Per our recent discussion of energy policy, there is a point there bears some further discussion: the linkage created by the McCain camp between Barack Obama's proposals and the less than splendid record of Jimmy Carter.
One could argue about the merits of bringing up memories of stagflation, gas lines, and malaise given the number of voters who don't exactly have clear memories of that era. Older voters, however, do.
Those are the voters who were often hesitant about Obama in Democratic primaries. They are the demographic giving McCain a consistently larger margin in recent national polls than that which Republicans often able to secure with seniors.
In short, presuming Obama's campaign can actually turn out the younger voters he attracts, the McCain campaign (and the RNC) have to run up the score with older voters. Linking Obama to Carter isn't a bad way to accomplish that feat. Especially when even Paul Krugman of all people is pointing out that Obama's proposals would "push tax rates on some high-income Americans back to the levels of the 1970s."
Thus, you have McCain on the stump today:
For Senator Obama, the solution to every problem and the answer to every challenge is a new tax.
Couple that with Obama's modern version of the malaise speech, that Mary Katharine Ham so delightfully mocked, and you have what appears to be the Democratic message on gas prices: taxes and austerity.
Oh, sure, they talk about investments in alternative technologies...but how many decades away are those from widespread commercial use? You never hear that part of the equation.
Meanwhile, McCain is finally joining Republicans pushing for long-overdue exploration of deep, offshore resources - a push that has a job creation benefit as well that should be included in the debate. It won't solve any problems over night, but its an infinitely better solution than telling people to drive less and raising taxes, which never turned a drop of oil into gasoline or created a new job.
Many a Democratic elected official, prodded by their zealous friends in the environmental community, seems to have missed a fundamental shift that is taking place in the populace, as evidenced by Charlie Crist's recent turn:
A veteran of Florida politics who is not tied to Crist says the gas price-driven poll numbers justify the drilling flip-flop (justify in the political sense, that is):"[After many years working in the state], I would have told you that it was the single issue that would never, ever, ever change. Ev-uh," says the source.
But "somewhere between $3.00 and $4.00, the [poll] number literally flipped upside down."
The rapidly rising price of gas has made what was once entirely implausible in Florida politics eminently possible. What voters opposed on feel-good environmental grounds at $2 or even $3 a gallon has been turned on its head at $4. What happens when gas hits $5 a gallon?
In an article on Crist's decision, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting graphic:
Notice all that area tapped for oil and natural gas - regions we didn't hear about terrible spills in even in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita in 2005. Despite the wails from environmentalists, it might just be possible to do likewise elsewhere if states are willing to play ball.
Funny thing, economics actually works. Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress just might want to give it a try on this one.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 18, 2008 10:46 PM | Email ThisObama whines "it might only lower prices a few cents." That's it? That's his complaint? Let's see--not drilling keeps us where we are or gets worse. Drilling could lower prices and CERTAINLY lessens our dependence on foreign oil. Note to democrats---NO DOWNSIDE ON THAT ONE!
Posted by: Michele on June 18, 2008 10:51 PMOil production is down and prices are up. Ever wonder why? One may deduce that taxes may be one of the causes. Other causes include regulations, envirnomental barriers and false premises. All the unnatural causes have one thing in common - Democratic support and manipulation.
The Democrats ran ads last time around suggesting the people have to eat pet food because of the hogh price of medicine. Why don't the Republicans borrow a page from the play book and use it to dramatize the consequences of the Democratic support causing the high price of fuel?
The time is now to express our collective outrage of Democrats for the obvious scheming regarding fuel and global warming.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 18, 2008 11:12 PMIn the meantime? According to whom? And I didn't want to go down this path, given present company, but who says we need more energy? Pay more, use less, it works out. Show me where it hasn't. Posted by: Special Ed on June 18, 2008 11:22 PM
There's no reason to treat this as either a zero sum game, or to portray it as beneficial to be a Luddite.
Posted by: Al on June 18, 2008 11:39 PMEd must not use a car for business,
or own a small business,
or have a family to feed on one paycheck,
or want the economy to grow,
or be worried about being laid off.
