The NY Post editorial section properly takes the presidential candidates to task for their evolving positions on energy issues. However, they correctly point out that while Sen. McCain's position on offshore drilling has changed due to the facts on the ground (high gas prices), Sen. Obama's views have apparently changed due to more political factors. These changed positions include a call for releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve (which is supposed to be for national emergencies, not to manipulate prices) AND now include being "open" to additional drilling if it is coupled with additional subsidies for alternative energy and higher mileage vehicles. He also still wants a windfall profits tax on large energy companies, which is counter productive and leads to higher consumer costs. The Post appears quite suspicious of the Illinois Senator's new views, and spells out the reasons for their skeptism.
"Obama, by contrast, still opposes drilling - but says he'll back it if it leads to a deal on legislation pushing fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy. Right. That might be believable if he hadn't also made popular turnabouts on many other issues, like NAFTA, the terror-monitoring bill and talking to Iran. Obama's new view on drilling, of course, is welcome; environmental concerns pale next to the need for more oil.
His switch on SPR oil, on the other hand, is not. The reserve is meant for national emergencies, not as a tool to ease prices - as even he once noted: "The reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency," he said, not "to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices." And he's U-turning on yet a third oil issue: He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, even as he voted to give them breaks in '05. McCain voted against the breaks but is against hikes now....But here's the more important question: What does Obama stand for, besides whatever's popular at the moment?"
Indeed, this has been my question since mcuh earlier in the year. Perhaps due to this issue, Mac has pulled almost even with Obama (only a point or two down, well within the margin of error) in the latest Gallup and Rasmussen temperature checks, and McCain is ratcheting up the pressure on Congress by calling for both houses to return from vacation and address these issues. He is also handing out free tire pressure gauges for a $25 donation (see WSJ article here) after Obama suggested keeping your tires properly inflated as a means of saving energy - which is correct in a sense, but the math he spouted off on how much gasoline it would save was a bit off (he claimed it would save as much as we would ever get from drilling - not likely).
Meanwhile, the House Republican revolt led by Indiana Congressman Mike Pence and Georgian Tom Price Friday against the Wicked Witch of the West appears to be gathering some steam as well, with around twenty Congress critters meeting in the darkened halls of the District on Monday and more likely to join, as witnessed by Human Event's Jed Babbin, article here:
"The Republicans’ action began as a stunt on Friday and by Monday had evolved into a well-organized effort that might just succeed: if enough pressure were brought on Pelosi to force a vote on a comprehensive energy package, she might have to budge either by bringing Congress back in August (admittedly a very long-shot) or by holding a vote when the House reconvenes in September.
Republicans, as Hensarling said, define “comprehensive” as not “drill or, but drill and”, meaning that they would couple conservation measures with opening offshore drilling and on-land oil reserves such as the Colorado oil shale.
By Monday, Pence and Price had gotten about twenty fellow Republicans to come back for the new debate, and more were still being rounded up. As many as one hundred may be back by week’s end. If they are successful in building momentum this week, the debates will go on -- possibly -- all the way into September."
High energy prices and the Democratic leaderships intransigence on the issue may just be the road the Republicans need to turn things around come November.
Showing posts with label Politics - Energy Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics - Energy Policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
10 Reasons Oil Prices are So High
William Tate over at The American Thinker examines 10 reasons to blame Congress about oil prices being so high, including the drilling restricitons placed on the ANWR and coastal plains, the push for alternative energy such as ethanol, environmental resistance to utilizing proven technologies such as nuclear power and coal liquification, the standstill in constructing new refineries, a private oil industry consolidation that occurred during the Clinton administration, the myth about global warming, rampant commodities speculation on energy resources, and the Democratic defeat of the Bush administration's 2001 Energy Plan, which had key proposals in the following areas:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
The one other key item regarding oil prices that Congress doesn't get the blame on is the fact the developing world's increased demand for oil. However, this would not be the significant problem it is today if the ten reasons above had been addressed in the past by Congress, regardless of which party is in power.
-Promote new oil and gas drilling
-Build new nuclear plants
-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels
The one other key item regarding oil prices that Congress doesn't get the blame on is the fact the developing world's increased demand for oil. However, this would not be the significant problem it is today if the ten reasons above had been addressed in the past by Congress, regardless of which party is in power.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Time Cover
Dennis Prager takes a jab at Time, which published its latest edition with a Photoshopped version of the famous flag raising at Iwo Jima replacing the flag with a tree. Apparently this is supposed to suggest the environmental movement is heroic (or something) which Prager pretty successfully debunks.
"But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas. The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis."
He also points out the quite drastic consequences to people world-wide due to policies recommended by environmentalists, such as the widespread suffering in Africa from malaria due to the world-wide ban on DDT. There is also the nagging little issue of Third World hunger due to the substitution of foodcrops for transportation fuel. Left unsaid is the extreme left's view that such people simply aren't worth all the damage they do to the planet, consuming precious resources and the like. As Prager notes, "human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation", or at least to many greens. He also notes the magazine's track record - there was a cover in 1974 decrying the coming Ice Age.
"But like nearly all people who believe in a cause, they know that they have to fight some evil -- after all, the world really seems threatened by something. So they have channeled their desire to fight threats to the world to fighting an enemy that will not hurt them or their loved ones -- man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
It is much easier to fight global warming than to fight human evil. You will be celebrated at Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the BBC and throughout the media world, no one will threaten your life, there are huge grants available to scientists and others who fight real or exaggerated environmental problems, and you may even receive an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. Individuals who fight Islamists get fatwas. The Time cover is cheap heroism. It is a liberal attempt to depict as equally heroic those who fight carbon emissions and those who fought Japanese fascists and Nazis."
He also points out the quite drastic consequences to people world-wide due to policies recommended by environmentalists, such as the widespread suffering in Africa from malaria due to the world-wide ban on DDT. There is also the nagging little issue of Third World hunger due to the substitution of foodcrops for transportation fuel. Left unsaid is the extreme left's view that such people simply aren't worth all the damage they do to the planet, consuming precious resources and the like. As Prager notes, "human suffering is not as significant as environmental degradation", or at least to many greens. He also notes the magazine's track record - there was a cover in 1974 decrying the coming Ice Age.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Energy Prices & Washington DC
Dr. Arthur Robinson take the American voter to task for complaining about high energy prices - after all, we elected the idiots that are causing the problem in the first place. This might be the most clear headed piece of writing I've seen in a number of months of energy issues.
"If American voters are disgruntled about fuel and electricity prices, they should look in their mirrors. These prices have been determined entirely by the politicians whom they have sent to Washington -- politicians who now want voters to believe that oil companies, futures speculators, Arab producers, Chinese consumers, and natural resource shortages are responsible.
Moreover, these politicians are increasingly promoting the false claim that Americans should not use energy anyway because this is bad for the planet. Of all the current contenders for the Presidential nominations of both parties, only two -- Ron Paul and Fred Thompson -- have failed to parrot this idiot brainchild of Al Gore and the United Nations."
The good doctor points out the only reliable abundant forms of energy on which all of our wonderful technology depends are nuclear power and fossil fuels, and we import $500 billion in fossil fuels from people that aren't really very friendly towards us, and we also pay to a pretty high price in dollars and the blood of our military members to protect our access to these sources of energy.
So why don't we produce more of the enrgy we need ourselves? I've been asking myself that question for a long, long time. Answer: Private energy producers face a very unfavorable business climate her in the US.
"This stagnation has been caused by United States government taxation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. Moreover, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing inferior energy technologies for political purposes."
We possess 25% of the world coal supply, and coal can be economically converted into petroleum at a cost far lower than current world oil prices, and we have far more coal than the Saudis have oil. Instead, the US government has prevented the development of these alternate technologies and the exploitation of our own energy reserves and the construction of new nuclear plants for two generations. Instead, we subsidize the liquification of our food supply and legally mandate its use in the form of ethanol.
Doc does give some credit to the current administration in trying to jump start our nuclear industry, but Congressional opposition has stopped anything significant from occurring so far. Just one additional 10 reactor nuclear plant in each of the 50 states would generate enough electricity to replace all the enrgy we currently import, and allow us to EXPORT another $300 billion in electricity to other nations. The cost of such a program would be about $1 trillion - the same approximate amount of the annual US trade deficit. Even better, this cost wouldn't necessarily have to be born by the US taxpayer.
"Moreover, these plants could be constructed without the expenditure of any tax money. Simple legislative repeal of the taxes, regulations, and incentives to litigation with which our politicians have hindered nuclear power development is all that would be necessary. The domestic hydrocarbon industry could be similarly revived.
All government subsidies of energy industries should be repealed, which would save the tax payers money and end damaging political distortion of the free market. There are many ideas concerning innovations in energy production. While nuclear and hydrocarbon solutions are the only practical methods for solving America’s immediate energy problem, future developments may provide additional methods. The worst possible means by which to encourage these developments, however, is for politicians and bureaucrats in Washington – who are obviously clueless about energy technology --to choose technology and supervise development by means of tax subsidies."
Amen.
"If American voters are disgruntled about fuel and electricity prices, they should look in their mirrors. These prices have been determined entirely by the politicians whom they have sent to Washington -- politicians who now want voters to believe that oil companies, futures speculators, Arab producers, Chinese consumers, and natural resource shortages are responsible.
Moreover, these politicians are increasingly promoting the false claim that Americans should not use energy anyway because this is bad for the planet. Of all the current contenders for the Presidential nominations of both parties, only two -- Ron Paul and Fred Thompson -- have failed to parrot this idiot brainchild of Al Gore and the United Nations."
The good doctor points out the only reliable abundant forms of energy on which all of our wonderful technology depends are nuclear power and fossil fuels, and we import $500 billion in fossil fuels from people that aren't really very friendly towards us, and we also pay to a pretty high price in dollars and the blood of our military members to protect our access to these sources of energy.
So why don't we produce more of the enrgy we need ourselves? I've been asking myself that question for a long, long time. Answer: Private energy producers face a very unfavorable business climate her in the US.
"This stagnation has been caused by United States government taxation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. Moreover, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing inferior energy technologies for political purposes."
We possess 25% of the world coal supply, and coal can be economically converted into petroleum at a cost far lower than current world oil prices, and we have far more coal than the Saudis have oil. Instead, the US government has prevented the development of these alternate technologies and the exploitation of our own energy reserves and the construction of new nuclear plants for two generations. Instead, we subsidize the liquification of our food supply and legally mandate its use in the form of ethanol.
Doc does give some credit to the current administration in trying to jump start our nuclear industry, but Congressional opposition has stopped anything significant from occurring so far. Just one additional 10 reactor nuclear plant in each of the 50 states would generate enough electricity to replace all the enrgy we currently import, and allow us to EXPORT another $300 billion in electricity to other nations. The cost of such a program would be about $1 trillion - the same approximate amount of the annual US trade deficit. Even better, this cost wouldn't necessarily have to be born by the US taxpayer.
"Moreover, these plants could be constructed without the expenditure of any tax money. Simple legislative repeal of the taxes, regulations, and incentives to litigation with which our politicians have hindered nuclear power development is all that would be necessary. The domestic hydrocarbon industry could be similarly revived.
All government subsidies of energy industries should be repealed, which would save the tax payers money and end damaging political distortion of the free market. There are many ideas concerning innovations in energy production. While nuclear and hydrocarbon solutions are the only practical methods for solving America’s immediate energy problem, future developments may provide additional methods. The worst possible means by which to encourage these developments, however, is for politicians and bureaucrats in Washington – who are obviously clueless about energy technology --to choose technology and supervise development by means of tax subsidies."
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
