 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Nigerian Terrorists Toast Obama | Main | Return of the iPod Tax » May 6, 2008Jay Leno Explains the Democrats' "Energy Policy"Thirteen years ago, the Republican-led Congress passed legislation to open a tiny sliver of frozen mud plain on Alaska's northern coast to oil drilling that would have given America access to an oil field with the equivalent of what we'll be importing from Saudi Arabia over the next 30 years. Democrat President Bill Clinton vetoed the legislation. Now, oil is $120 a barrel. And Democrats are still fighting every attempt to increase domestic oil production. That is why you are now paying close to $4 for a gallon of gas. [Hat tp: The Foundry] Posted in Energy
Comments
Amen, brother. Posted by: Webutante at May 6, 2008 10:16 AMEven worse is hillary's idea to eliminate the gas tax so people will use even more oil. when is the last time people used more of anything and the price went down? I'll skip the comment on her being blond. Posted by: jack sprat at May 6, 2008 10:59 AMsprat asks, "When is the last time people used more of anything and the price went down?" DVD players. Most consumer technology products, in fact. DVD players, as an example, cost more than a grand when they were first on the market, now you can get 'em for $39 at Wal-Mart. Why? Because mass adoption meant expansion of manufacturing and meant economies of scale kicked in. Why doesn't that work in the energy business? For one, we don't have a free market in energy. We have domestic special interest groups that have succeeded in getting Congress to put huge reserves of oil off limits to oil drilling. We have artificially constrained supply at the same time that demand has risen. In a free market, rising demand for oil would be sparking rising exploration for oil everywhere, including here in the U.S., and increased production would drive the price down. We used more and more oil in the 1980s and in about 1987 the price of oil dropped to $9 a barrel. Why? Because increased demand lead to increased production (and OPEC failed to sustain its control on supply.) If the U.S. were, tomorrow, to do the following things, I believe the Saudis would respond by immediately increasing production to drive the price below $70 a barrel: 1. Begin drilling in ANWR, and off our coasts. Of course, those are all fraught with political difficulty and special-interest obstacles, but they all would send a message to the Middle East oil producers that we're serious about increasing our own supply. They would see that as competition, and lower prices to slow our progress. Short term, we'd get the benefit of lower prices for imported oil, while long term we would increase our domestic supply. When oil hit $50 a barrel coal gassification became economically feasible and the synfuels project was going to provide some relief from the noose OPEC had around our necks. Realizing this OPEC dropped the price below market to kill off the synfuel program. All the watermelons and bought and paid for politicians in D.C. are waiting for the magic energy pill. It's not going to happen. The world energy requirements are 87% petroleum and as more countries like China come out of the dark ages that is going to increase. Jimmy Carter created the DOE to fix the problem of energy independence and in that time nothing has changed. Other than DOE throwing billions of dollars down black holes for the latest widget idea. We need to treat the energy problem for what it is, an issue of national security and life as we know it. Instead of beating around the political bush with the blame game, Congress needs to get down to business and see to it our energy resources are utilized for the citizenry. If we won't then you will see other countries like China begin hovering around the U.S. and start siphoning off our energy. Especially as newer technology is developed to sink wells in deeper water. One of the dumbest arguments I've heard against drilling in ANWAR: 'Well, if we started today oil wouldn't begin flowing for 5-10 years." OK morons, when did Bill Clinton veto the bill that would have allowed us to drill? Oil would have been flowing for several years now. We are entering a perfect economic storm and the watermelons and homegrown enemies of the U.S. who welcome chaos and anarchy are rejoicing at the possibility of this nation being crippled with the lunacy roaming the halls of Congress. George Bush has used national security as an excuse to disavow the Constitution so now maybe the time for him to declare a state of emergency and give the order to drill wells, build refineries and nuclear plants and to heck with the knuckleheads in Congress. Posted by: Rick Forman at May 7, 2008 12:51 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
