Oil Policy - Which is Better - D or R??

[Essex502]

Oil policy fog
By Tom Bray
It's all about the oil price, stupid.
As petroleum prices inch forward, so does John Kerry's advantage in poll numbers — nationally and in key battleground states such as Michigan. Not only are consumers upset at the prospect of gasoline prices of more than $2 a gallon, but they may see high oil prices as evidence President Bush's effort to rewrite Middle East history is failing. And Mr. Bush hasn't been doing much to persuade voters he has a grip on it.
Not that Mr. Kerry offers a very persuasive formula. Indeed, his platform seems to consist of two main strands: a radical increase in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and a shift to what Mr. Kerry likes to call "renewable" energy, prominently including wind and solar power. But the first is a recipe for further job losses in industrial states. The latter offers no meaningful relief from hydrocarbon dependence.
Indeed, Mr. Kerry's Massachusetts neighbors, with no dissent from Mr. Kerry himself, have vigorously opposed a giant windmill farm off the shores of Nantucket. Just how unserious is the Kerry vision of "energy independence" was even more clearly revealed last week when the Democratic candidate, in a bid for Nevada's electoral votes, reversed his own prior position and pledged to veto a nuclear waste site in the Nevada desert. This would effectively block the one serious current alternative to energy from hydrocarbon sources: nuclear power.
Not that George Bush has exactly been a model of clear thinking. He too promises "energy independence" — as if an America whose prosperity is built on hydrocarbons could somehow insulate itself from the world oil market.
Mr. Bush's long-stalled energy plan does move in the direction of supply-side incentives, but it also offers an unfortunate grab bag of tax breaks, subsidies and other items easily painted as a giveaway to the supposedly greedy energy companies. The bill's provision to open a tiny bit of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, besides enraging environmentalists, would do little to boost near-term oil and gas supplies.
And Mr. Bush's refusal to directly challenge conventional wisdoms about global warming, among other things, far from insulating him from environmental criticism, has only led the environmental establishment — much of which has benefited from contributions from Teresa Heinz Kerry's foundations, as Washington's Capital Research Center has pointed out — to redouble its shrill criticisms.
Some in Republican ranks are pressing the panic button, calling on Mr. Bush to release oil from the National Petroleum Reserve, or at least stop adding to it. But Bush has insisted the NPR should be tapped only in a true emergency, not as a means of regulating the price. In addition to looking panicky, this might not much affect the huge international oil market, absent a change in underlying supply and demand. When Bill Clinton released oil to help his 1986 re-election, prices barely budged.
A president's chief asset in such a situation is the bully pulpit, and Mr. Bush should use it. The administration is jaw-boning the main oil-producing countries, including Russia, to increase supply to meet demand for such growing economies as the United States and China. But voters need to understand John Kerry's pledge that not one more American soldier should have to die for oil is not only a cheap shot but is driven by a dangerously isolationist notion: that America can prosper in a global economy without participating in its single most important tradable commodity.
American GIs are not dying because of oil or oil company profits; they are dying because the world trading system and America's national security are threatened by forces of disorder that would only be compounded by the misery brought on by such energy isolationism. It is precisely this disorder that lies behind the current spike in oil prices.
One can doubt the wisdom of pre-emptive efforts to impose a new order on unwilling countries, but neither is it very convincing to sit back and watch critical regions fall apart under the weight of tyranny, fanaticism and terrorism — while we console ourselves with illusions of windmill-powered prosperity.
What was attacked on September 11, 2001, after all, was the World Trade Center, the very symbol of the idea trade, freedom and U.S. engagement in the world go together. Americans can be trusted to understand that energy prices wax and wane — as long as the fluctuations occur within a framework of a principled, coherent foreign and domestic policy that offers a firm foundation for future growth.
Tom Bray is a Detroit News columnist.
Reprinted without permission of the Washington Times
We better get it together as I'm focking tired of $2.00+ per gallon!

[Dr. Eagle]

Kerry's OIL policy could destroy or cripple this country. Bush's balanced energy policy (increasing production AND conservation) makes the most sense. We aren't going to get off the oil drug for a long time.
Mandating huge increases in CAFE standards is exactly what we have all (well us tighty righties) feared as ***boaters. SUVs and Trucks will look like Yugos under that kind of approach, hold on to your old 2004 vehicles... if Kerry has his way, we won't have anything new to tow our toys with.
Now I don't know about you all, but I think wind power is the butt ugliest form of "green energy" that there is! Going over the Altimont or Tehappi passes, or out near Palm Springs, it just looks like somebody "raped the land" (Don Henley quote). It reminds me of pictures I have seen of Signal Hill in the 30s and 40s. Tons of oil derricks all over like a forest.

[Essex502]

I don't see how more drilling for oil (current administration's policy for the Arctic areas of Alaska) will ease the cost at the pump.
What this article describes is that both sides Dem and Rep need to do more than sit on their hands during the gasoline/oil crisis that's brewing. We are already seeing a slowdown of the economy directly related to the run-up is pump price. SUV sales are slowing, transportation costs are rising, manufacturers are feeling the pain of increased energy costs and nobody is doing anything about it.

[572Daytona]

CAFE is a big reason why SUV's are as popular as they are today. It used to be you could buy a car big enough to tow a boat, take the family on vacation and provide some protection in an accident. With the CAFE restrictions the automobile manufactures had no choice but to drasticly reduce the size and power of their cars, the result was a big increase in sales of vehicles like Suburbans which could still do all of the above. And since the insurance companies don't give you a break for having 2 vehicles people end up using the Suburban for everyday driving, I know I do. And once you drive one it is real hard to feel safe and comfortable squeezed into a Prius anyhow.
If they radically increase the SUV/Light Truck CAFE standards it will force the manufactures to either drastically reduce the size of the SUV's and/or raise the price on the larger SUV's to discourage sales and that in turn will force buyers such as myself into the RV/Heavy truck category making things even worse. Not a good plan in my mind.

[Freak]

China's need for oil is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room, and neither Dems or Reps seems willing to confront it or even acknowledge it. The economic and political clash with China over oil is coming to very soon.
It's estimated that China could have nearly 30 million automobiles by 2010. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the United States and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. If each Chinese family has two cars like U.S. families, then the cars needed by China, something like 600 million vehicles, will exceed all the cars in the world combined.
Also by 2030 China is projected to have 200mil middle class citizens the U.S. will have 186mil competing for those service jobs. (Banking, Insurance etc)
There will not be enough oil to go around. The price is going up ----- way up.
I dont think anything "really" will be done until it's too late.

[Tom Brown]

I'm in favor of policy that supports drilling for TC-W3.

[OGShocker]

I'm in favor of policy that supports drilling for TC-W3.
OK, WTF is that? I'd look it up but would rather ask you.

[572Daytona]

OK, WTF is that? I'd look it up but would rather ask you.
http://home.alltel.net/jthieme/smokes.jpg

[OGShocker]

http://home.alltel.net/jthieme/smokes.jpg
I thought the Combine/Whacka pilot had a motive. :wink:

[Tom Brown]

I was trying to hijack this political thread.