Wanted: A Sensible Energy Policy

Ryan Randazzo writes, in the Arizona Republic, that "people who pay $4 a gallon or more for gas on the way to the polls will likely be thinking of energy issues while in the voting booth."

You think?

Perhaps that's being a little sarcastic, although I must admit I'm getting tired of hearing people suggest that energy might be on voters' minds in November.

Actually, I believe energy should have been on their minds for the last 30 years.

I also believe that there's only one way that energy won't be on the voters' minds in November — but it would require another terrorist attack comparable to 9/11.

And I don't think anyone wants to see that.

(Although, if it does happen, I'd like to suggest something to George W. Bush: Don't encourage us to go shopping again. Encourage us to work together to declare our independence from foreign oil producers.)

But Randazzo does try to be constructive in his article, offering "some questions to help voters weigh the candidates on energy:"

1. Is the next president likely to enact energy legislation?


2. Why is there debate over drilling for oil off U.S. coasts and in Alaska?


3. Obama said McCain is focused on drilling because it "polls well." (Actually, Randazzo isn't asking a question with this one — I presume he's wanting both candidates to defend their positions on drilling.)


4. Will laws limiting the amount of greenhouse gases from power plants or cars make things more expensive?


5. Can't we use more U.S. coal?


6. Why not build more nuclear plants?

Some people seem to insist that the answer is more drilling. Short-term answer, maybe (provided, of course, you're willing to define "short-term" as roughly 10 years from now because that's how long most analysts believe it will be before these drilling ventures pay off). But it's not the long-term solution.

Still, it's clear that we need some sort of answer if we're going to try to bring the economy into some kind of state of equilibrium. The ripple effect is devastating.

"Airlines are cutting back on flights and services as higher fuel costs eat into declining revenues," writes Donald Lambro in the Washington Times. "Increased trucking costs are driving up the price of nearly everything that's shipped. Tighter budgets mean consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending. Retail sales barely budged last month, even despite government tax rebates."

The Times is one publication that appears to have bought into the argument that drilling can accomplish something almost immediately.

"[I]t's another left-wing lie that passing a drilling bill now would have no effect on today's oil prices," Lambro writes. "Just the act of declaring a pro-production oil and gas policy would 'send a message to the market and result in lower prices for oil and gas,' John McCain is telling voters on the stump."

This, in turn, would influence oil futures, Lambro says.

"International oil traders bet on what the world's supplies will be in the future because supply determines price. Increasing oil exploration and production will drive future prices down."

But it won't change the basic facts, which are:

• The supply of fossil fuels in the earth is limited.


• When the supply of fossil fuels runs out, the world will need a new source of energy. Clearly, that supply is starting to run out. And, just as clearly, there is no "next generation" energy source ready to take its place.


• Oil is not a renewable resource. Global demand continues to increase along with the world's population, but the amount of oil in the ground (the supply) remains the same as it's always been — except, of course, for that part of it that has already been extracted from the ground and used up. The traditional rules of supply and demand don't really apply.


• The United States does not control most of the parts of the world that have the richest oil deposits — therefore, the U.S. is in no position to dictate to anyone about the price of oil or production levels or anything else.

"The conventional wisdom says Democrats will likely make major gains in Congress in November," writes Lambro, "but they may not do as well as expected if the voters blame them for inaction on the biggest economic issue in the country."

With all due respect, Mr. Lambro, now is not the time for pointing fingers. Now is the time for our leaders to act like leaders and put the interests of America first.

Blaming Big Oil

In an editorial headlined "Obama's Dry Hole," the Wall Street Journal dismisses Barack Obama's argument that the oil companies have been stockpiling leases on federal lands to manipulate gas prices.

Obama alleges that "68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production" have gone untouched.

"[T[he notion is obviously false — at least to anyone who knows how oil and gas exploration actually works," the Wall Street Journal says.

Then it applauds "liberals" for "finally acknowledging the significance of supply and demand."

I don't know if the Wall Street Journal is just noticing this (as many on the right seem likely to act these days), but the law of supply and demand isn't being "finally" acknowledged.

It is one of many factors that thoughtful progressives see as important (along with the need for conservation, the sense of urgency for finding reliable and renewable sources of energy and other factors) in the energy debate.

But "supply and demand" seems to enter the conversation these days (on both sides) with the accompanying question about "Big Oil" and its alleged role in all this.

Well, if you're going to insist on pointing your finger at someone ...

Newsweek's Robert Samuelson suggests a new culprit — the speculators.

"A chorus of politicians, including John McCain, Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Lieberman, blames these financial slimeballs for piling into commodities markets and pushing prices to artificial and unconscionable levels," Samuelson writes.

"Gosh, if only it were that simple," he continues. "Speculator-bashing is another exercise in scapegoating and grandstanding. Leading politicians either don't understand what's happening or don't want to acknowledge their complicity."

All the proposals I've heard for dealing with today's energy crisis seem to be based on the belief that there is a quick-fix solution out there to the reality of a finite supply of fossil fuels.

Whether the proposal is for a windfall profits tax (the logic behind the tax suggests that big oil is manipulating supply to inflate price, but such a tax is likely to restrict production and produce much less revenue than predicted) or a summer "tax holiday" (which would provide minimal — and temporary — financial aid to the consumer — while forcing state governments to cut their workforce — along with some important road maintenance projects), none of the "solutions" I've heard address the real issue of long-term energy needs — including independence from foreign energy suppliers.

So I guess, as Samuelson writes, the speculators are next on the blame list.

Isn't it time for our politicians to speak in depth about a long-term answer? I don't expect anyone to have the answer. How do we find it? That's the kind of vision we seek from our leaders.

We need a strategy.