19 Comments

1. David Thomson:

It would be foolish for Dick Cheney to implore the Saudi government to drop the price of oil. The free market will take care of this problem. Only one or two members of the oil cartel have to cheat on their agreement to destroy the monopoly. This is what has always occurred in the past.

I am also for cheaper fuel. This, however, will do little in the foreseeable future to keep us safe from terrorism. The oil will simply be sold to another part of the world. It might take the minimum of two decades before the Arab world be financially hurt—and unable to continue funding terrorism. Do you really want American society to be on a mission to create alternative fuels? If so, you should be advocating for tax breaks and lower regulations for our energy producers. Government subsidies only reward the politically powerful and encourage wastefulness.

Mar 11, 2008 - 9:51 am 2. Charlie (Colorado):

Gee, Roger, I thought everyone knew high oil prices were bad, but high gasoline prices were good — as long as the high gas prices were the result of taxes, instead of evil greedy oil men getting the money.

Mar 11, 2008 - 9:52 am 3. Lightnin' Hopkins:

We need to simultaneously drill for oil, build Nuclear power plants, and pursue solar technologies more aggressively. Now. While we’re at it, a major overhaul of the ancient power grid is long overdue. ‘We’ means public *and* private, not just the government.

Enough with the self-flagellation about America and energy. We need it. We should produce it – and stop whining. Nothing is ever good enough – cars are far safer and more fuel-efficient than ever but all anyone ever does is complain. Thanks to the Goracle our oil companies are now synonymous with evil – never mind all the people they employ and all the little old lady shareholders who have a stake as well.

Maybe ANWR would have only shaved a small percentage off of today’s price of oil – I’m no expert – but it would be better than zero.

Oh, the guilt.

Mar 11, 2008 - 10:13 am 4. Roger:

“If so, you should be advocating for tax breaks and lower regulations for our energy producers. Government subsidies only reward the politically powerful and encourage wastefulness.”

David, I go “both ways.” I’m for tax breaks, but I’m willing to give government a shot too. I know the conservative “religious” belief is that government always fails. But it does it? The government was able to build the bomb at lightning speed in WWII and get men walking on the moon pretty quickly. Whatever works. Theories put me to sleep.

Mar 11, 2008 - 10:16 am 5. Foobarista:

I’ve slowly come to the belief that we need stiff new gas taxes, offset with a front-loaded reduction of payroll taxes. We also need to clear the regulatory and legal decks to allow safe nuke plants to be built easily.

There’s also a place for government R&D, but changing the economic playing field will result in plenty of private research and innovations.

My feeling is that the “post-carbon world” will come about via dozens of small changes and improvements, with a place for pretty much every technology. Maybe the Bussard reactors will hit a home run and bring an overnight power revolution, but it’s more likely that 10,000 little improvements and fixes will get us “there” from “here”.

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:21 am 6. David Thomson:

“I know the conservative “religious” belief is that government always fails.”

The reality is that the government usually fails. The exceptions are rare. At best, sometimes the government is able to get the ball rolling. This is what it did regarding the space program. However, Glenn Reynolds and I completely agree that it’s now time for the private sector to take over.

Do you truly want the United States to be “energy independent”? If that’s the case, one should rarely, if ever, vote for candidates of the Democratic Party. This political institution is the number one reason why fuel prices are high. It’s anti-capitalist ideology puts the screws to the American public. Democrats are responsible for the damage caused to our nuclear industry. They have also prevented the building of coal plants. The radical environmentalists control the Democratic Party. Neither Hillary Clinton or “Barry” Obama dare to rebuke these anti-science luddites.

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:23 am 7. David Thomson:

“I know the conservative “religious” belief is that government always fails.”

The reality is that the government usually fails. The exceptions are rare. At best, sometimes the government is able to get the ball rolling. This is what it did regarding the space program. However, Glenn Reynolds and I completely agree that it’s now time for the private sector to take over.

Do you truly want the United States to be “energy independent”? If that’s the case, one should rarely, if ever, vote for candidates of the Democratic Party. This political institution is the number one reason why fuel prices are high. It’s anti-capitalist ideology puts the screws to the American public. Democrats are responsible for the damage caused to our nuclear industry. They have also prevented the building of coal plants. The radical environmentalists control the Democratic Party. Neither Hillary Clinton nor “Barry” Obama dare to rebuke these anti-science luddites.

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:25 am 8. Cecil Turner:

David, I go “both ways.”

Whoa, too much information. I think you’re right. Incentives are good, but for big-picture stuff–especially problems needing significant basic research–government projects can be as or more effective than private sector.

The original (2001) National Energy Policy hit it about right, IMHO (Chap 5: Increasing Domestic Energy Supplies): encourage new nuclear reactors, hydrogen, clean coal, study fusion, drill in ANWR. But we didn’t actually do much of it, and ended up mostly arguing over who went to the meetings. The current laundry list of feel-good eco-friendly stuff has such a minimal actual energy output that it’s mostly a waste of time (except for the teensy bit of nuke stuff subliminally inserted in the middle, there).

The longer-term solution will probably be some adaptation of fusion technology, and that’s where the government could be most effective. But, in our infinite wisdom, we’ve decided to play politics with that as well:

In December, the President implored the Democratic-led Congress to stick to his 2008 budget cap in its final catch-all spending bill. Science funding was caught in the battle between the White House and Congress and science lost.

In a fit of lemming fever, the Brits decided to defund their programs at the same time. At some point, you’d expect the collective pain to induce a change in behavior . . . but apparently we’re not there yet.

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:29 am 9. stu:

The latest info seems to be that supply is not driving up the price but rank speculation in the futures market. One of the people who makes a living keeping track of oil markets indicates that this bubble will burst this year with the price dropping to $75 a barrel. We shall see. Prolonged high prices will cause the exploration companies to go after the oil that is more costly to extract and to develop the newer finds such as off the coast of Brazil.

Mar 11, 2008 - 12:02 pm 10. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

“The oil will simply be sold to another part of the world”…however, any energy-production or energy-savings technologies that we develop here will also be made available to India, China, Europe, et al. And it also works the other way–it’s likely that much solar development will take place in countries that lack a generation & grid infrastructure, and only later become cost-effective in the U.S. Although oil is mobile, so is technology.

Also: For an analysis of how politically-driven alternative-energy polities can get out of hand and do actual harm, see A Vicious Circle.

Mar 11, 2008 - 12:59 pm 11. Larry J:

The government was able to build the bomb at lightning speed in WWII and get men walking on the moon pretty quickly. Whatever works.

The Manhattan Project to build nuclear weapons was driven by the belief that Nazi Germany was working on the bomb. As a matter of dire urgency, money was no object.

The unofficial motto of the Apollo project was “waste anything but time.” Massive overruns and waste were common throughout the program. Yes, they did meet Kennedy’s goal of landing on the moon before the end of the decade but they did it at the expense of building anything sustainable or efficient. That’s hardly a good model for a national energy plan.

I believe we need to guide our energy policy using a three-pronged approach.

1. Use conservation where it makes sense. While conservation alone is unlikely to do the job, if it succeeds in reducing the rate of growth in energy consumption, it will save a lot of energy over time. The mathematics of exponential growth are simple and it’s easy to see how lowering the rate of growth even a couple percentage points will have a huge impact.

2. Increase domestic energy production. No one who claims to be for energy indepenedence or even simply lowering our dependence on foreign energy can be taken seriously if they don’t realize the need to increase our own energy production. This also means we need to address infrastructure issues such as refinery capacity, pipelines, and the national power grid.

3. Develop alternative energy sources where practical. Wind power isn’t useful everywhere and neither is solar. Do what makes sense where it makes sense. Limit subsidizies to a fixed and inflexible time, say 5 or 10 years. Subsidizies distort the market but they can have their place in the short term.

Mar 11, 2008 - 2:09 pm 12. Webutante:

Think we should drill for more domestic oil on this continent, fire up some new nuclear plants and a new refinery or two too. Tax breaks are fine too.

However, if we knew how many government subsidies have already gone into alternative energy production, we wouldn’t believe it. Billions and billions have poured into many great ideas as subsidues ( so it’s not a new idea), and it doesn’t make any difference until it becomes a darling of the markets.

I’m with David Thomson on this one for the most part.

Mar 11, 2008 - 2:24 pm 13. TerryeL:

I am not sure that the Saudis can drop the price of oil. After all energy futures have a lot to do with this. But I don’t think it is a bad thing for Cheney to go to the Middle East and if the truth is told I doubt that we really know what all is involved in this trip. I doubt it is as simple as begging for oil.

We could buy more from Canada as well, but the Democratic Congress thinks their oil creates too many emissions and so limits the purchase of it.

It is this conflict that creates a lot of the problems, on one hand we want pristine, on the other we want energy.

Mar 11, 2008 - 3:03 pm 14. Roger:

“I doubt that we really know what all is involved in this trip. I doubt it is as simple as begging for oil.”

Well I agree with Terrye on this one. My hunch is that Cheney may have info on Iran and other matters to impart.

Mar 11, 2008 - 3:24 pm 15. jrdroll:

Roger,

Take a look at this:

Mullahs or Mounties: Which do we prefer?
posted at 5:00 pm on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Energy independence ÔøΩ it has become the buzzword for the 2008 presidential election. We want to move away from Middle East oil, at the very least, in order to keep from being held as economic hostages by hostile governments in the region. We can avoid that by increasing importation from Canada, whose tar sands in Alberta have deep reserves that our friends would like to sell to us. Problem solved, right?

Wrong:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/11/mullahs-or-mounties-which-do-we-prefer/

Mar 11, 2008 - 3:50 pm 16. SMGalbraith:

But is Cheney’s mission to the ME really about increasing oil production? Or is it about Iran? After all, we import roughly 15-17% of our oil from Middle East nations (granted, oil is fungible and more oil from that region lowers the prices elsewhere).

Admiral Fallon, CENTCOM head and a vocal opponent (apparently) of attacking Iran, resigned today.

I’ve been convinced that the White House will not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities and, instead, will leave the issue for the next Administration.

But I also though Kerry would win. I.e., I’m not a credible source.

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:09 pm 17. TerryeL:

Roger:

Yes, I think so too. In fact we have Cheney in the ME and Fallon out the door. One wonders….

Mar 12, 2008 - 3:57 am 18. LarryD:

Government subsidies only reward the politically powerful and encourage wastefulness.

Case in point: ethanol.

“Energy Independence” is a fantasy for the foreseeable future, reducing oil imports is possible, but the environmentalists are in the way. (Do I need to list the ways?)

Mar 12, 2008 - 7:05 am 19. MarkD:

Jerry Pournelle was advocating this pre Iraq invasion. A Manhattan project level effort to eliminate our dependence on oil would have a lot of benefits.

Imagine a Saudi regime without the financial power to spread Wahabbism throughout the Middle East, Europe, and America. I’m having a hard time imagining a downside. The people would still live in the sixth century, but they’d be doing it over there. We’d all be far better off if the 19 hijackers couldn’t have afforded plane tickets and flight schools.

Mar 12, 2008 - 1:13 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: