BCT Editorial – 6/13/08

This page was last updated on June 14, 2008.

Deluding ourselves; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 13, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “When it comes to energy independence, there is no simple answer.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“You can’t turn on a radio talk show or an infotainment cable TV channel these days without having a host, caller or guest complain that the United States would have more than enough gasoline if oil companies were allowed to maximize domestic production.”

[RWC] You have to give “credit” to an outlet that publishes cartoons on a daily basis to have the guts to refer to any other outlet as “infotainment.”

“This diatribe usually includes attacks on environmentalists, politicians (almost always Democrats) and government regulations for shackling exploration and production.

[RWC] Regarding the “almost always Democrats” comment, they may deserve it. Here’s an excerpt from a speech made by U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) on the House floor. “The public record is abundantly clear. Over the past 15 years 91 percent of House Republicans have voted to increase American energy production while a mere 14 percent of House Democrats supported these commonsense proposals. A study of voting patterns in the House since 1994 demonstrates that historically 91 percent of House Republicans have voted to increase production of American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of their Democrat counterparts voted against increased production. The study also found that 97 percent of House Republicans voted to support coal-to-liquid technology and 78 percent of Democrats opposed this technology.” Of course, these words came from the mouth of a politician, so take them for what they’re worth.

“But as the late, great H.L. Mencken noted, ‘There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible and wrong.’

“That’s the case here.

“One statistic that keeps getting tossed around is that the United States has enough domestic crude oil resources (118 billion barrels) to power 65 million cars for 60 years.

“People hear these numbers in isolation, and its sounds like a lot of oil — 118 billion barrels, 65 million cars, 60 years. (By the way, these statistics come from an industry-friendly organization.)”

[RWC] Did you wonder why the editorial didn’t name the “industry-friendly organization?” Here’s why. If you knew the name, it would be easier for you to verify the quote. Then, you would find this citation was in only one sentence out of a 32-page report (“The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer”). Further, you would find it came from “federal government estimates.”

Who is that “industry-friendly organization?” It’s the American Petroleum Institute.

“But the chimera doesn’t last very long when you consider that, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation report, there were 247 million-plus registered cars and trucks in the United States in 2005.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note there are about 25% more registered vehicles than there are registered drivers. Further, not all registered drivers are active drivers, though I don’t have that data.

“In effect, for the 118-65-60 combination cited above to work, three out of every four cars and trucks would have to be removed from the road. We doubt if many Americans would be willing to make the sacrifice of returning to the days when families had one car.”

[RWC] Wow, how stupid does the Times think we are? What really matters isn’t how many “registered cars and trucks” exist but how many active drivers there are and how much they drive. For example, I have three registered cars, but I can drive only one at a time.

“It can’t be repeated enough: The United States cannot drill its way to energy independence.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, it’s not a Times energy editorial without this inane comment. No one in any position of responsibility believes the opposite.

“To achieve that end, we need to ramp up domestic production, increase mileage standards for cars and trucks, start using public transit systems and develop alternative energy sources.

“We’re deluding ourselves if we think otherwise.”

[RWC] The editorial says, “we need to ramp up domestic production.” This is obviously true, but the Times has flip-flopped on this position at least once. Though within the last 13 months two editorials (“Hooked” and “Over a barrel”) made similar statements, at least five previous editorials (“Drop in the bucket,” “Oil wrong,” “Dead end,” “Tapped out #1,” and “Tapped out #2”) lobbied against domestic exploration for and production of oil and natural gas supply.

Here’s another way to gauge the Times sincerity about “we need to ramp up domestic production.” Since 2005, the Times published at least 39 editorials lobbying for a smoking ban on private property, with 14 coming this year alone. During this same period, can you guess how many editorials the Times dedicated to lobbying Congress to open up more area for domestic oil and gas production? Yep. Zero.