Oil And Politics: Part Two

To my mind, there has been no greater failure on the part of our national government than its failure to enact a viable energy policy. Given the impressive number of failures of our government, that's saying something!

Since the 1970's, we have known that our economy was at risk of being "held hostage" by our dependence on foreign oil supplies. Yet, we have fiddled, Nero-like, as Rome burned.

Who is "to blame"? Well, there's plenty of blame to go around, but its not really relevant anymore. The real issue is what can we do now. Part of the reason for the current inaction in Washington is that desire to "pin the blame" on one side or the other. We need to demand that our so-called leaders stop playing politics and start doing their jobs.

Mortimer Zuckerman, editor of The U.S. News & World Report, has written a very compelling article which appeared in Real Clear Politics. In it, he points out that both reductions in consumption and increases are required. He forcefully opined that its time that a bi-partisan plan be enacted, stating:

"The clear implication for the United States is that the age-old standoff on whether domestic drilling or conservation is the solution is now irrelevant. We must have both."

Zuckerman believes that we should enact serious CAFE standards to reduce consumption of oil, similar to those in Europe. He points out that Congress would have passed such standards in 1990 but for the efforts of Michigan politicians to thwart such action. Had they been enacted we would now be saving 3 million barrels of oil per day.

He also calls for more domestic production and refining capacity. He explains the immediate, as well as longer-term benefits of doing so. Further, he criticised over-zealous environmental advocates, who he believes fail to acknowledge advances in technology which reduce risk of harm to the environment. An example of his views in this regard as to drilling in ANWR:

" This would do no permanent damage to an environment in one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent—except to inconvenience some caribou that might have to find a different place to mate. We cannot lose over $40 billion a year to serve the caribou."

In conclusion, Zuckerman offered five more steps to take in conjunction with the above-referenced efforts:

"1. Reallocate resources to concentrate funds on providing the necessary R&D support for energy efficiency. We must do this with the real menace of global warming in mind. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, frames the issue this way: Our biggest worry is not what we put in our cars but what we put in our power plants. He believes that we should stop the use of coal by 2030, except with those power plants that can capture the carbon dioxide.

2. Fix our mass transit system for both freight and passengers. When you consider rail in terms of energy, steel wheels on steel rails are some 10 times as efficient as rubber on roads. A real rail program could probably have the single greatest impact on our oil consumption and on the release of carbon dioxide. A single locomotive run by two men can haul the same amount of freight as 70 modern semitrailer truck rigs with 70 drivers. One passenger train can take 1,000 cars off the road.

3. Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks immediately.

4. Substantially increase the gas tax, offsetting it with other tax cuts to induce people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

5. Pursue alternative energy technologies within the limits of the market."

Victor Davis Hanson also has similar views regarding Washington's failure to address these serious problems. His July 8th "Works And Days" blog post included these paragraphs:

"Worried about Congressional rankings in the single digits, Democratic Senators and Congress people are parading out to news conferences to assure us that “we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis” (who said we could?), and that what little oil we would find off our coasts (no mention of the natural gas) would “take ten years” and only shave “pennies” off a gallon of gas. Examine the logic: we don’t develop these resources because of the time lag? But isn’t there a time lag in creating a viable electric battery, a hydrogen car, solar and wind farms, a new nuclear plant? And the logic is puerile: we simply freeze and assume a fetal position since the results of our labors are only of long-term use?

As for a “few pennies.” Well, a few pennies here, a few there really do add up. In other words, a million barrels in ANWR, a million off our coasts, a million from tar sands, a million in shale, a million on the continental shelf, a million from conservation and pretty soon we have saved trillions in imported oil costs, and provided the necessary bridge, the critical breathing space for electric cars or flex-fuels, or whatever. No supporter of drilling thinks we are going to return to the days of the gas-powered Yukon and Hummer. But we need to preserve our civilization and not mortgage it to the Arabs, Russians, Iranians, and Venezuelans in the process of going green."

It has been 35 years since the OPEC oil embargo. Can it be that our leaders have failed to take the steps needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It is failure of the greatest magnitude. There is no easy solution now, but its time to start.

There is no reason to believe we will get any relief, at least on the domestic production side, if Obama becomes President. The Democrats are wholly committed to over-zealous environmentalism. Nancy Pelosi was quoted in the New York Times as saying ... "if Democrats relented on drilling, 'then we might as well pack it up and go home'.” Given that view, our only hope is John McCain.

McCain has been almost as bad as the Democrats on domestic production. He only recently came around on off-shore drilling. He needs to move farther and be bolder on this issue. It is perhaps the only issue on which the GOP can have the upper hand over the Dems in the minds of the public.

As things stand now, it is my view that Barack Obama will be elected President. McCain needs something to change that dynamic. $5.00 gasoline may do it. McCain needs to take the position that the price of gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil are threatening our economy, indeed, our very way of life in America. He needs to propose steps similar to those outlined by Zuckerman. Obama and the Democrats are wedded to their enviro-zealot supporters. The average American will welcome the chance to assert American determination to solve this problem and to stop pouring money into our enemies coffers.

I hope McCain is smart enough to seize the opportunity.