Liberals care about the poor...until they don't.
Posted by: 29Victor on June 19, 2008 01:41 AMBecause that's what intelligent persons do...they're able to multi task. They use their head and its contents for more than a place to rest their ballcap on.
Not surpisingly, Liberals like Ed apparently can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 19, 2008 05:55 AMThe above from an article by 'Jeff Poor' on 05/21/08 of 'business & Media Institute'.
So, I would suggest everyone hit the casinos and try to win enough to weather the storm. Posted by: NativeSon on June 19, 2008 06:08 AM
Liberals can't figure out that there is a lag time built in to large scale processes, migrations to new technology, etc. They are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why we have seven years of cooling when there is supposed to be "Global Warming."
Naive is an understatement.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 06:44 AMThe additional drilling, energy development and infrastructure, should be coming on line in the next one or two years right?
If not, how will McCain do anything different?
Posted by: BA on June 19, 2008 07:02 AMIf left up to Republican government, it takes a massive crisis to finally roll back some of the monopolistic force that is preventing the market from providing for the increased demand for energy. McCain is waking up to the fact that something must be done.
If left up to Democrat government, we will simply raise taxes, and stagnate. That's all Obama has proposed. Nationalize oil. Tax profits. Limit drilling. Limit nuclear.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 07:21 AMI thought Bust 42 and brother Bush were against drilling off Florida, as was Crist?
Did the fact the Chinos decided to park off those same waters and drill for the same oil finally take the cucumbers off their eyeballs?
Posted by: swatter on June 19, 2008 07:37 AMthey want to take over (gov control) of the refinires.
Yeah that will fix the problem. Can you say Amtrack.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 19, 2008 08:01 AMIt is disgraceful that the same political groups who worship orcas and caribou think little of ripping a helpless human baby, piece-by-piece, from a mother's womb.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 19, 2008 08:35 AMAhhh fools. Had Bill C let us go after ANWAR would you be using that line now.
But the way. NO windmills, eco cars, or plastic bottles will bring the cost of fuel down either.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 19, 2008 08:54 AMThey also blocked most of the rest of Bush's energy policy, which included incentives to build new refineries and nuclear plants. So while BA blames Republicans for lack of action, it's his own party that blocked every piece of it that would have lowered energy prices in the years to come. But hey, we've got new solar and wind generation facilities to supply 3-5% of our energy needs. Hoo-ray!
Posted by: Palouse on June 19, 2008 09:03 AMEven the knowledge that we are going to get serious about exploiting our own domestic oil, will bring prices down some as OPEC increases production to try to discourage some of this competition and as speculators start realizing that UP is not the only direction for oil prices to go.
Posted by: Bill H on June 19, 2008 09:17 AMlike Bill O'Reilly chanting the left wing refrain "we can't drill our way out of the problem". Drilling my not be the ENTIRE answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yet Bill O thinks we can 'grow' our way out?
Nuts.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 19, 2008 09:31 AMMy brother in CA wrote a letter to his show offering to clear up some misunderstandings he felt O'Reilly had of such words as "free, market, force, fraud, commodity, commodity market, supply, demand and any other related words." Don't think O'Reilly broadcast the letter, although Fox has broadcast other letters he has written.
Posted by: Bill H on June 19, 2008 09:42 AMO'Reilly often can't find his way out of a paper bag. And yet all folks wishing to stem the crazy slide towards statism get labeled.
The core philosophical battle is against the collective. This underlies any labeling, party ID, etc. Either you are for expanding the state, or you are not.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 09:57 AMAlong with an article on offshore drilling in the Wall Street Journal, they also felt obligated to mentioned the Santa Barbara well spill over 40 years ago. On the news last night on King 5 they ran a short report on just the subject of the debate taking place and flashed briefly a clip of an oiled sea otter. No explanation or clarification on what, where or when the photo was taken, just a quickie flash. Neither of these two tries bothered to mention that there hasn't been a coastal oil spill for decades and not even a drop was spilled when Katrina stomped over the Gulf oil patch.
At least the debate in earnest is taking place. That's more than one could hope a year ago.
Bill O drives me nuts.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 19, 2008 10:30 AMI agree with you, Jeff B, about the left blindly following the Goreacle as well as the prophet, Obama!
Posted by: Bill H on June 19, 2008 11:00 AMBUT if I'm the sole controlling producer of widgets who can set the widget price and an upstart decides to build a widget factory ... what will that do to my pricing plan? Oh! Gosh you know it might just make me want to review my pricing to keep my existing customers who won't need me as much and to attract new ones.
Widget manufacturing or oil production... it's no different. The countries producing and selling the most will have to factor in that we won't need them as much: they will price attractively.
Duh.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 19, 2008 02:15 PMPeople I have listened to is that oil prices were all speculative- read dot.com, pet rocks, tech stocks, housing bubble and toilet paper shortages. Once that bubble bursts, the prices will go down.
What if we even just started exploring?
5 cents? The DalaiBama shouldn't talk; everytime he opens his mouth nonsense spews out. I told a black, successful businessman the other day that he was more experienced to be president than the DalaiBama. We both chuckled and he said, "but, I don't have that nice voice when I read from the teleprompter."
Posted by: swatter on June 19, 2008 03:22 PMDrilling will accomplish a few things right off - 1) it will cause the speculators to lower prices and 2) it will cause a minor ripple effect with OPEC lower their prices. Overall result - somewhat lower gas prices in the near term. At the same time, we need to move full speed ahead with alternative energy sources, such as McCain has recently proposed. He is still inconsistent about ANWR, which seems to be a red herring, so it would behove him to support it. Otherwise, it doesn't send a clear enough signal for this much needed policy change.
The mainstream media will make this issue go away soon, unless the opposition stays on the offensive and continues to speak out and make it an issue and the Republicans show some backbone/they'll probably need a kick in the ars to do that though. Writing to your congressman or senator will help change - it is much like the Illegal Immigration "Amnesty" Bill last year and will require a public outcry before a change in policy happens - Guaranteed.
Posted by: KS on June 19, 2008 07:20 PMThe environmentalists promised that we could have our cake and eat it too - that we could preserve wilderness for its own sake, that the caribou and the polar bear had to be protected at all costs, that the slightest threat of a oil spill was not worth the cost of drilling off the California or Florida coast. We wouldn't notice the difference at all, they said, and besides we would get that nice, warm feeling of being good to Mother Earth. But nature is indifferent to us. We don't rack up Brownie points for preserving the polar bears or barren wilderness at our own expense. Self-sacrifice is abhorrent to nature. What counts is using the natural resources available to us. The whole globe is one vast source of material for us to use, for our own betterment, if we are free to exploit it. This the American pubic is starting to learn.
Posted by: Bill K. on June 19, 2008 10:57 PMAdding the queen to the hormonally challenged menopausal coven triumverate leaves WA residents are without representation.
Maybe if they got off the saw palmetto (for prostate probes) and switched to evening primrose oil (hot flash relief)...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 20, 2008 09:58 AMAnd the LIE that there isn't enough of our own resources is just that a LIE! The environmentalists keep telling us there isn't enough oil for more than a week or two. Since WHEN did environmentalists become experts in oil exploration?
Here is a new slogan :
Bring the troops home now! We need their help to drill our OWN oil.
On the consumption side of things, the US and Canada consume 2.9 gallons of oil per capita per day. Other industrialized nations consume 1.3, and the rest of the world, 0.25, while the global average consumption rate is 0.55 gallons per day per capita. So our consumption rate is nearly 6 times the global average. Consumption in China and India is rising as well.
If we say our proven reserves are 25.9 billion barrels and a barrel is 31 gallons, then we have about 0.8 trillion gallons. At 2.9 gallons per person per day and with about 304.4 million Americans, that oil will last 2.5 years at 2.9 gallons per day per person.
2.5 years, folks!
While I agree that domestic production will ease prices (mostly through psychology), I hope that all of you smart people look at this data and realize that drilling our way out of the current situation is not a viable solution. If we could tap that oil instantly and use it exclusively for those 2.5 years, where would we be then?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_cons_per_cap.htm#Consumption%20of%20Oil%20Per%20Capita
Now, instead of debating the issue in a McCain versus Barack framework, could we just look at the issue from an economic standpoint? The economics, right now, when it comes to oil prices is totally wacko. There really isn't any rhyme or reason and a large amount of the price increase has nothing to do with supply and demand of oil itself. The price is being driven by speculators. So, in this case the classic economic issue of supply and demand and even how soon the product could make it to market and whether the US even has the additional refining capability to handle the additional product can be thrown out. The real question is this: Is there a rational game-playing scenario that can be presented that will drive the speculators down and not hurt the long term? In poker, it is a bluff. That is really you others here are talking about. The way I see it, it isn't a very good bluff. All the spectators have to realize is the actual amount of additional oil generated will not make much of a dent in the near term or even the 3-5 year market outlook. My opinion, is the current speculation may be something we may just need to ride out and focus our efforts on long term national security need. One can't offer rational proposals to an irrational market. Right now the oil speculation market is acting very irrationally. We should not answer the irrationality with more irrationality.
So, make the argument on long term economics and national security. Does expanding Gulf and California coast drilling make sense on meeting long term economic and national security needs? I would state that it might meet the latter, but I am skeptical on the first. The economic argument depends on how much additional infrastructure (like refineries) would have to be upgraded/added to (i.e., start up costs). The latter argument depends on the length of time until we would actually see product flowing to market.
Off-shore drilling is different than ANWR. McCain is right on this fact. ANWR has unique environmental conditions that have to be dealt with, some unknown (higher risk). ANWR also has the built in capacity limiter of the total flow that the current pipeline would allow. Off-shore does have a problem with California environmentalists, and adding more capacity in the Hurricane prone Caribbean could add risk. The main risk here is mainly in the refinery locations, which were too concentrated pre-Katrina. Katrina's real impact on oil production was to the on-shore facilities, not the off-shore facilities.
Posted by: tc on June 20, 2008 08:41 PMWhat you say may be true, however - I meant to say to call them email them and nag them so they get the outrage. A letter is not an effective way, unless you actually have some respect for whoever you write to.
Posted by: KS on June 20, 2008 08:41 PMFirst off, you discuss "proven reserves". As Standard Oil executive Wallace Pratt said in 1944, it is a "fallacy ... [to] cite proved reserves as a measure of available future supplies."
We have many times more oil and natural gas, if we can just do the exploration and actually exploit it. The Bakken formation alone in North Dakota (and South Dakota and Montana) is estimated to have 200 BILLION barrels of oil. Next Energy News This alone is almost 10 times the number you quoted.
And then there is the shale oil in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. The estimates are that there are over 1.5 TRILLION barrels in those states. American Free Press This is more than 50 TIMES the number you mention as "proven reserves".
And this does not even get into the possibilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Atlantic, Pacific and in the Eastern Gulf and also does not take into account of ANWR.
And even if we could not produce enough oil from our own resources to replace ALL that we need, why does that somehow translate into "we shouldn't bother to recover it at all"? That is just a patently stupid response.
What is YOUR solution to the problem? The Jimmy Carteresque response of windfall profits taxes, put on a sweater, and drive 55?
What we need to do is to get government and the environmentalists out of the way. We need to:
1. Explore and drill ANWR.
2. Explore and drill on the OCS off the Atlantic Coast.
3. Explore and drill on the OCS off the Pacific Coast.
4. Explore and drill in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
5. Explore and exploit the Bakken Formation.
6. Explore and exploit the shale oil in the Rockies.
7. Remove the roadblocks to building new refineries so that we can refine all of this new supply.
8. Remove the roadblocks to building new nuclear power plants.
9. Remove all of the silly state by state requirements for different formulations for gas.
10. End the counterproductive subsidies of ethanol!
If we do all of that, then we can start spending more time and effort on so-called alternative fuels. These are going to take much longer to develop and perfect. We need to increase our supply of what works NOW to buy us the time to do that kind of research and to bring down the price of energy so that our economy can afford to do that kind of research.
Posted by: Bill H on June 21, 2008 09:57 AMPres. Bush Sr. banned offshore oil drilling by executive order
Gov. Jeb Bush opposed offshore oil drilling in FL
Sen. McCain has only now flip flopped on offshore oil drilling having fiercely opposed it in the past - and still opposes ANWR drilling.
Sometimes I wonder why I ever supported the Republican Party - they are just the "other big government party", like pork is "the other white meat"
Posted by: John McDonald on June 21, 2008 09:59 AM@50>>#47--you are doing what is typically called "lying with statistics".
Don't be rude, Bill. I read the comments about "how much oil we have" and how we can alleviate our current predicament "if only we can tap domestic sources." I simply tried to put some numbers to domestic supply and demand in a global context. I wasn't trying to deceive, I simply thought it would be a useful exercise.
@50>>First off, you discuss "proven reserves". As Standard Oil executive Wallace Pratt said in 1944, it is a "fallacy ... [to] cite proved reserves as a measure of available future supplies."
Are you suggesting that in fact the is _more_ oil than what is included in the "proven reserves" numbers?
Sadad al-Huseini, the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco suggests that the proven reserves are inflated: "Reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so called reserves are in fact resources. They're not delineated, they're not accessible, they're not available for production". By his estimate 300 billion of the world's 1200 barrels of proved reserves should be re categorized as speculative resources. [also, David Strahan]
>>@50We have many times more oil and natural gas, if we can just do the exploration and actually . . . . [snip]
I would note that oil from shale is very expensive per barrel to produce relative to what we are currently paying $130+ / bbl for.
>>@50And even if we could not produce enough oil from our own resources to replace ALL that we need, why does that somehow translate into "we shouldn't bother to recover it at all"? That is just a patently stupid response.
Again, let's have some decorum. Your "translation" is yours alone--I was not trying to get political with my post--simply to quantify what our reserves are relative to our level of consumption.
>>@50What is YOUR solution to the problem? The Jimmy Carteresque response of windfall profits taxes, put on a sweater, and drive 55?
Personally I am against windfall taxes and don't think that they would be effective at reducing the cost to the consumer (among other flaws.) However I do keep my house a bit on the chilly side in the winter and although I own 3 vehicles I take the bus a lot and ride my bicycle. So far this year I've been averaging about one tank of gas(~14 gallons) per month.
I am not against tapping domestic supplies provided it is done in a manner that minimizes environmental degradation. I'm not a big fan of tar sands--having seen them in person in Alberta.
Nuclear will return. We have the technology to execute that safely and we should.
Ethanol is downright stupid. The energy cost to produce it is nearly the same as the energy in the amount produced. I would also like to see all agricultural subsidies go away.
We clearly cannot meet our oil demand by tapping the domestic supply, so we will remain exposed to the global market. I think that we should try to reduce that exposure through a combination of measures. Utilizing what domestic supply we have certainly should be a part of that strategy. So should "green" power sources and nuclear. The part where we may disagree is that I think reducing demand should also be a part of that picture. Much can be done to improve efficiency and there is a huge potential to save there. Improving efficiency through technology will can also generate domestic jobs.
I have modified my behavior to reduce my consumption, and thus reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I think that is patriotic. I didn't do it because big government told me to and I would oppose any mandates as such. Unfortunately for every person trying to reduce their footprint, there is another still driving around in an H2 "because they can." The market will continue to shake out excessive consumption as we have seen recently.
Make no mistake--we will (de facto) run out of oil probably in my lifetime. I have no doubt by that time we will have tapped every conceivable source. The further along down the road of adapting to life without cheap oil the better off we (and our future generations) will be. Conversely if we don't adapt enough in time, the pain will be monumental.
Posted by: Dantzler on June 23, 2008 12:55 PM