Combining passages from two pieces in today's Seattle Times does much to offer a vision for where the GOP needs to go on energy policy.
First, a story on the challenging quest for private oil companies to find reserves not sequestered under the grip of state-owned corporations:
"Normally, high prices would mean higher supply," said Fadhil Chalabi, executive director at the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London and a former Iraqi oil ministry undersecretary. "What is happening is something different. The international companies are denied access to areas of abundant oil within OPEC, and it's getting costlier in other areas."
Simply put, the oil is largely in the hands of those who aren't always going to let market conditions dictate policy. Thus, the issue is increasingly not only supply, it's access.
Second, a Danny Westneat column on the green leanings of younger Evangelicals:
His pitch was that inaction on emissions is not an option, regardless of whether global warming is real. Curbing pollution and breaking our addiction to oil will make the U.S. cleaner, stronger and freer -- all supposedly bedrock conservative ideals.
The crux of the problem here is that in their understandable desire to oppose Al Gore's global warming zealotry and the increasingly extreme and partisan approach of the Sierra Club, Republicans have missed the chance to stay true to environmental issues in a reasonable manner. Now, it's not just a matter of the environment, it's a matter of cold, hard economics.
Worshiping at the altar of reducing carbon emissions to save "a planet in crisis" need not be done. But Republicans should be able to speak to market-based incentives for conservation of all kinds, getting serious about nuclear power, supporting research for the energy technology of the future, and yes, greater utilization of the oil and natural gas we already have.
For too long, Democrats and the environmental community - and some moderate Republicans - have thrown themselves in front of the train of new domestic exploration for fossil fuels. They say the answer is new technology. Yet, that technology is years and in most cases decades away from full integration into our economy and society (accounting for some major fumbles like ethanol along the way). As a result, we need a bridge to that era, which given the geo-political environment of we face requires us to carefully consider environmentally prudent means of utilizing the resources we have.
At the same time, Republicans have for too long frowned on conceding points to the increasingly partisan environmentally community. Our current oil price point no longer gives us that option. Couple that with the prospect of long-term demand from India, China, and other rapidly developing countries and it means market-based conservation is essential for the future health of our national economy. The sustained high cost of gasoline and other fuels is going to result in self-selected and sometimes painful conservation measures...even if prices don't spike further in coming years as expected. Consequently, it is neither economically feasible nor advantageous for reasons of national security to simply buy our way out of the situation - even if new drilling wasn't a challenge, which it most obviously is.
Those are the policy realities; and a political reality is present too. The trend Westneat identifies has been percolating and receiving discussion for some time now. It is a simple fact that younger generations of voters - currently not so pleased with the generic GOP brand - are greener than their older counterparts. Long term, the head-in-the-sand approach to the energy and resulting environmental issues facing the country will do the party little good.
Thus, there is a way and, quite frankly, a compelling need for Republicans to put forward an energy policy that respects conservative principles, doesn't bow to the environmentalist left, offers rational solutions to our long-term energy supply problems, and is friendly to the environment to boot.
Politics increasingly insists on it, and economics increasingly demand it.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 21, 2008 10:55 PM | Email ThisYes we should be minimizing our current usage, developing more US based sources and refinement, and working towards foreign policy that allows access. But all while not giving up the farm to interests that will cause greater harm in the long run. Or open the door for more foreign threat. Or open the door for domestic zealots who impose their statist environmental religion upon us.
And conservatives have no reason to believe that the left, OPEC, greens, etc. will do the right thing, because they have consistently done the wrong thing in all of recent history, in all aspects of energy policy. We've had decades with no notable new oil field developments, refineries, new nuclear power initiatives, or stronger leverage with OPEC to speak of, so what leads us to believe that kow-towing to the left now will suddenly produce results.
As for your youth argument, didn't you have some naive or flat-out wrong beliefs in your youth? And as you grew older, didn't you correct a lot of that behavior and false ideas? That's the normal course of action for most people who grow up. OK, so there are some on the extreme left who never grow up, but I doubt that even today's ignorant youth are going to buy the global warming hoax in the long term, because it is being exposed by empirical cooling.
