BCT Editorial – 2/23/06

This page was last updated on February 25, 2006.

The here and now; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 23, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Real world won’t give U.S. the luxury of having decades to achieve energy independence

“The real world is fast encroaching on President Bush’s energy fantasies for a faraway future.

“This week, energy independence is at the top of the president’s PR agenda. In Milwaukee, Bush told his audience that the nation is on the verge of energy breakthroughs as he outlined his proposals to break our country’s addiction to petroleum.

“While Bush was Star Trekking it in Wisconsin, here’s what’s been happening in the here and now:

“* Rebels in Nigeria, a major oil producer, blew up a pipeline and kidnapped foreign workers as part of their ongoing assault against the government. In addition to having one of the most corrupt governments in the world, Nigeria also is split almost 50-50 between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south, which makes for an extremely volatile political environment, now and in the future.

“* The Washington Post reported China is hastening to complete a deal worth at least $100 billion that would allow a Chinese state-owned energy firm to take a leading role in developing a vast oil field in Iran. China wants to wrap up the deal quickly in case the United Nations imposes sanctions on Iran for its nuclear development plans. What this means is that Iran basically will have an outlet for its oil no matter what the United Nations does. Have no doubt. China won’t have any qualms about using this oil as a means to achieve its ends.

“* The New York Times reports that radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is now the kingmaker in Iraqi politics. He has an Islamic vision of Iraq’s future and is implacably hostile to the Iraqis closest to the United States. Sadr is a Shiite, which makes him a natural ally of Iran. If Sadr is able to control the government, there is no telling how he will use Iraq’s oil as a political, economic and religious weapon.

“In addition to these examples, India’s energy needs are increasing constantly as its economy grows, keeping pressure on the supply of and demand for oil, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez continues on a course that is erratic in every way except its anti-Americanism.

“And heaven help the United States if radicals ever seize power in any of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states.”

[RWC] Some of these are good points. So can someone explain why the Times has published three editorials in the last 11 months opposing pursuit of domestic oil in ANWR? ANWR wouldn’t make us anywhere near energy independent, but every bit helps.

“Given the Bush administration’s history, it’s hard to take the president seriously. This is just a short-term thing to get people off his back. He certainly wasn’t concerned about energy conservation and innovation in his first five years when valuable time was wasted, time that can’t be regained.

“Bush is selling snake oil that comes in a pretty package, smells good and tastes good going down but has little curative value. Significantly, he is avoiding the nasty tasting medicine that works quickly and most effectively - conservation. That’s the dose of energy reality that Americans need to take. Unfortunately, it’s the one product their president has no interest in selling.”

[RWC] The Times is “stuck on stupid.” Anyone who believes conservation of the magnitude required to make serious inroads on our oil and gas consumption is a viable approach doesn’t understand economics.

How does the Times believe market-changing conservation would work “quickly?” We don’t know because the editorials never tell us. Can someone wave a magic wand and make existing cars and trucks significantly more efficient? Here’s the point Times editorials constantly ignore. If the U.S. decided that come hell or high water we’d immediately and unilaterally push conservation that is not currently supported by economics, our economy would take a huge hit because our costs would exceed those of our competitors. It’s also likely prices wouldn’t change that much as other nations take up our slack.

Don’t get me wrong. Conservation is an important piece of any energy plan, but the conservation must be supported by economics. If not, all you’re doing is substituting one expensive energy source for another more expensive source.