Loading ...
By BRIAN A. HOWEY
NASHVILLE, Ind. - When the Bush-Cheney Oil Presidency took office in 2001, the average price of gas in America was $1.47 a gallon. With gas predicted to go up to $1.70 a gallon after five months in office, President Bush said, "I worry about the fact that hard working people are paying high prices at the pump. It concerns me a lot. I also say we 
need to build more refining capacity. We need more supply."
As we observe Independence Day this weekend, few of us suspected that the Oil Presidency would give us $4.19 a gallon gas eight years later. Or that many of us expect to see $5 a gallon in the not-so-distant future. Or that Exxon-Mobile would realize a profit of $41 billion and the other four big oil companies would see profits triple since 2002.
On Feb. 1, 2006 - after five years in office and Bush’s Republican Party had been thumped in the congressional elections three months earlier - he made this remark in his State of the Union Address: "Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." The problem here is that Bush seemed to be the last person to come to grips with that reality.
The political reality in 2008 is that this presidential election will come down to pocket book issues. And with gas prices skyrocketing, America is poised to change in fundamental ways. This past week, Dow Chemical announced a 25 percent increase in its products, which in turn will increase the price of just about everything else. Americans are witnessing significant inflation at the pumps, the grocery store and that is poised to destabilize much of the economy and, consequently, politics. If you are a Republican, this is not good news this year.
Americans are spending $500 billion overseas for oil - $1,600 for each one of us. It is half of the U.S. trade deficit. If current energy trends persist, humans will inject as much C02 into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2030 as they did between 1850 and 2000. For the first time in recorded human history, the ice over the North Pole will completely melt by the end of this summer.
Later this month, former congressman Mike Sodrel and 2nd CD Republican nominee Luke Puckett will head to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to accentuate their case that more oil must be drilled there. Drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would, at most, lower the cost of a barrel of crude oil by 50 cents in 2025, according to the Campaign for America’s future. The primary reason for our current high gas prices is that the Bush administration and its allies made no serious effort to end America’s dependence on foreign oil. They blocked efforts to encourage conservation, improve fuel efficiency, and mandate the use of renewable energy sources.
There are no quick fixes. It will take a generation to significantly move the U.S. auto fleet from internal conbustion to electric. Beware of the politician who tells you we can drill our way out of this.
Sodrel has come to grips with this. "In the 2006 election, there was a lot of talk about change. Well, we got change. A gallon of gas is up by about 75%, the budget deficit is up, taxes are up (and rising), consumer confidence is down, and the economy has slowed to a crawl."
Sodrel, who was defeated by U.S. Rep. Baron Hill in 2006, explained, "The only solution I hear coming from leaders in Congress is to file law suits, tax, investigate, or regulate - none of which will increase the supply or lower the price of gas. 86% of our energy today is derived from either natural gas, coal, or oil. In the search for alternate sources we should offer prizes for new machines and processes that let us do more with less energy, prizes for new sources of renewables, and prizes for more efficient solar panels or electric motors. We must at the same time develop our traditional resources to use during the transition period."
I have long advocated a "Manhattan Project" to solve this problem. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, talked at the Brookings Institute recently about what something like this might look like in the 21st Century.
"There are several reasons why I believe the original Manhattan Project model fits the idea of a Manhattan Project for clean energy independence," Alexander said. "The original Manhattan Project had to proceed as fast as possible along several tracks to reach its goal. According to a young engineer at Los Alamos the entire project was being conducted using a shotgun approach. Trying all possible approaches simultaneously without regard to cost to speed to a conclusion.
"It needs Presidential focus and it needs a bipartisan support in Congress," Alexander said of the two obvious shortcomings of this era of American governance. "It needs the kind of centralized gruff leadership that General Lesley Groves of the Army Corps of Engineers gave the first Manhattan Project. The first Manhattan Project mobilized the brightest scientist of several countries, it drafted some of the major corporations in America. Clean energy independence is too revolutionary to consider in the framework of old ideas and both that project and the new one needs to start with a small diverse group of great minds."
Howey is publisher of Howey Politics Indiana at www.howeypolitics.com
Related posts
This entry was written by and posted on July 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm and filed under Brian Howey Column. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.