As always, true conservatives are forced to navigate the minefield of idiots, youthful ignorance, lunacy and market interference to get things done and done right. In your last paragraph, you seem to be playing both sides. Is it that Republicans need to stay true to environmental issues as politics insist, or that Republicans need to put forward an energy policy that respects conservative principles, doesn't bow to the environmentalists left, and offers rational solutions to our long-term energy supply problems?
I submit that playing political games is the worst possible route to a much more aggressive energy policy that's going to have to encompass a lot more than any one form of energy. This will be more and more clear as prices rise, demand rises, etc. It's not which route do we go down, it's e) all of the above. Nothing less is going to solve the problem, and especially when the left thinks that energy limitation is a feature of their brave new world.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 21, 2008 11:16 PMModular 4th Generation, passively safe, fast neutron power reactors; in conjunction with the very-high-temperature gas reactor (VHTGR) for efficient large-scale production of hydrogen.
Extensive info on DOE and INEL websites; and you do not have to be a nuclear engineer to understand much of it:
www.ne.doe.gov
www.inl.gov
We're already behind the curve on getting serious about the above:
I just saw an email from a guy I know in Europe:
They are paying the current exchange-rate equivalent of $10 per US gallon right now.
Think a little what it would meant if gas went to $9-10 a gallon here. Our infrastructure, transportation, and commuting habits are built on cheap gas; there would be a major crash.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4214386.html
This first one is about the latest X-prize contest (you may remeber the space race X-prize put on a few years ago). This time around the contest is to develop a prodction ready vehicle with a 100mpg fuel economy. There is a link on the site for the guidelines.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/U-S-Army-Portable-Biorefinery-Uses-Trash-as-Fuel-51484.shtml
This second link is to an article regarding the Army's portable biorefinerary system. It uses trash to create biofuels. Everything from scrap foods to plastic into biofuels.
I believe that these two things are just many that are being done right now, yet not getting much press. I also believe that we do need a two part approach to freeing ourselves from foreign oil. One is to open up new areas to drilling and two provide more incentive for research and development into viable alteranative fuel sources.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 22, 2008 05:31 AMI don't think I'm missing what you're pointing out. I'm actually acknowledging it and trying to find a way to work on the issue (which has obvious real-world need) while acknowledging the tricky politics of it (thanks in large part to the entrenched position of many in the environmentalist community).
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 22, 2008 06:26 AMWhy would there be rationing of gas?
You'd think that with $10/gal gas, it would reduce demand, and hence the need for any sort of rationing scheme. Besides, why ration if the suppy is there? The government likes to control demand for something it doesn't want you to use through a mechanism known as "sin" taxes. Rationing wouldn't make them a cent - in fact, it reduces the revenue they collect through the gas tax. Olympia will never go for that!
Real Republicans don't have an "energy policy".
The policy is to let the market invent the new technologies and set price based on demand.
If one group gets a hold of enough supply to set the price, that's fair game...it always has been. The market will respond with alternatives as prices get so juicy the creative and entrepreneurial will invent workarounds and the smart money will follow them.
Same for "environmentalism". If people want green they will pay for it. The stock of solar companies is bursting through the roof, delivering 3 and 4 times value while the DOW sits in a quagmire. Want green? Buy First Solar stock or Coskata (cellulosic ethanol) when it comes to market.
Nuclear energy is available to produce electricity. We produce nuclear reactors small enough for ships; but refuse to produce nuclear reactors for powering cities. Other countries, including Japan, Italy and Germany rely on nuclear energy. Why does America, the leader in nuclear development refuse to harness nuclear energy. One may only conclude that politicians and their minions seek political power and largress (Al Gore) by destruction of society.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 22, 2008 09:05 AM"There is evidence that Americans are changing their driving habits and lifestyles in ways that could lead to a long-term slowdown in their gasoline consumption."
"In the past six weeks, the nation's gasoline consumption has fallen by an average 1.1% from year-earlier levels, according to weekly government data."
