T. Boone Pickens ("legendary" oil man and investor) evidently spent 10 million dollars to advocate an energy "plan" keyed to wind farms and natural gas vehicles (I saw Pickens personally explain HIMSELF on CNBC, so you can't say I am getting this second hand; you CAN say that I was UNCONVINCED).
Let us start with basics. We HAVE oil (and coal and natural gas). We HAVE those things IN THIS COUNTRY. T. Boone Pickens says that we are in a CRISIS, destroying our country by sending 700 BILLION dollars to other countries (friendly and unfriendly). I don't disagree with that, in a lot of ways (although I would not put it in Pickens' apocalyptic terms). But if we are in a CRISIS (civilization in this country at stake, such as in World War II, as people "advocating"--without a logical parallel--a "Manhattan Project" on energy, even though we did NOT rely on the Manhattan Project to win World War II), then it is clear some of the things that we should do. Remember, the Pickens assumption here--my brother, who is co-owner of a trucking company would tend to agree with him--is that the SURVIVAL of our country is at stake.
Pickens is talking 10 years for his plan. OMBAMA has a 22 year plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to 35%, while at the same time saying that DRILLING would not show results for 7 years (we could certainly reduce it to 5 or less, if we are really in a CRISIS_/ Psychologically, the mere encouragement (NOT with money, unlike other "solutions", but merely by removing restrictions) of DRILLING (and oil development, such as removing restrictions on oil shale), would drop the price of oil. I KNOW that leftists/environmentalists/Obama do NOT want to lower the price of GASOLINE (oil), because of leftist ideology. See my entry last week about Harry Reid (Democrat majority leader in the Senate), wanting to LEAVE OIL IN THE GROUND, because it is MAKING US SICK (can't make this up; I personally heard this one too). In other words. DEMORATS like Harry Reid and Barack Obama would rather endure an IMMINENT risk that our country will not SURVIVIE, because of the RELIGION of "global warming" and leftist environmentalism that we MAY have trouble surviving 50 or 100 years from now. INSANE. That is the Democrats (of the leftist and politician kind) on energy policy.
If we are really in a CRISIS (as Boone Pickens says and as gasoline/diesel prices would argue--talk to my brother), then it is INSANE to prohibit drilling in ANWR because that desolate, icy wilderness is "pristine" (McCain, but Obama is WORSE--opposing ALL additional drilling AND nuclear power). What excuse is there for not drilling offshore (with modern technology that has not had an offshore drilling accident in DECADES, despite hurricanes like Katrina). What is the excuse for not allowing the devleopment of oil shale (holding enough oil to possibly make up 100% independent of foreign oil). The ONLY excuse for this INSANITY is "environmentalism", and the leftist hostility to capitalism, oil companies AND nuclear power. What leftists, including Obama, are saying is: "We are willing to take a SUBSTANTIAL risk as to the SURVIVAL of this country (as we know it) because of our IDEOLOGY--because of a SPECULATIVE risk to the environment."
I am sorry. It is not just leftists who are INSANE. It is the PUBLIC who are insane, as well, for continuing to elect these people. I hate to say it, but they (we) DESERVE what we get. It is not as if this is not OBVIOUS. If you elect politicians who are going to destroy your country, and TELL you that they are going to do it, you really are insane.
But look what happens to T. Boone Pickens (he has investments in both wind power and natural gas vehicles) if we ACT on his warning, and really treat this as a CRISIS. That means we develop ANWR, offshore, AND oil shale. It means we remove ALL obstacles to quick building of nuclear plants. Even without the OTHER things we can do, what does that do to "wind power" and "natural gas vehicles".
Right. It DESTORYS the market for those "alternative" vehicles and energy, unless we HEAVILY subsidize (with TAXPAYER dollars) the UNECONOMIC "alternative" energy. This stuff is EXPENSIVE. If we DROP the price of gasoline and oil, this somewhat "kooky" stuff becomes ridiculous. NOBODY will want it, unless they are PAID to use it. T. Boone Pickens is asking you to engage in HIS "central planning" "solution" to dependence on foreign oil, even if it makes no economic sense (because OIL is both more efficient, and cheaper, if we can do things that drop the price). Bill O'Reilly is the SAME. He has HIS "central planning" "solutions": MANDATE "flex fuel" vehicles, whether they are economic or not, and no matter how much taxpayer money we have to spend. These are people who do NOT believe in "free market" theory, and do not understand it (yes, on evidence of my own ears, I include T. Boone Pickens in that group who do NOT believe in free market theory, and I would NOT buy a used car--especially running on natural gas--from the man).
It is actually a BETTER "free market" solution to ending dependence on foreign oil to put a TAX on gasoline of $2.00 a gallon or more (with an equivalent tax on OIL itself). What is the big advantage of free markets? If you read this blog, you know. The advantage is that the MARKET decides which technology--which "alternative" to oil--is best. If a MAN (or woman) decides, by MANDATE, then a typical human error is FATAL. No man, or woman, is that smart. I am willing to state flatly: T. Boone Pickens, Bill O'Reilly, Obama, and leftists in general are NOT that smart. I MAY be that smart, but i am unwilling to take over the job of dictator of the world (a job I firmly believe T. Boone Pickens, Bill O'Reilly, and Barack Obama are more than willing to undertake--not to mention my ultra-feminist younger daughter, Kyla).
Al Gore once proposed a 50 cent tax on gasoline, and some leftists have even floated a trial balloon on the idea in the last year or so. WHY did leftists abandon this approach (in the U.S.), which is the best FREE MARKET way to determine the "alternative" to oil, and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, once we have decided to DISFAVOR oil? Easy. Politics. Leftists are all about DECEIT.
Are Barack Obama, T. Boone Pickens, and Bill O'Reilly proposing a $2 tax on oil? Basically they ARE (if you also include all of the other MANDATES, regulations, and taxes/credits leftists are proposing. I am not saying that Bill O'Reilly and T. Boone Pickens are leftists, but on this issue they ARE--central planners through and through. The idea is to CONCEAL the cost. Thus, you IMPOSE restrictions on the auto industry, the truck industry, and industry in general. That COSTS the public, but the cost is HIDDEN. It is not an HONEST tax (stupid, but honest).
Thus,my brother describes what has happened in trucking. The trucks he buys have increased AT LEAST $8,000.00 in cost because of direct regulation on engine emissions. This has COST efficiency, and perhaps INCREASED emissions over what should have happened. That is because engine technology is not that good in eliminating emissions. But trucks IDLE. Some states have even put in laws--which my brother says are to RAISE REVENUE--prohibiting idling trucks. WHY do trucks idle? They need to idle, even while not moving, to keep the HEAT and the AIR CONDITIONING operating. There are PROMISING devices already being produced that heat and cool trucks SEPARATE FROM THE ENGINE. This eliminates the need for POLLUTING idling. It also saves fuel. But my brother can only spend so much. He can't spend $8,000.00 extra on trucks AND put an $8,000.00 device on each truck. This is especially true when his fuel cost is being INCREASED 8 to 12 % by pollution control devices required on the truck and engine. My brother insists that new regulations, to be in effect in 2010, purport to require truck engines to emit exhausts CLEANER than the air the engine intakes. Instead of these specific mandates, my brother suggests that a market CHOICE of how to reduce total emissions (like eliminating idling with perfected heater/air conditioning devices) would have been much better. My brother (plausibly) doubts whether the INEFFICIENT new engines are reducing "pollution" at all. The same thing arises with ethanol and "wind farms" (which still require gas turbines and infrastructure to deliver power to the power GRID). There is a strong case that they are a SHAM and a SCAM--ultimately not reducing "carbon emissions" at all.
Newt Gingrich has proposed releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve. If this is really a CRISIS of the magnitude that T. Boone Pickens asserts, then we should do it. I favor doing it to the extent of oil WRONGLY put in the reserve in the past year, or maybe two years, when we should NEVER have been HOARDING oil like that (just when China and India were also hoarding oil).
I, myself, have correctly suggested that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (and state and local governments) should IMMEDIATELY SACRIFICE by decreasing gasoline usage at least 20%, and energy usage as well. If lower driving speeds are a good idea, then the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should set an example by prohibiting (maybe including governor devices) its employees from going over 55 mph, even in their private vehicles. It could be a FIRING offense for someone to report a government employee doing more. THEN the Federal Government could ASK (not coerce) private employers and others to follow its EXAMPLE. We don't NEED a freedom denying speed limit, or freedom denying mandates that never seem to apply to the Federal Government, if the Federal Government LEADS by example.
But what happens if my suggestions, and those of Newt Gingrich, WORK--lowering the price of gasoline? That is obvious. Solar, wind, and ALL of the inefficient (because a BETTER alternative may be waiting out there, if we are patient enough not to PREVENT its development by central planning) are going to be cut off at the knees. CHEAPER GASOLINE AND OIL MEANS A SETBACK FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
That is the response of a "central planner" like T. Boone Pickens to that. Easy. He wants SUBSIDIES so great that it does not matter how uneconomic they are. The GOVERNMENT will guarantee that people like T. Boone Pickens make money. In other words, the GOVERNMENT will PAY people to produce selected, uneconomic products, and will PAY you to use them. It does not get any more STUPID than that.
My brother, again, has described what has evidently happened in the diesel BIOFUEL market. The government PAYS for adding biofuel to diesel. What SOME oil companies have done is IMPORT oil/diesel, add a small amount of biofuel, and then EXPORT the same fuel. Their profit is in the SUBSIDY.
Yes, this often comes down to MONEY. There is a LOT of MONEY to be made from the GOVERNMENT. That always happens when the government is involved. But the potential in the area of alternative energy is ASOUNDING. That is why ANY incentives for alternative energy should NOT be so large that they make the economics of the "energy" DEPEND on the subsidy. That is an invitation to FRAUD, POFITERRING and DISASTER.
Have I explained why T. Boone Pickens failed to convince me, and made me lose respect for him (without doubting his sincerity), as I lost respect for Bill O'Reilly before him? I hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment