A Blob of Contention

I realize that the meandering post below is not as cohesive as was desired when I first began the ramble, but, perhaps there are a few things within that make sense.

Somewhere between "Drill Baby, Drill" and "The TreeHuggers Lament" is a balance that should define our approach to energy.  We are responsible for being good stewards of the resources of this planet.  That includes our environment and all of the things encompassed by that word -- plants, animals, water, soil, air, etc.

Stewardship implies use.  It does not mean that we "preserve" something at the cost of humanity.

The basic issue upon which the dichotomous views toward energy development turn is that of a human-centric view of the world versus one in which humanity has no value greater than any other thing -- at least on the surface.  In reality, it is a much more elitist view.  Those who would have you think that humanity has no greater value than anything else hold themselves at a much higher value than others.  In other words, it is a purely self-centric view.  It is a view that one group, those who worship the earth, are of greater value than those who do not.

Among those who value humanity above other things, there is also a division in views.  There is a split between those whose view is very near-term (usually no greater than a few days at the least or their own lifetime at the most) and those who take a generational view -- one that includes a responsible attitude that extends beyond their own lifetime.  Again, it is a difference between those who are self-centered and those who look beyond personal self-interests.

Ultimately, the division is between those who are purely self-seeking and those who feel a responsibility beyond self.

In the end, an attitude that is purely centered on self will result in destruction because there is no building for the future.  The extension of this philosophy of life would logically indicate that self-serving attitudes result in the destruction of the family, the country and ultimately, humanity.

The instinct for self-preservation, should at some point, trigger a cooperative effort.  For the individual whose view is of long periods of time, this point is reached quickly.  For those whose focus is in the immediate, this view is not reached until faced with chaotic, destructive forces beyond their control.

Applying this train of thought to our national situation we should become aware of a couple of things.  First, the focus on immediate gratification in our society would imply that, as a nation, we have a very short-term view.  Second, the acquisitive nature of our society would imply a highly self-centered attitude is the norm.  When taken together, these two factors alone indicate the source of our headlong rush to destruction.

So, how does this apply to energy policy?

At both ends of the spectrum we see self-interest as the driving force, although among the "treehuggers" it is disguised in the rhetoric of something else.  Each of these interests are pulling in opposite directions.  Normally, when you have forces pulling in opposite direction it is accompanied by a ripping sound.

On the one hand is the drive to "preserve" and on the other the desire to develop.  In the end, the balance would be responsible development with an extended view that looks to future generations.

I am a firm believer in the free market.  I think that if allowed to work without interference, the market will ultimately achieve balance.  We do not have a free market.  We have energy subsidies on the one hand and we have burdensome "environmental" regulations on the other.

Subsidies can be a useful policy tool.  When used properly with a view to national security interests, they can drive behavior in a manner that protects the interests of the nation.  When used improperly, they can lead to corruption.

"Environmental" regulations also can be a useful tool.  They should protect the interests of the whole so that "bad" individual behavior is corrected.  Clean air, clean water and safe products are in the best interests of the nation.  There is a tremendous "health cost" burden when such are not available.  This "health cost" is both direct (medical bills) and indirect (lost productivity or individual impairment).

Nation-states were formed when individuals of common interest banded together for protection.  Always, there was a cost to personal freedom and a gain to personal preservation.  It was a balance between individuals of competing interests.  The same balance applied between different nation-states.

Energy production must achieve a balance between competing interests (the present versus the future) that maximizes the benefit for all -- both today and in future generations.  The answer is not wind or solar.  The answer is not in fossil fuels alone.  The answer is probably not nuclear.  The answer will be in new technologies.  In the interim however, we will cross the bridge that is composed of all of the available technologies into a future that we would not recognize if we were suddenly transported in time to that far off day -- given of course that there are still humans left alive to experience it.

Meanwhile, the "Blob of Contention" between current and future needs drifts aimlessly in the Gulf of Mexico.

Energy -- Let It Flow

While Congress continues to do battle over the energy crisis, private industry is stepping up with projects that will help more than anything Congress can do. The best place to start is to get oil into our refineries and to turn it into gasoline. Canadian oil is a good potential source. Too bad the refineries are a long way south of there.

When will the Democrats learn that a free market is the best solution to our energy woes? Instead, they want to penalize investors who see energy as an opportunity. Go figure....