As demand declines, supplies are increasing - "gasoline inventories have been on the rise for the past four months, reaching their highest levels since February 1994."
Yet, "in a sign of the growing disconnect between demand and the market", prices are rising along with supply.
"Investors piling money into commodities as a refuge from inflation have helped push oil prices close to their inflation-adjusted record of $103.76 a barrel, set in 1980."
However, our dependance on foreign oil will continue to rise because 100 million extra people will be added to our population. So the current citizen's of our country will again pay for our government's idiotic immigration policies.
Posted by: M&M on May 22, 2008 09:22 AMSupply and demand for energy? Cool. But wait, we can't build refineries; oh, and we can't drill in ANWAR or off Florida? Oh, how is that supply and demand?
Republicans need to come up with policy and a plan to beat the Democrats over the head with. The Ds haven't done anything and didn't fulfill their promise to have an energy policy.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2008 10:09 AMI see where you are agreeing, but my point is that trying to meet with the left on this issue is pointless, because their goals are only to thwart progress. What is needed is a new class of leadership that points out clearly, charismatically, and authoritavetively that we must begin development of a myriad of new energy plants, better foreign access policy, increased refinery, business incentive for technology development, and more domestic access policy.
There's no way that's coming from either current Republicans or Democrats, but there's going to be someone who elucidates this to the American people, such that we can ram right past all of the usual politicians to get solutions going. Failure is not an option because our entire economy is built on energy.
Touchy-feely meetings with Democrats will get us exactly nowhere, and that's exactly what we've been doing for 30 years.
Let me sum it up:
Build, Drill, Refine, Fission, Invent, Incentivize, Create, Imagine, Accomplish, Achieve, etc.
We need action, and all we get is stalemate, and whining from our politicians.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 22, 2008 11:15 AMThe bottom line is that the world's oil supply is controlled to a large extent by the OPEC cartel. The Saudi's, our "friends," are holding back on 2 million plus barrels per day of capacity. All of these OPEC countries fund terrorism.
The only way to bring the price of a product down is to make that product compete. Right now, we go to a gas station and have only one product option - to buy the OPEC cartel product. (Oh, sure some of it is from fringe players, but most of it is from OPEC).
We should have a choice. Gasoline, ethanol, or methanol. Yeah, I know all the dread and hand wringing over corn prices. But, ethanol and methanol are actually easy to make from a variety of sources. Coal included.
All that is required is that your car be able to use any of the options. That's called "flex fuel."
I'm rarely a supporter of government mandates, but this is one case where I see a good reason for a mandate: the government should mandate that all new cars be "flex fuel" cars. It only adds $100 to the price tag. Throw out all the stupid CAFE fuel economy requirements, which are never met anyway, and require all new cars sold in the US to be flex fuel cars.
Methanol is currently priced at $2.80 for an amount equivalent in energy content to a gallon of gasoline. If you had a flex fuel car and a choice between methanol and gasoline at the pump today, which would you fill your car up with?
Think that might cause our "friends" the Saudis to increase their oil production?
Posted by: BananaLand on May 22, 2008 05:07 PMAnd despite the Democrats, they will be forced to go along with this before people get more pissed then they already are.
I have recently heard that a great portion of our Alaska Pipeline oil doesn't stay in this country because of misguided Oil regulations. If that is the case we should fix that, and keep our domestic oil at home.
Posted by: GS on May 22, 2008 08:22 PMDr. Bill Wattenburg should be the President's (McCain hopefully) consultant on making the US Energy independent - that is the ultimate goal ! It's too bad Dr. Bill doesn't run for President - he is probably the best problem solver that could possibly serve us the people and he would serve our country well - as he already has. If Barry Obama is elected, there would be no chance of advances, as he and the far left are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Environmental Lobby- he may talk a good game about alternative energy, but his actions will prove out contrary when it comes to bringing nuclear power to the forefront. John McCain has acknowledged the need for nuclear power, so I consider him the superior candidate here.
With his expertise, Dr, Wattenburg can assist greatly in getting nuclear power plants on-line along with new oil refineries. For this to happen though, the Government absolutely has to get the hell out of the way if we have any hope of retaining our greatness, otherwise we'll continue to travel the accelerated road to mediocrity.
Posted by: KS on May 23, 2008 10:03 PMWe can't drill, we can't explore, and we can't refine the trillions of dollars worth of oil we have in our own country because of democraps like Maxine Waters? She can't even spit out her line to Socialize or Nationalize the Oil Companies!
Like that would make a difference since the democraps won't allow and are solely responsible for blocking any drilling, exploring, or refinining in this country!
This is unreal
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/23/maxine-waters-socialize-the-oil-companies/
Posted by: GS on May 24, 2008 05:10 PMTime is running rather low, but maybe by 2012, the Republicans will have their act together (we can only hope). If they don't the Maxine Waters of this world to demagogue it to the point that the dumbed down masses will buy into Government controlled oil companies and the prices will only get worse. The real criminals are those who are owned lock, stock and barrel by the Environmentalist lobby frauds. The way Congress operates these days, people will need to get as agitated about this as illegal immigration before something significant happens.
Posted by: KS on May 24, 2008 05:30 PMI think we should change that D to DUMBSHIT!
Posted by: GS on May 24, 2008 05:58 PMLet see what kind of prices OPEC charge with some competition in the marketplace.
It is time to put an end to the ten pound monkey rhetoric and reschedule in the State CSA and start making cleaner fuel out of stuff that does not drive up food cost.
Olympia July 17-18 at the DOH.
Put away the whine list and make it hard for the DOH to say no.
Check the Board of Pharmacy website for the Agenda.
I believe a new rule should be developed.
The subject of this rule is: Rescheduling Industrial cannabis hemp
The rule will affect the following people: Washington State citizens
The need for the rule is:
The current schedule for marijuana includes Industrial Cannabis Hemp, which is totally benign, and harmless as a drug, underscoring the intent of scheduling marijuana, which is to prevent Competition, not save the public from harm. The current schedule for Industrial Cannabis Hemp is hindering the development of a dedicated fuel source that is mandated by RCW 80.50.020, and other environmentally safe products that are mandated by RCW 80.50.020. The current schedule for Industrial Cannabis Hemp will hinder the development of climate change policies outlined in RCW 80.80 that will be forced to limit lane miles in order to reduce emissions, which would force our state to continue to lose revenue from congestion related issues, and impose unreasonable costs.
Industrial Cannabis hemp is the only sustainable clean fuel source right now. We can reduce emissions without restricting lane miles or imposing unreasonable costs to the public. Industrial Cannabis Hemp is generally defined as having less than 1% THC with normal ranges under 5%.The THC levels of industrial cannabis hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. In order to get a psychoactive dose from industrial cannabis hemp a person would have to rapidly smoke 10-12 industrial cannabis cigarettes. Even in the event that somebody tried to use that much industrial cannabis hemp for a psychoactive effect, the large volume of smoke would certainly be intolerable and the resulting headache would most likely prohibit any recreational user from continuing to obtain a recreational pleasure from smoking Industrial Cannabis Hemp. In addition Industrial Cannabis Hemp contains a countering cannabinoid called CBD which blocks the recreational psychoactive high.
Law enforcement can not point to any studies which will show significant arrest data of recreational use or smuggling of Industrial Cannabis Hemp. There is no need for the pharmacy board to determine dosage amounts or control Industrial Cannabis Hemp consumption to regulate any harm. Industrial Cannabis Hemp is absent a meaningful psychoactive effect, and does not belong in schedule 1.Therefore Industrial Cannabis Hemp should not be included with marijuana in schedule 1.
The Washington State Pharmacy Board must amend RCW 69.50.204 and reschedule Industrial Cannabis Hemp to schedule 3 or 4 as allowable under RCW 69.50.201, and put an end to the conflicts with RCW 80.80, and RCW 80.50.020, and prevent unreasonable costs to the Citizens of Washington State.