Drill, Baby, Drill
Will try a topic not related to Health Care...and spurred on by a post from tmmcarthy0 (thanks) on a different topic.
The anniversary of 9-11 has me thinking (again) about how our national addiction to oil has affected our country, and many parts of the world. The terrorists who attacked us on that day were NOT from Iraq, but from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. But, to Iraq we went to wage war. Likely for many reasons (which I don't want to argue about here) but one was definitely OIL. And the reason we didn't go after Saudi Arabia is also OIL. King Abdullah's regime has some of the most oppressive human rights in the world. Their record toward women is abominable; their support for wahabbism is destabilizing; their oil is oh, so lovely. Saddam was an awful person and dictator also, but his oil didn't flow well into world markets.
Our national requirement for more oil -- the majority of which is imported -- requires us to pursue foreign policy with special consideration to oil access. Importantly, when you look at those countries whose economy depends on the extraction of oil, you see a who's who of despots, dictators and human rights abusers. Leaders in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Libya, Angola, Kazakhstan all obtain a large percentage of their wealth from oil exports. And our demand (representing 25% of world demand) drives up the price which sends more of our wealth into the pockets of those leaders.
Imported oil is a serious national security issue...and hampers our ability to pursue other national interests both domestically and globally. So I would love to see the administration do the following:
To reduce demand...increase the gas tax. Gasoline is responsible for half our oil consumption. Scrap the complicated and opaque cap-and-trade. Go simple and direct: Start the gas tax with an additional $0.08 per gallon and increase it by $0.08 per month (almost $1 / year) until the tax reaches $4-$5 per gallon. People will be buying hybrids and scrapping those SUV's so fast it will make your head spin.
To increase supply...drill for more oil in the US, now, everywhere. Drill in ANWR; drill off the coasts; drill in the gulf; convert oil shales; provide support if needed to make the oil shales economical. This won't help forever, but it will help in the short-term (<20 years). And, it will be done with less impact to the global environment than having other countries drill in less-developed and less-responsible parts of the world.
Take the proceeds from the tax on gas to invest tens of billions of dollars into the development of alternative energy sources...now. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Electric Batteries, Fuel Cells...all of it. Fund it inside the Defense Department -- it is a national security imperative.
Sell all of this to the American people in terms of national security, global human rights and respect for the environment. Both Democrats and Republicans can support it for their own reasons...but it will be a way to reduce imported oil quickly and ultimately eliminate our dependence on oil altogether.
The anniversary of 9-11 has me thinking (again) about how our national addiction to oil has affected our country, and many parts of the world. The terrorists who attacked us on that day were NOT from Iraq, but from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. But, to Iraq we went to wage war. Likely for many reasons (which I don't want to argue about here) but one was definitely OIL. And the reason we didn't go after Saudi Arabia is also OIL. King Abdullah's regime has some of the most oppressive human rights in the world. Their record toward women is abominable; their support for wahabbism is destabilizing; their oil is oh, so lovely. Saddam was an awful person and dictator also, but his oil didn't flow well into world markets.
Our national requirement for more oil -- the majority of which is imported -- requires us to pursue foreign policy with special consideration to oil access. Importantly, when you look at those countries whose economy depends on the extraction of oil, you see a who's who of despots, dictators and human rights abusers. Leaders in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Nigeria, Libya, Angola, Kazakhstan all obtain a large percentage of their wealth from oil exports. And our demand (representing 25% of world demand) drives up the price which sends more of our wealth into the pockets of those leaders.
Imported oil is a serious national security issue...and hampers our ability to pursue other national interests both domestically and globally. So I would love to see the administration do the following:
To reduce demand...increase the gas tax. Gasoline is responsible for half our oil consumption. Scrap the complicated and opaque cap-and-trade. Go simple and direct: Start the gas tax with an additional $0.08 per gallon and increase it by $0.08 per month (almost $1 / year) until the tax reaches $4-$5 per gallon. People will be buying hybrids and scrapping those SUV's so fast it will make your head spin.
To increase supply...drill for more oil in the US, now, everywhere. Drill in ANWR; drill off the coasts; drill in the gulf; convert oil shales; provide support if needed to make the oil shales economical. This won't help forever, but it will help in the short-term (<20 years). And, it will be done with less impact to the global environment than having other countries drill in less-developed and less-responsible parts of the world.
Take the proceeds from the tax on gas to invest tens of billions of dollars into the development of alternative energy sources...now. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Natural Gas, Electric Batteries, Fuel Cells...all of it. Fund it inside the Defense Department -- it is a national security imperative.
Sell all of this to the American people in terms of national security, global human rights and respect for the environment. Both Democrats and Republicans can support it for their own reasons...but it will be a way to reduce imported oil quickly and ultimately eliminate our dependence on oil altogether.
Advertisement
You had me up to the drilling. I am more in favor of civic reeingineering. Our nation is designed for oil and coal consumption and needs to evolve beyond the grid and sprawl. Putting all of our chips on the bet that we will leap past oil to the next thing isn't feasible. We will get there, but we have to buy mote time and set ourselves up foe the possibility that what we discover in terms of sustainability we may lose in quantity. Geothermal or mass solar will likely require that we live under far less auspicious means in order to achieve parity.
Otherwise, excellent points all. I am glad we can discuss this.
September 12, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is not a politician in this world that would raise the taxes like that. Americans will not give up their cars until gas goes over $6 a gallon. I just moved from the city back to the farm right when gas dropped. It takes gas to run the tractors and all that extra costs will show up in your food. So not only will transportation skyrocket, so will food along with all other goods. Buying local is a fantasy only good for a limited number of people - can all of New York buy local?
I agree with your whole post down to the last paragraph and I wish we could make it happen but I can't see it until the world is down to the last 100 m gallons of oil. Sorry to be such a po poo er but I think we all have to just do what we can on an individual bases. Right now I am saving up for solar panels and sticking to only one trip a week to town.
September 12, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also find your idea of drilling for everything in the US until it is gone novel and will give it some thought. Good post, John, thank you.
September 12, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, blue. This is my first posting here (or anywhere, for that matter). I'll never be confused with a professional writer, but I'll give it my best shot.
September 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, ummm, conserve a little?
We won't drill locally until the demand for energy outweighs the influence of nimby congresscritters. I suspect the smart critters agree with conservative, but Energy Depletion-aware, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett R-MD, who wants to keep something in the bank for his numerous grandchildren.
September 12, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the higher tax on gasoline (which is, after all, 50% of our consumption) will lead naturally to more conservation. Have the president implore us to lower thermostats and drive slower (as J. Carter did) and nothing changes; let gas go over $3 per gallon, and the results are dramatic.
September 12, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fossil fuel reserves that remain unharvested greatly exceed the quantity we can afford to burn without adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to mediate catastrophic global warming and its consequences. While more of this is coal than oil, manufacturing, power generation, and heating based on fossil fuels will switch from oil to coal as long as those facilities continue to dominate the manner in which our society functions. Only by raising the cost of fossil fuel energy from any source can we ensure that fossil fuels will be replaced by alternative energy and conservation sooner rather than later.
From a practical political viewpoint, an overt carbon tax is probably not feasible, however desirable it might be for our welfare. On other hand, cap and trade policies such as those recently incorporated into legislation passed by the House a few months ago, can accomplish some of the same goals, even if less efficiently. That legislation did not go far enough, but was still a step forward compared with the reluctance of the previous Administration to join the rest of the world in taking seriously the enormity of the climate change threat.
September 12, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would propose a tax on gasoline, not oil broadly...at least at first. Manufacturing, power gen, heating oil don't use gasoline...they would see minimal impact, and therefore no need t switch to coal.
My PRIMARY goal isn't to save the environment; it is to improve our national security and remove the source of funding for despots around the world. The SECONDARY benefit is that the investments made possible by a tax on gas would fund the new energy sources to reduce carbon output.
Regarding the practical political viewpoint...you are right. I am disappointed that Candidate Obama treated us like adults and spoke of shared sacrifices, bi-partisan proposals and long term SOLUTIONS to our problems...but President Obama has chosen to turn it all over to Nancy and Harry and hope for the best. Very frustrating.
September 12, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John - I was too vague in my previous comment. Electric power generation in the U.S. comes mainly from coal, with a smaller contribution from natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectric energy, and wind energy. Coal is a major contributor to atmospheric CO2.
You are probably correct that the contribution to atmospheric CO2 from oil products other than gasoline is relatively small, but it is not trivial. It includes diesel fuel, and an worrisome increase in the consumption of jet fuel - already a non-trivial CO2 source. Still, I agree that there would be little to be gained from a tax specifically on oil, and I would settle for a withdrawal of billions of dollars of tax breaks to the oil industry.
The most important need is to increase the cost of carbon in general, because taxes on specific carbon products would encourage shifting to the ones that aren't taxed, either directly or via cap and trade.
As for the politics, I doubt that Obama has changed his desires, but he has been forced by the nation's economic woes and the healthcare battle to scale back his short term goals. His Energy Secretary, Steve Chu, is passionately committed to a reduction in fossil fuel use, and the Administration in general has already some accomplishments under its belt. These include not only the House energy bill, but the new EPA rulings on tailpipe emissions, and the use of substantial amounts of stimulus money to fund improvements in our energy infrastructure and investments in alternative energy development.
Finally, I agree with your concern about dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue, but the threat of unmitigated climate change is so enormous, and so underappreciated that I see it as an even higher priority. In particular, the U.S. contribution to climate change mitigation will reside only in part in our specific abatement programs, but even more in the signal we are now sending to other nations that we wish to be part of the solution rather than simply a major part of the problem.
September 12, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Build, Baby, Build!
September 12, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Green, baby, green! The next revolution -- we could take the world in green industrial technology -- if we only wanted to.
It's so much more fun to fight wars in the Middle East! The people who are used to profiting from it just don't want to give it up.
September 12, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this idea. I want to tax Wall Street on every single trade made like they do in Europe.
Your approach brings in good money, cuts down on driving and helps build a new infrastructure for alternative energy.
The poorest class who still can afford a car? Give them a tax credit. Its that easy.
Good post.
September 12, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only have a minute, b4 I have to go to work, but your comment on drilling for more oil in the US needs some rethinking.
The US diverted their thinking on oil in the mid-50's because we were reaching the peak-oil level - less oil being sucked out of the ground. By consuming other oil resources, we use less of our natural supply while depleting the resources of others. Eventually, those resources will become exhausted and we'll have to go back to our natural resources. So it's better in the long run to sit tight on our oil resources - it may really become black gold if the world supply does peter out. By tapping into those resources now would really screw us later on when the shortage hits - we've exhausted our own oil supply and we haven't developed an alternative energy source for our oil dependence.
However, you gas tax is right on target! I'm in Europe with the US Forces and we get rationed gas at US prices. However, when I purchase gas off post, I'd pay approximately 1.5 euro per liter. It takes about 3.78 liter to make a gallon so takes 5.67 euros a gallon. It cost $1.46 to buy a euro, so that gallon of gas is $5.40. It takes 11 gallons to top off my tank so we're talking $59.40. The average price I pay at the US pumps is $3 a gallon - $33 a fill-up. But there are times I've had to pay the euro cost at the pump because there wasn't a US post in the area. You learn to adapt for sudden changes in the cost of refueling over here.
September 12, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink