The Energy Follies 18 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Is everyone else finding this energy debate as depressing as I am?
In a tit-for-tat that now involves Paris Hilton, John McCain and Barack Obama have been going at each other over drilling and tire gauges. Meanwhile, the House Republicans are staging a '60s-style sit-in demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi reconvene the chamber so they can vote on more offshore drilling and a larger energy package. It's totally amusing, especially since oil prices are coming back down to earth. The whole debate has the feeling of a conversation that's coming too late, like you're at a dinner party and long after the discussion has moved from kids to care, you pipe up about little Johnny's school.
It's not that the energy problem is solving itself as prices come down. They're still high. We need a more coherent policy about our consumption of energy and it should be done in the context of climate change. But in some sense the problem has been self-correcting. Oil prices spiked through some combination of higher demand, speculation, and the like, and consequently demand, which was once considered inelastic, really did fall. People bought smaller cars, took the train, and otherwise adjusted to the new reality with greater haste than their political leaders.
Let's start with the Democrats. I'm not sure why they are demonizing drilling and oil, like it's disgusting, repulsive, and vile. I'm all for moving off of fossil fuels, which contribute to climate change, but for the time being we are kind of stuck using them and they do seem to, well, work, which is more than can be said of hydrogen cars. We import about 10 million barrels a day, and so it makes some sense to try and get more of our own. Is oil less disgusting if it comes from pals like Mexico and Scotland, or from petrodictatorships like Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, than if it's drilled off the coast of New Jersey?
Drilling has environmental risk, of course, but so does shipping large amounts of oil across the oceans. In fact, drilling rigs have a better environmental record than tankers. Obviously, new drilling needs to be done in a responsible way, but I can't see the Democrats' knee-jerk need to demonize a simple commodity.
In general, the McCain "all-of-the-above" approach makes more sense. He's basically for everything and unlike many in his party, actually recognizes climate change and favors regulating greenhouse gases. So he's for nuclear power, which has its obvious flaws, but it's carbon-friendly, produces lots of reliable power and has an impressive track record in France, which has come to rely on it for more than 70 percent of its power. Nuclear-waste storage is a real issue, but it's one that can be kicked down the road for decades or centuries when, I would bet, we will have figured out how to deal with its half-life. We need more of solar and wind, but we shouldn't pretend that lining the country with windmills is without an aesthetic or environmental cost either.
There's no form of energy that doesn't have some attendant risk and problem, so we might as well diversify as best we can as if it were a portfolio. I don't particularly want to live next to a nuke plant, but I don't particularly want to live next to a windmill either. I do like using my computer, running the air-conditioning on full blast, charging my cell and iPod, and living like a citizen of the 21st century. So maybe we should go for it all, as McCain advocates, including conserving where we can and, yes, keeping our tires inflated. If the Democrats look bizarre demonizing oil, the Republicans look idiotic passing out Barack Obama tire gauges after the soon-to-be-Democratic nominee called on folks to keep their tires fully inflated—something that Nascar and others have called for as well. There's no single answer here.
Meanwhile, the policy toward the oil companies seems ludicrous. It's nuts to want to give them additional tax breaks, but the Obama plan of hiking their taxes and giving away $1,000 per family seems like a ludicrous pander. Oil company stocks have come way down in recent weeks, and they're going to continue to fall. They get enough breaks as it is; they don't need more. But I don't see why a windfall profits tax makes more sense on them than say, a windfall profits tax on Apple. That's the change we need?
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 18 comments:
"I'm all for moving off of fossil fuels, which contribute to climate change, but for the time being we are kind of stuck using them...", so let's keep on drilling. 10-15 yrs until production on OCS/ANWR. For how long do you think we will be stuck with fossil fuels/when do you think alternatives will, well, work?
This is an investor's website. Is it? Is it rather an outlet for interest groups in disguise? This article is irrelevant to investors, it would be fine for a personal blog, but here it is misplaced.
> jack
Go To:
www.stopoilspeculation.../
Leave ethanol producers alone. The US based ethanol producers are helping to produce fuel that comes from US based farmers. You idiots who complain about high food prices have no idea about how the NYMEX, ICE, and other Commodity Exchanges are cheating consumers.
Also, The Navajo Nation wants the permits to build a coal-fired electric generating facility on their land and Governor Bill Richardson and other environmentalists are against the project. The Navajo people have said they will use clean coal technology for the project. This project will use US coal and provide US jobs. Do any of you think that this project will reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Finally, the recent vote on the energy bill, last week, in the US senate, was screwed up by Republicans. Don't blame Harry Reed or Nancy Pelosi. We have had 8 years of no energy policy and for 6 of those years, the Republicans had the majority and John McCain was one of them.
> jack
This energy cat has more ways to skin it than even a Politician could devise, but it will continue to hiss and spit and scratch until we're all back in the age of discovering fire.
We'd best invent the Talk-le-tron--hot air in one end, a light bulb in the other.
In reality, climate change has been going on far longer than humans have been on earth, and will continue long after we are gone, regardless of whether we drive SUV's and use hairspray.
What about tidal flow as proposed by ormondsurfer? The US has one heck of a lot of coast lines affected by tidal flows, something we do not have to import! Here again is someone thinking about; how to skin a cat a different way.
And where can I get more information from jjason about the Navajo Nation wanting to build a clean coal power plant but the politics of Richardson and others being against such a project?
I for one am a proponent of oil and natural gas for the short term, while we undertake a real PUSH towards multiple alternative sources towards energy independence.
While each one of us have our own "pet project" or idea we would like to see on the forefront of that effort, do each other a favor; educate one another! I'll tell you about the abundance of natural gas right here in the US, you tell me about your ideas on geothermal and so on. Our ideas combined make the entire effort towards energy independence move forward; then educate. Talk it up to your friends and co-workers and tell them how cool of an idea you read about a clean coal fired power plant, that may or may not be built and what they can do to help.
Let's work together.
Would you believe Hawaii--yes the state of--is in a crisis over the price of shipping oil to fire their electric generators, which has led to unsustainable electric rates.---while---
TB, wants to drill for geothermal--Hawaii never noticed that they're sitting on an "ACTIVE" volcano, that you don't have to drill for, it's spilling over in their laps!!
And the Surfer talks-"Tidal" they've got the biggest waves in the Country and they use them for--YEP!!---surfing.
What's wrong with this picture????
It's probably a good thing they do not have any coal!
Is there a reader from Hawaii out there that could shed some light on this discussion?
The consensus in the real world is an increasing inability of all oil-producers to meet the U.S.A's projected energy requirements.
I see a future where EVERY alternative energy posited today will find it's place, large or small, in our future world - especially if re-cycling is involved. Thieves, so in touch with commodity futures, will soon be switching from copper to waste vegetable oil I'm sure.
T.C.
Off the top I recall there is a "Natural Energy Lab" in Kona which was
birthed by the 70's oil scare. Last I looked, years ago there were a handful of aquaculture related ventures renting space as well as a spirulina producer. Not much energy though I suspect this may change. An article in West Hawaii a few months ago talked about an airfoil design wind generator being tested here.
There was a big push for geothermal power here on the big island back in the 70's. Lots of protest on native issues but significantly factored into the equation was a plan of cheap power being used to locate a smelter here in an ocean floor magneseum nodule mining scheme.
It's impossible to know how much this factored into the protest movement but my guess is it was significant. It is time to revisit the issue.
Solar seems the preferred path. Battery tech and expense were problematic but net metering has been an answer. I just did the math and we are paying 42 cents a kilowatt hour.
B