Matt

The problem is that people are either ignorant of economics or live in a fantasy world.  Low prices for gasoline give no one incentive to drive more fuel efficient cars, search for more oil or alternative sources of fuel and energy.  As long as Americans act like spoiled children, with cries "of about the poor" there is no solution to the oil from the Middle East problem.

It is time for either politician to risk defeat to speak to citizens as if we are adults or for us as citizens to get rid of pandering politicians.

Well, the obvious way to deal with all three would be to just find ways for people to maintain quality of life while using less energy period.  (Or at least less energy derived from fossil fuels).  But since our definitions of standards of living rising seem to be tied up with using more energy--bigger homes, more travel, more gadgets, etc--that's a pretty difficult sell.  Although we can make a lot of gadgets (and homes) a lot more energy efficient than they currently are.  Another way to use less energy would be for the government to invest in making all of its buildings and vehicles more energy efficient and/or less fossil fuel dependent.

I think it is worth emphasisizing that Bush's crowd-pleasing rhetoric about the post-petroleum economy, energy independence and our addiction to Middle East oil was nothing but a bald-faced con and a bit of shameless demagoguery.  He didn't even wait a day before sending out his surrogates to sooth the fears of our Middle East vassals, and let them know that there is nothing to fear, and that we have no real intention of lessening our addiction to the oil that flows from their region.

Our petroleum needs are the main anchor of our strategic presence in the Middle East, and there are lots of people and institutions, both at home and abroad, who have powerful interests in maintaining that presence. 

As Bush backs away from the big energy independence talk, this is a great issue for Democrats to pick up on, if they have the gumption to do it. 

If you want to think about improving energy policy, you need to be clear about what it is you're trying to accomplish.

The goal should be stopping global warming, the effects of which, as I wrote here, may not at this point be reversible.

Bush's goal is not clear, although it likely has something to do with getting his approval ratings up and keeping his oil buddies rich.

Hence, the "we didn't mean reducing Middle East oil LITERALLY" backtrack one day later.

Just a guess: letting energy executives create our nation's energy policy may not be in the public's, or the Earth's, best interest.

The real question that no one will address this is:

What do Americans want more?

• Exurban living arrangements with high personal mobiity
• 400 hp penis substitutes

We can have one or the other, but not both (disclaimer:  I am the former owner of more than one penis substitute vehicle {250 hp anyway}, and lust after at least one 400 hp behemoth).

So, do we want our exurbs and our personal cars more than anything?  Then we can have them:  Swatch SmartCars, Scion xBs, and one full-sized minivan per housing pod reservable by web site.  Powered by ocean-farmed biodiesel.  Or other similar arrangements, but it can be done.  Zero net importation of energy into the US, tract mansions for everyone, and full personal mobility.  Just not in Chevy Suburbans, BMW M5s, and one-person-carrying monster pickups.

Or, so we want lots of fast high powered cars and trucks?  Then we can either:

• Live in densely packed cities during the week, and drive our monster vehicles to the country once a month or so
• Keep burning all the oil at the current rate, and have lots and lots of fun right up to the day our economy collapses.

It really isn't a question of a Ralph Nader lifestyle vs. carefree SoCal.  We really can have one or the other.  Just not BOTH.

Of course, those who vote Radical don't like such "negative" reality based choices, so I guess it is 2b:  party till the oil is gone.  I am buying my kids some cases of 30-06 amunnition...

sPh 

Wind power also has its environmentalist opponents.

Democrats can only make the geopolitical issue work by lying about it the same way Bush is.




Not true. What is dishonest about Bush's rhetoric in the SOTU speech was that he talked about reducing the share of our imports from the Middle East. While not unimportant, this is much LESS important than the total amount of money these unsavory regimes are making because of high oil prices. Indeed, if oil prices were to drop significantly, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would likely grow, as they are the lowest-cost producers. Many oil fields around the world that are economical to run at $60 oil, such as the Alberta tar sands, would be uneconomical at $20 oil.




What Democrats need to do is emphasize that the global price of oil must be brought down, to deny funds to enablers of terror like Iran. I mean here we are, groping for a strategy to deal with an Iranian government led by a lunatic and hellbent on nukes and we have such a weak hand in part because the Iranians are swimming in oil revenue and can buy off their opponents. And so I agree that the only long-term way to get the oil price down, and starve these ghastly regimes, is to encourage conservation. That's an argument liberals can win. But few seem to want to make that argument, probably because it appears to legitimize Bush's War on Terror, which many liberals are dubious about.




Democrats are looking for a way to outflank Republicans on security issues without endorsing military solutions, which most of them don't approve of. Here's a position tailor-made for them.

Partly because the US government, in thrall to auto and oil companies, has subsidized car travel ever since WWII.

We've also subsidized home ownership through the mortgage interest deduction. The desire to own one's own home also leads to suburban sprawl.

I think the goal should be to make oil less competitive and alternative energy sources more competitive to encourage a transition from one to the other. This seems to argue for raising the price of oil (possibly via a tax) and subsidizing the development of alternatives (maybe by applying the proceeds from the oil/gas tax to energy research). I'm not overly worried about what that policy means in the short term for the treasury of Saudi Arabia. But, to address Brad's concern, it seems to me that the sooner we become independent of oil, the sooner we can stop buying it from the Saudis. The Saudis probably have some "ideal" price in mind--which would be the highest price they can get without destroying demand. We should aim to raise the price of oil beyond that ideal price to reduce demand and increase the economic viability of alternative energy sources.  

Brad --The point is that the geopolitics issue cannot be separated from the issue of the wholesale oil-dependence of the economy -- not, at least, if we are going to remain even remotely reality-based. We consume 25% of the world's oil production. There are only two ways global oil prices are going to come down, allowing us to squeeze the Middle East regimes: one is through a lot more oil discovery and production (which is unlikely), and the second is through stiff mandatory conservation measures and alternative energy substitution here in the US (also unlikely, for quite different reasons). If the politics of the latter are too tough, then the only way to make the geopolitics issue work politically is to pretend that the former is no problem. That's called lying.
I might also mention that sponsoring terrorists is a pretty cheap form of entertainment, as these things do. The assholes don't need $60/barrel to do it.

The limits on wind and biomass are not disabling. The point that I find hard to make is that there is not, and should not be, a single replacement for oil. The natural and sensible approach is a variety, appropriate to circumstances.

Wind is something that is being done right now. Its costs to environment are not trivial but pale in comparison to traditional energy sources. I'd rather have a view of wind turbines than a strip mine or large coal-fired plant.

Cellulose ethanol is not quite as close but near. Given that we do know how to limit overuse of arable land I don't see a problem there, especially as the best version of this idea uses trash and plant waste. A carbon release worry is rising temperatures thawing permafrost and releasing methane from rotting material. OK, before it rots dig it up and digest it to ethanol so we get use out of it.

As I pointed out, good energy storage systems allow wind farms in remote locations. Would you rather have turbines in ANWR or oil rigs?

Pessimism is a bad bet in regards new energy sources. It's a good bet regarding some other things like population pressure and fresh water limits. More locally produced power ameliorates both of those, and reduces the likelihood of future wars. It also weakens large corporations' leverage, definitely a good thing.

While not unimportant, this is much LESS important than the total amount of money these unsavory regimes are making because of high oil prices. Indeed, if oil prices were to drop significantly, our dependence on Middle Eastern oil would likely grow, as they are the lowest-cost producers.

I don't think this is the crucial issue at all Brad.  You have completely  misidentified the problem most Americans care about when it comes to the Middle East.

Americans know that as a practical matter, so long as we need the oil, we are going to be stuck with our various security commitments to Middle Eastern regimes, and with our strategic commitments to protecting Middle East shipping lanes, pipelines and oilfields.  They know that as long as their is competition for oil resources among major powers like the US and China, the Middle East will be the playing field.  In one way or another, we are going to continue have troops and ships and bases in the Middle East from now until the promised End of Oil.  We are going to continue to make a very large Middle East footprint, with all the resentment and blowback that entails.

Americans want to get out eventually.  They want our government to figure out how to end our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, not because they are all fired up about the nature of the regimes involved - but simply because they want to get out of there, and leave the sorry melodramas and violence of the Middle East behind as the people in the region go on with their own history.

It doesn't matter whether the regimes are savory or unsavory by American standards.  Sure people like Osama are oppossed to the "unsavory" Saudi regime, and by extension to the US government that supports that regime.  But if that regime was replaced by a pro-US liberal democracy, Osama would oppose that regime as well.  What Osama and other militant Islamists seek, along with many millions of other less militant Arabs and Muslims, is self-determination, independence and the expulsion from the region of the Western powers who have been rambling around there since Napoleon invaded Egypt, and subjecting them to the humiliation of conquest.

Do you think that opposition is going to end if all the regimes in the region are replaced by more "savory" Western-style governments, each with friendly relations with the US, each with an oil industry dominated by US carpetbaggers, and and each with its own very special US military base.  Not at all!  As long as we are US boots on the ground in the Middle East, and US warships patrolling their waters, and US bases in various Middle Eastern countries, we are going to be the enemies of millions of people who simply do not want us there.

Before it was Socialism, then Arab nationalism, then Islamism.  But the thrust is the same.  These are different manifestations of the same basic urge to end 200 years of Western colonialism and domination.   I think most Americans get it, and would love to give the Middle East what it wants and wash our hands of the business.  But we can't - we're stuck.

I don't think we're really disagreeing--a tax on gas, oil, or both will drive the price up here without giving the Saudis any more money. And, if demand drops because of the tax, the price on the world market may decline. (This would be contingent on what the rest of the world's oil consumers do and how much the oil cartel responds to changes in demand.)

Conservation is of course something we should be encouraging and past experience suggest the two most successful approaches are to (1) raise the price of gas and (2) implement strict mileage standards. We should do both.

As far as the political message, that isn't a bad idea, though the national security message (achieving independence from Middle Eastern dictatorships) is not new and hasn't seemed to inspire many people to action. Maybe it would work better now with the threat of terrorism.