OT:<<Until a short time ago oil prices were reasonable and neither republicans nor democrats called for an energy
policy other than Gore>>
If you believe that, you believe Gore also invented the internet and the SPR...
There are 2 main components to the current energy crisis:
1) Neglect of the oil infrastructure, specifically lack of U.S. refinery capacity. There has been a steady decline in the number of refineries in the U.S. since the Clinton/Gore administration began in 1992 (see link)
contraryinvestor.com
The main reason for this is Gore's expansion of EPA regulations on refinery operations, as well as restrictions on transport and storage. It therefore became uneconomical for "Big Oil" to spend it's (rapidly dwindling) capital on projects like refineries that would be subjected to increasing cost from litigation and uncertainty over how much more would be piled on in the future. There WAS criticism of these policies, specifically by Republicans and more specifically, by Oil Patch region Republicans. I won't even get into this administrations policies toward nuclear energy or in opposing expansion of electrical power generation capacity. I ask you, who does the Secretary of the DOE (the person and agency responsible for maintaing policies designed to insure the infrastructure was stable and adequate) report to? It sure wasn't Newt Gingrich, and it DEFINITELY wasn't GW Bush or Cheney!!!
2. Neglect of efforts to stabilize the oil price cycle. A national gas tax, which would have dampened consumption in 1997 to 1999, would have been the perfect vehicle. Gore has long publically stated he wants higher energy prices (unless they occur while he's running for office!). Since taking office, he's waffled on the gasoline tax issue and done NOTHING to push it, even when prices were at inflation adjusted lows from '97 to '99. In his book, he advocates taxes to raise the price of oil and encourage development of alternative fuels. IMO, a good idea, as long as some of the profits are directed to maintaining drilling efforts (i.e, in the form of tax credits for drillers) when oil prices are low during times of reduced demand. These taxes also should be reversible at times of higher energy demand and/or price spikes, for reasons that have become quite evident now in Europe. However, he never pushed the policy to the point of meaningful legislation, despite being in an excellent position to do so. Why? BECAUSE ITS NOT POPULAR! (God forbid he ever display any foresight or backbone in taking on an unpopular though prudent policy initiative!)
As far as not proceeding with drilling in Alaska and off the California coast "cause it will be 10 years before we see the oil", well, that's just the kind of thinking that has led us to shortages, wouldn't you say? If Gore is president, it can only hurt as he's been a vocal opponent of developing oil fields that we know are productive. I contend that in 10 years we'll need the oil more desparately than you could possibly imagine! Worldwide oil production will peak within the next 10 years. All the while, demand by China, by 3rd world countries, and by Latin America is steadily increasing, they have to to grow their economies out of poverty. All the MORE reason to proceed with expanded drilling programs, and the sooner the better. While a recession is likely (indeed, iminent) the lag times of oil production mandate foresight and initiative. Bush has those qualities (well, at least the people around him do) and Gore IMO does not. |
