Energy policies…Where and what are they?
While on the campaign trail, people always ask me about rising fuel costs and what I think the problem is, and what can be done about it. I always explain that the basic problem is due to supply and demand. There’s less supply and more global demand.
Pretty simple.
But after disecting this issue a little more, I’ve come to realize that the real cause of this problem is that our government hasn’t, and doesn’t, have an energy policy to speak of. I did some research and back in 2004, the oil companies got together and put together a real enegy plan and presented it to the Congress and the President. This plan had four key components to it:
1. Nuclear Power - The proposal pushed for the United States to begin building new nuclear powerplants that could not only supplement our existing plants, but could also replace them in the future. It also encouraged the government to increase spending in developing new nuclear technologies.
2. Remove the red tape - It also requested that the government enact policies that would remove the legal obstacles that are preventing these new plants from being built in cities and communities across the country. In other words, politicians wouldn’t be able to use the courts to say “not in my backyard.”
3. Access domestic oil reserves - DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! Go to Anwar and into the gulf and tap into our own reserves.
4. Increase fuel economy - The proposal encouraged the automakers to develop more efficient automobiles with substantial increases in fuel economy.
Now this sounds like a legitimate energy policy. It pushes development into existing and new technologies. It requires the government to get out of the way and prevents the lawyers from being obstructionists. It works towards energy independence and away from foreign influence, and it encourages the automakers to develop new technology that will reduce the amount of fuel we use on an individual basis.
So they presented this plan to both the Congress and the President as a way to prevent high oil prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and what did we get. Ethanol.
Now, oil is at $120 a barrel and our food prices are skyrocketing. But wait, it gets better. Wall street is now projecting $200 a barrel by 2009, which means by December, we will be paying between $6-$7 a gallon for gasoline. And it doesn’t get any better folks, because none of the current Presidential candidates have an energy plan either.
Sorry, my mistake. They do have a plan. McCain wants to suspend the federal gas tax until August. Hillary wants to suspend the tax and then take profits from the oil companies and attack OPEC. And last but not least, Obama wants to do nothing.
This is our current and future leadership in action. In my opinion, they are nothing more than a bunch of crisis managers and unless someone is willing to step up and take the reigns (I will when I get there), then we are in for Jimmy Carter days new and improved. For those of you who may not be old enough to remember, ask you parents. I predict that the response you’ll get, will be something similar to a trauma to the groin.
May 8, 2008 at 7:11 am
Hello, Mr Sander.
If I may, I believe you simply came to the wrong conclusion.
The reports I’ve seen would indicate that global supplies are up.
First, the current high prices are not due to typical supply & demand activities, but rather,
1) The falling value of the dollar, and
2) Activities among speculators.
No. 2 suggests that oil (among other commodities) is only the latest bubble in a long stream of them– housing, the tech bubble, and so on.
And the best way to end that would be through taxation to encourage investment in more traditional instruments.
As to the four-part plan–
1) Nuclear will indeed be a huge part of our energy future. The big problem is the disposal of the waste. Chances are this problem has already been solved, and we will begin our use of that technology just as soon as the over-budget long-delayed Columbia River project finally opens.
And if we can’t get that one going in a reasonable period of time, then we need to build a smaller one elsewhere, with some builder other than Bechtel working on a cost-plus bid.
After talking with men that worked on that project, I’m inclined to believe that it would be dangerous to operate.
2) A common misconception.
Existing infrastructure is a much more imprtant determinant. There has to be pipelines to feed those refineries.
Also, most existing refineries are able to expand 3 to 5 times over right where they’re at, just like the one at Wood River, Ill, is doing right now.
There’s another Valero plant in Ill that is increasing its size three-fold.
3) Not a likely solution. Domestic oil typically runs a few dollars higher than the imported.
Best saved for an emergency measure.
A much more viable plan would be to release oil from the national reserves.
4) That’s a good idea, and long overdue.
It also has positive effects in other ways.
Domestic manufacturers would be able to capture greater market share with higher standards.
Other than that, I would recommend to you Mr Vaclav Smil’s “Energy at the Crossroads” as a sourcebook for data on energy related topics.
Best wishes,
July 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Progressive Traditionalist,
What the hell is a progressive traditionalist????
If you’re one of those liberals who call themselves “progressive” cut to the chase and just call yourself a socialist.
I live in Ill. I pay extra tax for gas (thanks obama!!)
I pay twice in property tax as I did in MO.
I’m sick of paying all this tax!
I drive past the wood river refinery which is trying to expand, but can’t as the liberal Sierra Club has it tied up in court.
If you really believe extra taxation will help this nation, prove it.
Give as much tax as your heart desires - there’s no limit to how much you can give to uncle sam.
I’m sick of people like you who suggest that taxation will help end the high fuel prices.
Democrats who want to fix this through taxing me more - my sweat, my time for what? Giving my tax dollar to someone who dosen’t want to work.
They say China is off the coast of florida drilling our oil and the Democraps still won’t let americans drill?
Who votes for these democrats?
Chris, you’d have my vote if I still lived in Mo.
Thanks for the in sight.
DC