There has been much debate in the U.S. presidential campaign about which of America’s enemies the next president should deign to talk to. The real story, the next president may discover, though, is how few countries are waiting around for America to call. It is hard to remember a time when more shifts in the global balance of power are happening at once – with so few in America’s favor.
Let’s start with the most profound one: More and more, I am convinced that the big foreign policy failure that will be pinned on this administration is not the failure to make Iraq work, as devastating as that has been. It will be one with much broader balance-of-power implications – the failure after 9/11 to put in place an effective energy policy.
It baffles me that President Bush would rather go to Saudi Arabia twice in four months and beg the Saudi king for an oil price break than ask the American people to drive 55 miles per hour, buy more fuel-efficient cars or accept a carbon tax or gasoline tax that might actually help free us from, what he called, our “addiction to oil.”
The failure of Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world – the U.S. economy – to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states – from Russia to Venezuela to Iran – that are reshaping global politics in their own image.
Economically feasible alternatives to petroleum are, at the moment, either dirty (coal), of questionable value (food for fuel), or politically incorrect (nuclear). Solar and geothermal are promising but not yet ready. By all means, let’s work on them. But in the meantime, Congress and the green lobbies need to look at the mess they’ve made. We need increased domestic oil production, we need more refineries, and we need to be licensing nuclear power plants. Technological advances in the past thirty years, while America dawdled, make these reasonable and sensible things to do.
As to fuel efficiency, people are going to do drive less and buy smaller engines anyhow with the high gasoline prices. Carbon taxes are a revenue scheme, not a solution.
Right on, Katherine!
“Bush’s magic wand recalled by Ollivanders”
This person has no concept of how the US political system works. Or the world economy.
Supply and demand. If we produce more supply, then the price will go down. The US can do this by drilling domestically and building more refineries.
Yes, this will take time to come on line, but it’s a good, workable solution. If we had done this 10 years ago when first proposed, we would not be in this situation today.
developing Alternative forms of energy is also a good idea, but it, too, is long term rather than an immediate solution, and not in any way, shape or form viable RIGHT NOW.
Jim Elliott
#4 LJ You nailed it. Congress can’t stand up to the NIMBY crowd they rather demonize big oil, as they did yesterday.
Katherine….
Our long term goals thirty years ago should have been precisely what you have suggested. Alternative energy sources and a public relations campaign to help the general public get the vision for energy independence. There simply has been no sense of urgency as the ’71 fuel crisis, and the clear signal the Japanese sent when introducing their automobiles to our economy, did not light a fire under anyone, except perhaps those who would be viewed as fringe fanatics. What the left has been saying about the preservation of natural resources, albeit to the detriment of livelihood for some an inconvenience to others, is another example of a sign misread and reacted upon. Good stewardship is not the rape and pillage of natural resources but the shrewd and clever use of them. But it is also a reordering of priorities, a re-habituation of a sort from profligacy to a willingness to keep national economic “growth” in balance with depleting resources of all kinds. I am sure there is more depth and erudition in the insights of others in these difficult matters. To them I defer.
Timothy
I’dlike to see this exchange:
Oil Exec: I’d like to ask a question: how many currently serving congressional representatives and/or senators have OPPOSED funding for alternate energy sources or blocked the installation of the same because it would block their view of the ocean? Or how many of these people still drive SUV’s, fly private jets, and operate homes over 4,000 square feet? How many operate their homes by solar and wind systems? If y’all are serious about alternate sources of energy, please show this by your example first!
Over seven years ago, when President Bush was putting together his Energy Policy we built our solar house and had it first placed on the National Mall to show that solar homes were not only possible and potentially available, but that they could be built in an affordable way. EPA Administrator Christy Todd Whitman, three Senators and seven US Congressmen came by to visit the house. The house even appeared in Bush’s energy plan before we moved it to western Loudoun County and moved in summer, of 2001.
After living in the house for over six years we sold it at the end of 2007 and made more than a 20% return on investment on the funds we put into the solar and energy-efficient equipment. Furthermore, much of the cost was financed by the bank in our mortgage and the increased mortgage payments covered by the energy savings. This should have been a no-brainer for the Bush administration to promote, but as everything regarding energy policy in this administration opportunities have been lost.
Not only did we live in this solar house for most of George Bush’s Administration, but we have also driven hybrid automobiles, also financed with payments offset largely by fuel savings, since 2000. It would not have taken a lot of imagination by our Federal Government to accelerate these technologies as part of America’s absolute need to be energy independent. So forgive me if I get a little wrangled by comments made here on this blog site that solar and alternative energy are not quite ready for prime time.
After working for a not-for-profit environmental company in Washington, DC, we moved to Georgia, to take a job in the for-profit sector, because it became obvious that nothing was ever going to be done on a national scale to promote changing how we build our homes, or how Detroit makes its cars.
I have been a Republican for most of my life, but George Bush’s absolute failure to put together any real energy policy for this country has caused me pause to question whether the Republican Party is capable of protecting this country. Not that the Democrats are any better. However, I fear that George Bush has severely hurt this country by not aggressively seeking to make us more energy independent. If McCain can pledge to make this country energy independent, I could support the Republican Party again.