Any article on how politicians are gearing up to "do something" about oil prices is bound to contain more than the usual share of silliness. Still, though, this managed to stop me cold:
[Senator Harry Reid] also hinted at a potential element of compromise legislation: that any oil produced from wider access to federal lands off shore be reserved for domestic use and barred from export.
Such a policy would, of course, be utterly useless in our highly integrated international market for oil, but it would at least yield some fantastic marketing opportunities. The domestic fuel could be stocked in star-spangled cans labeled "Freedom Oil." Or, dispensed from special pumps that blare Toby Keith when you swipe your credit card. Perhaps lawmakers can arrange to have your windshield cleaned by a bald eagle when you fill up with Uncle Sam's Offshore Blend.
Setting aside for a moment our legislators' apparent total ignorance of energy markets, the real problem here is that this "compromise" doesn't yield anything worth getting. If Congress is itching to trade away drilling rights to ecologically sensitive areas, they should at the very least ask for something meaningful in return. You know, like production tax credits for renewable energy. Or, climate change legislation. Or, I don't know, anything other than this inanity.
Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 3:54 am
10 Jul 2008
One of the problems here may be that Congress will throw out anything, like global warming legislation, that gets in the way of what may turn into a mad rush to do "something", because they're scared that they'll get thrown out of office if they don't do "something" -- even though, as I said in my post, we're in a "the government shouldn't do anything" era of conventional wisdom.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:41 am
10 Jul 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:51 am
10 Jul 2008
As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, nations will stop seeing it as "just another commodity" and start treating it as a critical source of political and economic power.
Just as with grain, nations will impose export controls to make sure their own citizens have sufficient quantities.
Only problem for the U.S. is that we import more oil than we export. So, somehow we have to have export controls on our own oil, but convince other oil-producing nations NOT to impose export controls, so that we can continue importing from them.
Whether export controls are a good idea, I don't know. But I do think they're coming.
Similarly, with expanded drilling in America. It's probably inevitable as the price of oil continues to rise. I'm guessing the best strategy for environmentalists is to make sure the drilling is done in as environmentally responsible way as possible, and to make sure to get something meaningful in return, as Adam Stein suggests above.
I don't think Wolverine needs to be worried about whether the refineries will be running at full blast. Oil won't come from new drilling for 5-10 years, and by that time there should be plenty of capacity in the refineries, with worldwide oil production declining.
The question for me is whether we use this oil to sustain our oil-addicted ways, or whether we use it to make the transition to renewables and conservation.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 10:43 am
10 Jul 2008
Additional domestic oil should be sold under the "methadone" brand.
Often misunderestimated
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:47 am
10 Jul 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:42 pm
10 Jul 2008
Love it!
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:33 am
11 Jul 2008
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:49 am
11 Jul 2008
However, we just can't be keeping bigwig corporate oil billionaires from living their lives of greed and decadence while they still have us "hooked".
(sarcasm)
Except for the first sentence. There's too much logic in trading in our cars for better, cheaper and cleaner ways of travel. Yes, most of us are car addicts.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink