Sometimes you've got to wonder about the brain trust that runs our country, and the free enterprise buccaneer's who reward themselves so richly for their strategic prowess.
Take for example the blather of recent weeks about opening drilling offshore and in ANWAR, and opening other interior lands to further exploration. Not that we don't need the oil, but....let's de-construct the argument.
Everybody seems to grasp that this is not a short term solution, inasmuch as little, if anything, is likely to come on stream until five to eight years out. And it's not a long term solution, because nothing suggests that at our current rate of consumption, even allowing for conservation measures offsetting the demands of continued growth, we'd buy much more than another decade, maybe two.
If I were a jingoistic, America-First-er, and if I were a true conservative of the native garden variety as compared to the neo-Con posers, the last thing that I'd want to do is to tap into the so called low hanging fruit in ANWAR and off-shore until I had satisfied myself of two premises:
1- that I have the technology in place to replace oil when I need to, before I need to; and
2- that all those vast reserves of oil in Canada's tar sands and the western states' oil shale is truly recoverable at acceptable environmental and economic costs.
Until I knew the answer to those two questions, I would want to keep our reserves......reserved; and buy on the open market, as long as there is one, and let the higher prices do what pricing is supposed to do in a so-called rational, market driven economy -- ration resources consistent with supply and demand.
That gets us to the intermediate term feasibility, where a number of interesting questions arise.
The first involves the assertion that the oil companies are seeking further leases while they have yet to fully exploit the ones they have. In fairness to the oil companies, there may be more to this than meets the eye; but on the surface, the implication is a motivation on the part of the Oils to hoard resources from the market. Certainly not conducive to the highest principles of competition. It suggests a land grab, somewhat reminiscent of Mr. Cheney's Iraq adventure.
But let's play along for the sake of discussion and say that we permit exploitation in the name of 'national energy independence'. I haven't heard any government or political or business leaders describe exactly what that would mean. Does it mean that we would explore, and exploit, and withhold from the world market any resulting product for exclusive use in the US? If we did that, how would such 'oil nationalism' be viewed in the rest of the world, particularly among our 'allies' and our current suppliers? What would be the unintended consequences, or blow-back, from that strategy of energy self-dealing?
Alternatively, and more likely, would the same Sunshine Capitalists who cry for access to the offshore assets in the name of national economic security then turn around, once granted access, and sell it to the highest offshore bidder in the name of "competitive free enterprise"? Would we do for the Chinese with Atlantic Coast oil what we did for the Japanese with the North Slope oil? Are we being invited to observe yet another game of Three Card Monty. The economic elite will of course deny this, today. Just as they assured us two years ago that 'there would be no real estate bubble; there is no problem with sub-prime lending; and who needs to regulate the hedge funds? The investors are all big boys and girls who know what they're doing...Bear Sterns, Citigroup, Lehman and all'!
Hold on to your wallets, and oil your bicycle.
* * *
Speaking of which, another revelation in the past week: GM has noticed a dip in truck and large vehicle sales. Given that the US auto industry hasn't learned a blessed thing from the Japanese in nearly thirty years, even with the US government holding the Japanese with one arm behind their back, it was truly refreshing to see the US auto makers fathom the impact of higher gas prices with such lightning speed,... after three years of dramatic increases. But fear not. GM's Volt will set it free in another two years, just as hybrids are helping us turn the corner on high oil prices, over the next twenty years at their current rate of production. Does GM know how to make....buses?
* * *
Meanwhile, I notice that my neighbor has a nice pile of firewood waiting to be stacked. Something I haven't seen in my New England community for several years except among the few stalwarts. But news reports confirm that more people are turning back to wood as an answer to oil. As this solution gains momentum, the next news report will acknowledge the problem that will inevitably emanate from it: greater contribution to global warming. This supports my thesis that the energy crisis will assure the escalation of Climate Change to its higher projected trajectories, because we will cling to the energy demands of our current way of life before the consequences of that choice thrust themselves upon us, and Inconvenient Truths become Irrefutable Realities. The July 4th edition of the ODAC newsletter seems to confirm this.
* * *
The unfortunate truth in all the recent energy news, and the broader economic news that is evolving from it, is that none of our leaders are telling us what we need to hear in explicit, concrete terms: We are beginning a prolonged period of profound economic and social change which will render much of our current economic structure obsolete, and will require painful personal sacrifice, and wise community investment if we are to sustain the personal and civic values that we claim to hold most dear. The thrills are gone, and soon so will be the frills. It is time for our country and its people to mature, or to accept our self-relegation to second world status.
Onward.
Comments