The Asbury Park Press has an extremely naive editorial on energy policy this morning.
The first plank of the solution advocated by the APP energy czars is for Congress to ban speculation in futures markets for oil by immediately passing a bill sponsored by Rep. John B. Larson, D-Conn.
The legislation is laughable. Futures Markets are global. If Congress were to shut down oil futures trading in New York and Chicago, the transactions, which happen electronically, who simply be serviced in Europe and Bombay. The only thing this legislation would accomplish would be to export the wealthy that the Democrats always want to tax in order to solve our problems.
The APP, which has taken a sharp left turn since Skip Hidlay left, belittles the calls by President Bush and Senator McCain for increased domestic oil production and exploration because such solutions will take too long and and have a minimal impact on prices, the APP and other left leaning tree huggers say. Ironically, it is this kind of thinking that is spurring the futures market to keep oil prices high. Speculators are betting that America does not have the political will to produce its own oil. Once the market sees that America is finally serious about energy independence, both from fossil fuels and alternative energy, prices will start to come down.
The solution is not either domestic drilling or the development of alternative energy sources and reducing oil consumption. The solution is all of the above. The solution is not a long term reduction in our standard of living, ala Jimmy Carter/Barack Obama policies. The solution is to increase the global standard of living and to end the world's economic dependence of the Middle East oil producers.
Newt Gingrich at American Solutions is bringing honest thinking to this debate. Economically sound and environmentally friendly proposals. Check it out.
A World Without Christ?
23 hours ago
Posts
9 comments:
How can you say that conservation ala Jimmy Carter and Obama is naive? If they are so intent on new drilling, why can't the oil company friends of Bush/The Dick Cheney start drilling on the 68milliion acres that are currently open to drilling, but have nothing on them. Why is impacting an already fragile environment naive? British Petroleum scientists have determined that our complete, world oil reserves will last another 40 years, give or take a year. These are not tree huggers, these scientists work for the Petroleum industry.
Offshore drilling will reduce our costs by 3 cents a gallon in 10 years. Is it worth that risk? I think YOU are being naive in thinking that we can fix this by drilling offshore.
We need nuclear energy. We need new emission standards on coal generated power plants. We need to up the MPG requirements now, instead of the 13 years proposed by Bush. Its not tree huggers, its realists that are talking.
How can you say that conservation ala Jimmy Carter and Obama is naive?
Easy. I don't buy into the scarcity paradigm. I believe that human beings have the ability to improve our standard of living, globally, and that America will lead the way.
I believe it is our moral imperative to do so.
How's that for Real Change?
But keeping the oil around for as long as we need to IS improving our standard of living...for the future. To do that, we need conservation, alternatives and to stop whining about it. Drilling willy nilly anywhere you please is irresponsible, to say the least. Let the oil companies drill in the EXTRA 68 million acres that they have already asked for and recieved. Let the oil companies plow some of those obscene billions upon billions of dollars in PROFIT back into building newer and more cost efficient, more environmentally efficient refineries. There's lots to do before you give over fragile areas of ecosytem to companies that have an Exxon Valdez in their nefarious background. Geeshh...what doesn't register here? Why is it always the shortsighted and disasterous way..ala invading Iraq without an exit plan. Lets just plow straight ahead, drill where you want, to hell with the living things. To hell with keeping it clean. Yeah, lets just gouge ourselves with oil for the short term...that's the ticket.
Very snappy Art. Good argument. Luckily, my ass can accomodate my big fat head, so no problem there.
But thanks for looking out for me by thinking I need an education.
They don't call it "The Right" for nothing, eh Art?
Rick,
Please read the last paragraph of my post again and re-think your comment. All of the above includes reducing oil consumption.
Valdez was a shipping accident caused by a drunk. Not a drilling accident. Scientists said we had 40 years worth of oil left 40 years ago.
I'm all for nuclear, clean coal, wind and increased MPG, etc. All of those, including new drilling will take time and our gas guzzlers will not go the way of the 8 track overnight.
You know Art, I did go to that website and read some of what's offered. Their latest essay is on blaming Congress...this Congress... that has been in the majority for not even 2 years, for the high gas prices we're experiencing. Dicounting any other congress that has banned offshore drilling. Or any other President, including this one, that has a standing executive order not to drill offshore. And even Bush hasn't rescinded that order.
Its a shill for a Republican majority cloaked in an energy and other "solutions" rap.( http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298857161272663)
Not one of the editorials blast anything remotely republican, yet you can find a plethora of editorials blasting anything democratic.
I guess you must play to your base by promoting something so biased.
This is about policy, not politics Rick. Both parties have screwed to pooch as far as I'm concerned.
Of course it's about politics. The whole oil argument today IS politics.
There's a point of departure where it inovles any argument. The idea that petroleum has hit this standard (+$4 per gallon) means it isn't a viable alternative for the future.
It IS time toget serious about alternative sources of energy and NOT keep clinging to petroleum (e.g. punching more holes in the ground or sea bottom).
The automobile has defined American society, which has to be re-defined now, based on energy. But petroleum isn't it in any way.
Petroleum is it for now -- ok. But the direction for whatever is next probably doesn't have a lot to do with petroleum. But...new drilling? Nope.
It is time for alternative energy to stop being a novelty and start entering the everyday. Gas proces aren't going to get better. They're going to cripple this country and our economy, and poling new holes into the sea floor isn't going to do anything with that.
There isn't one source of the problem and there isn't one action that resolves the problem, I think Art said it best "All of the Above".
First, we can't continue to rely on the internal combustion engine (ICE) - it's been around for over 200 years with very little change to the engine itself. hybrid-electrics are a step in the right direction (away from ICEs) but not far enough. Where is my solar car, my nuclear car, my flux capacitor? ICEs and federal mandates to make better ICEs are a huge LEAP in the wrong direction, CAFE standards and the EPA aren't making anything better because they simply promote the ICE. We are not going to get away from ICEs anytime soon if Congress keeps forcing auto makers to employ the best engineers just to try to make the ICE a mpg more efficient each year.
We also can't slack off and let automakers sell junk, however, my dad had a 86 Toyota Corolla... it got 30mpg back then - today's Corolla gets WORSE gas mileage and costs 4 times more.
Also, it doesn't make sense to "preserve" the offshore oil reserves. What are we preserving them for anyway? Future generations will certainly be smarter than us if history is any indication and in the future we'll certainly have engines that aren't like ICEs and don't need to burn oil to generate power (either because we'll be all out of oil or because we'll have developed better technology), so why save it? If it's not ok to burn oil now, why should we think it's ok to burn oil in the future? If we're trying to ration the oil to make it last longer, aren't we just delaying the inevitable and passing our problem on to a future generation? Why not show some balls and burn all of the oil and see which fella out there can step up and figure out what to do about it instead of just assuming someone in the future will figure it out?
And as noted, plenty of acres of oil rich property is available, just not being used - I'll be honest - tell me where to file the paperwork to lease that federal land for $1 like most land deals and I'll go get a business loan for the platforms and ships and whatever else I need and start my own oil company with some friends, I'll even promise gas at $1/gallon forever in exchange for my $1 lease, everyone in the country will be happy! The problem is that Republicans, Democrats and every oil company and oil rich nation doesn't want that to happen. Do you mean to tell me that the millionaires and billionaires here in the US aren't interested in getting into the oil industry if they weren't shut out by politics/policy? Shit *I* would take a huge loan to get into the oil industry if politics/policy would permit. The cost to build a drilling platform and refinery are nothing compared to the money you'll make at $140/barrel. If oil is so profitable, why doesn't the Congress just authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to get into the oil industry. The oil companies are posting HUGE profits - I'm ok with the gooberment running it's own oil company on federal property, use those record profits to quit taxing me 55% of my income.
Again, no one in government really wants to address the problems in my humble opinion and no one band-aid fixes the problem. For there to be "change" - someone with some balls has to step up - history has it's version of Nixon and his price fixing and while it's not a great solution - at least he had some balls and was willing to try a new approach.
Post a Comment