Considering the economic impact of various energy policies is a vital part of this debate, and one which is commonly ignored by environmentalists.
But… not all goals can be measured in terms of economic value alone. Reducing oil imports is something conservatives can really get behind: The potential economic benefits aside, it’s clearly a boost for our national security.
Security is one of those public goods that everyone wants but no one wants to pay for. Like clean air. Yet the clean air groups and the global warming groups have found a way to give C02 mitigation so much social value that many people feel it’s worth the price (have hybrids co-opted the sex appeal of convertibles and Corvettes for the liberal set?).
The left has succeeded in selling the American people on reduced energy consumption, for better or for worse. Let’s make it for better by making sure that every drop of oil saved is a drop from a foreign barrel.
Cut Oil Imports is an excellent blog devoted to that very issue (clearly). Today’s post evaluates a new approach, proposal by the Southern States Energy Board, that would reduce the import gap even if demand continues to increase. Interested? Read the post here.
This entry was posted on Friday, March 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm and is filed under Oil and Gas . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
[...] Parallel Goals - Terra Rossa [...]
March 12th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
1. What are the economic benefits to reducing oil imports? I’ll cut right to the chase–there are no economic benefits to reducing oil imports. If there were, we’d already be doing it. It’s that simple. No one is making us import oil, we are doing the most economically efficient thing–we are getting our oil from the lowest-cost producer.
2. What’s is the national security boost to reducing oil imports? Beats me. It didn’t take much money for Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack or the attacks in Spain or the UK. None of Al Qaeda’s attack cost much money and sure they don’t cost billions of dollars.
Maybe you are arguing that we need to be able to withstand a disruption in foriegn oil supply, but I fail to see Cut Oil Imports plan (which calls for using expensive transportation all of the time) is in any way better than using cheap fuel when we can get it. The economic is very simple–we use the lost cost oil. It doesn’t make sense to punish ourselves preemptively by forcing everyone to use the highest-cost fuel such as biofuels, coal to liquids, or oil shale.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Daniel,
So oil money going to Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia is a good idea for us? It doesn’t at all prop up these regimes. They don’t get the opportunity to spend their oil wealth against US interests. The construction fortune of the Bin Laden family has nothing whatsoever to do with the oil wealth generated in the middle east? The Iranian weapons in Iraq aren’t funded by oil? Hezbollah aren’t propped up by oil profits in Iran? Chavez doesn’t get any additional credibility among US adversaries because his nation has huge oil reserves?
I am all for a different point of view, but as I have said before in other comments to other posts, lets use this blog to discuss real energy alternatives. Discuss, not dismiss! Discuss, not criticize!
What’s your answer, or should we just keep on the path we are on? I don’t have to agree with your solution, but at least provide an alternative.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am
The post said “potential” economic benefits, and that’s the key. It’s about looking ahead and being prepared for events like a disruption in the oil supply, with the accompanying high prices, scarcity, etc. that would cripple industry here in the U.S. We’re already fighting a war in the middle east and rattling sabers at Iran - these are not outlandish possibilities.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Daniel is absolutely right on 1. There is no economic benefit to reducing oil imports. (Remember the 70’s anyone?) There is no economic benefit to higher energy costs whether due to import restrictions or articifical costs such as carbon taxes.
But on number 2? Daniel, where do you think their money is comming from? 9/11 may not have cost much relative to our national spending, but if you are living in a subsistence economy in the desert, the cost is prohibitive. The Saudi royal family and their Wahabi friends would be an inconsequential tribe in the Arabian desert, if not extinct, if it wasnt for oil money.
By the way, I read “Cut Oil Importss”. Finally somebody is making sense.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Micheal asks for an alternative and here it is–let the market work. As conservatives, we should recognize that the market does the best job of allocating scarce resources and planning for the future. I’m all for people planning for the future.
I’m completely against governments politically “planning” for the future. If economies could be planned, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba could have planned their economies in an efficient way.
Governments should not force people to use more expensive forms of energy. That is economically wrong and morally wrong. People should be free to use the energy sources that make sense for them.
As for Terra Rossa’s comment in #4, I agree that it’s about looking ahead–that’s what the market does. Politicians picks politically favorable solutions, not solutions that make the most economic sense. That’s why we should let the market decide our fuels not politicians.
The problems with switching to more expensive fuels now is that it cripples us now and in perpetuity. Most people prefer to take the risk and not cripple ourselves now, but the risk (and experience the benefits) of waiting for the uncertain cripple event to come. We can prepare for the future, but there is no need to prematurely cripple ourselves and our economy forcing the country to use more expensive fuels.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Daniel, not to sound like I am picking on you, but we are the market! I am not talking about government regulation or higher taxes, I am just saying as consumers we have the right to make choices, I as a consumer would prefer to choose either domestic oil or an alternative energy option. I will even put my money where my mouth is; if they guarantee an energy source where no money goes to despot regimes, I would even agree to pay more for it, or for goods transported using this new energy source.
From a certain economic perspective, if less money goes to our enemies, we would become more secure, we would need to spend less on defense, and could even lower taxes. Who knows, I might even end up financially better off (not that this democratic congress would entertain a tax cut).
My point is, if consumers demand change, the market will respond. This is how it should be. After all, its only those on the left who believe Laissez-faire isn’t fair (sorry for the pun). For those who grew up reading Adam Smith’s theories about the ‘invisible hand’ you will know there is nothing inconsistant with this approach. Let the free market rule.