company also reported it had increased its percentage of coffee purchased under purchasing guidelines developed with Conservation International -- C.A.F.E. Practices -- to 53% of its total, or 155 million pounds.

This, while certainly grand, is not an indication that Starbucks is perfect. I'm certainly a fan of sustainability, even if it's trumpeted loud and proud by the corporation which practices it. In late 2006, Starbucks was roundly decried for objecting to Ethiopia's attempt to secure trademark protection for its Sidamo and Harar beans.

It's great that Starbucks is moving in the direction of better trade practices and more fair treatment of hundreds of thousands of farmers in third-world countries around the globe. However, the company needs to go all the way. I'll be chatting later today with Dub Hay, senior vice president coffee, Starbucks Coffee & Global Procurement -- and hopefully, finding out what the company will do to reduce the double-standard impression.