What we really need is a plan to get off of high center and become Energy Independent.

Inflation or Fuel Surcharge?

Inflation? We don't have inflation. What we have is a fuel cost surcharge rippling through our economy. It affects the price of everything.

What can be done about it? Produce more energy -- quickly. The law of supply and demand are immutable in spite of what the Democrats tell you. We can work on both sides of the equation -- for that's what it is. Price is set based on the equilibrium point of supply and demand. Taxes and regulations artificially raise that point. The most efficient mechanism for determining price is a free market.

We need to learn to conserve and we need to produce more energy. The quickest way to drive down energy prices is to glut the market with an abundant supply of energy. All forms of energy are affected but the one on every one's mind right now is the price of gasoline. We need more oil and we need it quickly.

Most of the oil rigs available are being used currently. We need more rigs and we need them working now -- on the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR and anywhere else where there are untapped reserves.

Let's wean ourselves from foreign oil. Let's establish our Energy Independence. Join Senator John Cornyn in his efforts.

Related: U.S. Senator John Cornyn has posted a guest post at RedState.

Pelosi's "Strategic" Solution to Fuel Prices

Maybe I'm confused in my understanding of the word "strategic," but it seems to me that if there was ever a time to have the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) full it is now. When we look at the turmoil in the Middle East, the surging demand for petroleum by China and the potential for supply disruptions throughout the world by terrorists -- not to mention the roadblocks to increased production that are being erected by the Democrats in Congress, this is the time to be certain we have a supply of oil to meet critical needs in the event of a major catastrophe. Yet Nancy Pelosi in all her wisdom wants to draw down the SPR to alleviate gasoline prices but is unwilling to support increased production domestically. Whose side is she on anyway?

Cornyn Enjoys Significant Lead in Poll

U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has demonstrated strong leadership in border security/immigration issues, energy production to ease our dependence on foreign oil, taking care of our military and their families and in promoting high ethical standards for members of Congress. In spite of -- or perhaps because of --his efforts in the service of his constituency which shares those same values, the Democrats have painted a large bullseye on his back. Their recruit for those purposes is a seemingly confused Rick Noriega.

In spite of their efforts, Senator Cornyn continues to enjoy a significant lead according to the latest Rasmussen poll. There will be continued attacks from the left, but the voters of Texas are usually fairly astute at seeing through the smoke screen.

Energized About Energy

Sometimes you can pick out the "hot spot" in U.S. politics with ease. It doesn't mean that anything will be accomplished, but lots of hot air rising can give clues to the perceived point of pain. In this case, the pain is at the pump and is hopefully being passed on to elected representatives in the form of "do something or I might actually vote for someone who will..." threats of action.

So, will anything come out of the rhetoric? Don't count on it. At best, expect a short-term band-aid to hide the "ouch" -- not a long-term fix that goes to the root of the problem. We are such a short-sighted nation that we often treat with aspirin the headache that pains us rather than pulling out the spike that is causing the headache in the first place. If only we could use that "hot air" to turn a turbine we might at least cut the energy bill for D.C. residents....

Politcal Cornpone

Corn has always been a part of politics. It is something that the voting public has come to expect. It is also about the gentlest description used for what sometimes comes out of the mouths of those running for public office.

This year it has taken on a new meaning. The powerful lobbies behind the ethanol industry are heavily involved in attempts to influence the race for the Presidency. That seems interesting to me considering the fact that many ethanol plants are only marginally profitable and others have sold recently due to lack of profitability. Still others have delayed plans to build more plants or to expand existing capacity due to lack of profitability.

So, who is behind the lobby groups? Could it be the large agricultural interests that are reaping the benefits from $8 corn?

I am happy to see farmers realizing the benefits of high corn prices. I'm much less excited about the impact that those same high corn prices are having on other things such as food prices and livestock feed. I'm irritated that we are supporting those prices with tariffs against importing less expensive sugarcane-based ethanol produced in Brazil. I am angry that we are propping up the domestic ethanol industry which is damaging the livestock industry, raising fuel prices and negatively impacting food prices with a $0.54/gallon subsidy. This is not energy security. This is tax-and-spend politics in a different form.

The Equivalent of War

Resolving the perceived energy crisis will be one of the primary areas of focus for the next President. How that resolution is approached will have profound impact on many generations to come. Do we focus on reducing energy consumption? Do we penalize certain forms of energy? Do we allow environmental concerns to dictate policy at the expense of economic and security issues? How do we pay for government energy initiatives? How do we alleviate the burden of high energy costs on the American taxpayer?

Currently, a staggeringly large amount of U.S. productivity is spent obtaining oil from other countries. We have financed some of the most anti-U.S. governments on the planet through our energy dollars. Through some of those governments we have financed the very terrorists that have attacked us. The very terrorists who draw us into military operations that further drain our treasury. Even when we choose not to purchase petroleum directly from terrorist sponsors, our purchase of foreign oil frees those countries to sell to others who have less compunction against sponsoring terrorism.

We must become energy independent. How? We sent our first rocket to the moon as the result of a focused effort to do so. Let's focus on becoming energy independent. We can do so by implementing a comprehensive plan of 1) utilizing existing reserves of petroleum and coal products, 2) developing new forms of energy, 3) encouraging the expansion of renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, 4) building safe and efficient nuclear power plants. 5) Implementing and encouraging conservation strategies.

All of these things can be done with proper attention to environmental concerns. Such attention is NOT preservation at all costs. It IS conservation and protection of critical species and habitat. There is a difference. We MUST be good stewards of the resources at our disposal. It is prudent for our security and our future.

Our next President and Congress have a big job ahead of them. It will require wisdom -- not just the empty promise of change for the sake of change. It will require a comprehensive marshaling of our resources as a nation and the equivalent of war on a task which is critical to our future. It requires vision and experience. It must be conducted in a manner that alleviates the stifling burden to productivity that is borne by the taxpayers of this country. It cannot be at the expense of enslaving them to the extreme beliefs of the privileged few.

More on Drilling the Outer Continental Shelf

Drilling the outer continental shelf for oil seems on the surface to be a simple, quick-fix approach to alleviating gasoline prices. According to this article from Forbes, it will not be quick and it is certainly not simple.

Both Senator McCain and President Bush this week have called for opening the outer continental shelf to drilling. It may be somewhat disingenuous at this point in the election cycle. It is unlikely that sufficient votes can be garnered to pass any comprehensive energy legislation prior to the election.

If the area was open for drilling, it would be good for the U.S. consumer. In the short-term, we could see a decline in oil prices due to a relaxing of speculative pressure. However, it is unlikely that any decline would be sustainable due to the longer term supply and demand issues faced. The big benefit to the U.S. consumer would be in the revenue generated from such leases. A large portion of it would find its way into government coffers -- either at the federal or state level. The big issue there is how will it be utilized. If it does become a reality, let's hope that it isn't just a new way for government to grow. Let's use it to offset other taxes or possibly to pay down debt. Reducing debt reduces the annual interest bill that we are paying on that debt. Either way, the taxpayer wins.

Africa Should Be Feeding Itself

The amount of arable land in Africa is sufficient for feeding the people of that continent. According to the FAO, only 14% of Africa's arable land is under cultivation. So, what's the problem?

The first is good governance. Until there is a stable political environment in the various countries on the continent, there can be no long-term effort to alleviate the other issues that are faced.

The second is infrastructure. Much of Africa remains barely accessible by road and rail. Many of the roads are not all-weather surfaces and thus subject to seasonal usage. Grain handling facilities are inadequate. Water resources for irrigation are non-existent. Produce is generally brought to local markets and not easily transported to population centers.

The third is dependence on foreign aid. The problem with the aid is that it has been misdirected. The misdirection takes two forms. One is that corrupt officials sometimes seek to profit from the aid. The second is that it is a band-aid approach -- treating the symptoms and not the causes. The aid needs to be in the form of technical assistance to develop good governance and the necessary infrastructure for the country. It also should be targeted at developing farming technology suitable to local conditions and the necessary systems to move produce to market. Humanitarian aid will be necessary until Africa can feed itself.

The fourth major issue is outside interference. This often takes the form of political pressure from governments seeking access to natural resources such as oil. However, of greater concern to the local people are pressures from environmental and other do-good groups to "preserve" large tracts of land that could be feeding people. There is a need for good conservation measures and the preservation of bio-diversity, however, the needs of the people should be weighed in any measure aimed at soothing the misguided souls who would sacrifice the people of Africa to assuage their feelings of guilt over their Western lifestyle. It is a "we-got-ours" but "you-can't-have-yours" approach.

Africa needs to build on the resources of the continent. Land for agriculture is number one. Instead, many African leaders see a panacea by leap-frogging into a more industrialized economy. They need to capitalize on what they have first and then build from that.

There are many other issues. The above list is merely the beginning.

Texas RR Commissioner Williams Speech

Wow! I wish I had heard this speech in person. It was given by Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams at the Texas Republican Party Convention. It is a little over 20 minutes in length but well worth it. He expresses why I consider myself a Republican. You can see the video here. He gets my vote.

McCain's Address on Energy

Yesterday, Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for President, spoke on the issue of energy security for this nation's future. It may well be the most important issue to be faced by the next President. It is an issue that calls for ingenuity, entrepreneurship and solid business acumen. It is not an issue that can be addressed with taxes, litigation and wealth redistribution. Energy cost is the single biggest factor distressing our economy today. Until we address the supply problems it will not get better. A transcript of the Senator's speech is here.

Defeat of the Tax and Sue Democratic Scheme

It was gratifying to see the Dem's plan to tax windfall profits of oil companies go down to defeat today. It was such an amazingly misguided approach to "fix" high gasoline prices that I'm surprised they weren't laughed out of town. Sadly, that seems to always be the approach of the party of the Candidate of Change. We need to work on the supply side as well as to use common sense methods of husbanding existing resources wisely. Developing new energy resources is definitely something that needs done -- just not through ill-conceived tax-and-spend schemes.

Dem's Windfall Profit Idiocy

The proposed windfall profits tax on the oil industry is very worrisome to me. First, it penalizes domestic companies while doing nothing to foreign companies. Second, it places in the hands of government the determination of what is a reasonable profit, Third, it discourages domestic oil exploration, Fourth, it doesn't address the real problems -- increasing supply and removing the Renewable Fuels Standards (ethanol mandates).

How could we as a nation have allowed such foolhardy thinking to represent our interests in the Senate and House? Not only is the Democratic leadership in Congress pushing such ill-considered action -- reminiscent of the failed economic policies of the Carter administration -- but their chosen candidate for President is supportive of those same policies. What in their proposal does anything for gasoline prices at the pump? Nothing. In fact, the likely outcome will be that prices increase further.

The Backward Party for America's Demise

How totally backward is the thinking of the Democratic party. Unemployment numbers rise so they want to increase unemployment benefits. Increasing the benefits makes it easier for people to stay unemployed. What they need to do is focus on jobs. Instead, they are talking about increasing taxes on businesses -- that way the businesses can't afford to hire anyone. They especially want to hit the oil companies. What they need to do is make permanent the Bush tax cuts (stimulate business activity), get rid of the Renewable Fuels Standard (oil prices/gasoline prices), open ANWR and the outer Continental Shelf to drilling and cut government spending. They have it completely backward.

What is the Top Issue of the Campaign?

I've said it before, it's the economy. Not everyone agrees though that the economy will be the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential race. Some believe it is the candidate's positions on Iraq that will be the deciding factor. What is going on in Iraq has profound consequences for our economy. They are deeply interconnected.

I don't believe in wars for purely economic reasons unless they are a matter of survival. But, think of what happens if we pull all of our troops home. Does it have an impact on unemployment? Does it have an impact on jobs in the defense related industries? What about oil prices? Will a politically unstable Iraq be good for oil prices? The situation isn't great now but it is improving. What happens if we pull out before they can stand on their own? Will we be handing them over to Iran? It is very difficult to separate the issues.

The people in the U.S. want to see something done about the price of gasoline. They want their heating and cooling costs to come down. This fall, they will ultimately decide based on their perception of which candidate is best for their pocketbook. Every other issue will be secondary.

A New Refinery Closer to Reality

It has been 32 years since a new oil refinery was built in the U.S. We are struggling with high gasoline prices. Rural communities are dying for lack of jobs. Yet, when a company attempts to build a new refinery that utilizes Canadian tar sands instead of Middle Eastern oil, they face an uphill battle. What is wrong with this picture?

China's Drive for Energy

Energy is the currency of the world economy. The growth of China has been one of the driving forces behind the surge in energy costs throughout the world. They are working to secure their energy future by various means -- including the development of oil resources in Africa. In the U.S. we, sometimes at least, speak of moral responsibility that comes along with treating with foreign governments. China isn't hindered by such thoughts. Should they be?