April 21, 2008
Pissed at the pump? Blame Democrats
I attended the Passover Seder at my mother's house, and as we cleaned up after the last of the guests had left, the talk turned to politics (what a shock, I know).
My mother is a life-long Democrat, a depression-era kid who believes that all that is good in America began with FDR. She works as a substitute teacher in the L.A. Mummified Unified School District, believes in the "Global Warming Crisis," and cannot fathom how she produced a son who dropped out of high school to serve in Reagan's military, drives a big truck, likes to shoot and hunt, and has a hard time deciding if he prefers the taste of veal to spotted owl or bald eagle.
We don't agree on much.
As is often the case, Mom complains about some form of economic burden under which she chafes, leaving me an opening to point out that the relief she seeks is blocked by her beloved Democratic Party.
Mom, Bob and I stood in the kitchen, chatting, the conversation turning at one point to talk of the high price of gas, with She Who Gave Me Life (and reminds me constantly of that fact) griping about how much it cost to fill the tank of her car.
I pointed out to Mom -- as I have to you, dear readers -- that America has done precious little to increase the domestic supply of oil, other than blaming oil companies for allegedly earning "obscene" profits at our expense.
Democrats refuse to open off-limits areas in the U.S. to drilling, preferring to complain about our dependence on foreign oil and recruiting disgruntled voters via expensive, gasoline-fueled class warfare.
National Review's Deroy Murdock agrees, although I suspect even he couldn't have changed Mom's mind.
[Congress should a]pprove new Alaskan oil drilling already. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s pertinent parcel covers just 2,000 acres — a veritable raindrop in the Olympic swimming pool that is Alaska’s 365-million-acre territory. ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels could match or replace for 19 years the 1.5 million barrels of Saudi oil that America imports daily.
ANWR also could equal or provide a substitute for American purchases of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s oil for 25 years. Interestingly enough, Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), who presided over the House’s late-March public dunking of top petroleum executives, applauds former Rep. Joe Kennedy’s (D., Mass.) program to provide poor people with Venezuela’s anti-American heating oil.
One year’s worth of Chavez’s authoritarian charity equals just one day’s worth of ANWR’s all-American output. Guess which one enjoys the approval of the chairman of the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee?
[...]
I welcome the day when planes, trains, and automobiles can operate on fuel squeezed from shredded junk mail and pulverized rap CDs. Such alternative sources will deliver minimal benefits . . . eventually. The International Energy Agency’s 2007 World Energy Outlook forecasts that fossil fuels will still generate 82 percent of Earth’s energy in 2030, with 9 percent from biomass. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other renewable sources will satisfy just 2 percent of demand. Refined petroleum propels vehicles today, and yet oil languishes beneath our sovereign soil, even as Americans go jobless and our republic meanders into recession.Will we finally grow up and harness our resources, or will we childishly weep over imaginary threats to wildlife, dispatch supertankers of cash to the Middle East, and watch our petrodollars sponsor bomb belts and exploding aircraft?
Merely asking this question illustrates how desperately this nation needs adult supervision.
Murdock puts the screws to those "obscene" profits the Dems like to talk about, noting that when a fair-minded observer compares Exxon's costs, the company's profit margin is about 10 percent, decent, but nothing like Coca-Cola's 20.7-percent profit margin, or Bill Gates' Microsoft, turning a 27.5-percent profit -- but that's okay, because Gates believes in Global Warming and gives to the "right" charities.
If the Democrats really cared about the poor, oppressed, downtrodden working stiffs, they'd do something to free us from our dependence on foreign oil -- like tap our enormous domestic oil reserves and build the refineries to turn the crude into gas.
But that's such a ... conservative solution. It's so much more satisfying to knock capitalism, evil corporations and the GOP.
What was it Murdock said?
Will we finally grow up and harness our resources, or will we childishly weep over imaginary threats to wildlife, dispatch supertankers of cash to the Middle East, and watch our petrodollars sponsor bomb belts and exploding aircraft?
Merely asking this question illustrates how desperately this nation needs adult supervision.
You can say that again, Bub.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 21, 2008 06:42 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
While I agree that domestic green politics have accentuated the short term rise in fuel costs, the real culprit, however, is international demand for increasingly scare oil. In the long run "green politics" and practicality will merge into the inevitable conclusion that the United States needs to do everything possible to move away from foreign oil.
The U.S. should develop Anwar and every other domestic source of oil in the short term. That's where the Republicans have it right. The country should also develop light water nuclear reactors like those in France. On the other hand, the Democrats are far more in tune than the Republicans with developing a national strategy to move the country away from foreign oil. This is a critical national security issue.
When you look at the interplay between supply and demand, the problem here is more demand-oriented. A number of leading commodity experts now discuss the "Hubbert's Peak" theory regarding the reality that we have reached the peak of world oil production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) If correct, the U.S. will be in for a very rough ride if no real, dramatic efforts are made to diminish the country's dependence on foreign oil. Demand for scare oil will drive the cost of fuel, goods, services and food to frightening levels.
Another strategic reason to move the U.S. away from foreign oil is that oil-rich states are now nationalizing their production and pushing out American and European companies. This is true with Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria and others. Once allied against us, they will have the ability to use oil as a weapon.
Both political parties have their shortcomings when it comes to a national energy policy.
Posted by: Bill H at April 27, 2008 12:06 PM