Let’s talk about something silly.
There appears to be a persistent subset of people who are convinced that the science on global warming is not conclusive, and that consequently, the sacrifices demanded by higher fuel-efficiency standards and renewable energy mandates are not proportional to the benefits.
This tickles me, because this just in: changing our nation’s energy policy isn’t about the environment.
I mean, it is a little bit. But environmental implications are only a small consideration in the energy policy picture. Without even considering global warming, we still need a better way of meeting this century’s energy needs. Don’t believe me? Come back after your next fill-up.
The big question today is whether or not America should increase domestic oil production. While I think it can be healthy to reevaluate policy positions based on the current state of affairs, the problem is that drilling for more oil is neither a quick fix nor a long-term solution. Getting at oil isn’t like rummaging through the sofa cushions for spare change; it’s building a skyscraper. Even the best case scenario has it taking a few years before American oil makes it to American consumers, with a negligible impact on price (this prediction by the DOE on the effects of opening ANWR has the price per barrel decreasing by less than $1.50 in 2027).
Ignoring global warming implications and the environmental damage that might be done by drilling for more oil, some people might still think that drilling is a good idea. I (mostly) respect that, but let’s be clear about what we’re talking about. If we started drilling yesterday, it will still cost you a hundred bucks to fill up your gas tank into the foreseeable future. In fact, my boy Robert J. Samuelson over at the Washington Post cites economist Jeffrey Rubin’s prediction that $7 gallons of gas and $225 barrels of oil are coming soon to a theater near you. This is not meant to frighten (well, Samuelson is trying to scare you into drilling, but that’s not my point at all). Rather, it illustrates the serious economic effects of our dependence on oil.
Building better cars and developing renewable energy sources, on the other hand, is quite simply sound economic policy. Once in place, they will be much less susceptible to price fluctuations. The word I remember hearing fifth most-often in my introductory econ classes (after “the,” “supply,” “and” “demand”) was EFFICIENCY. In theory, or so I was told, markets will tend toward more efficient uses of labor, raw materials, capital, and other things that go into making markets.
The chorus that industry and others have been repeating for years is that renewable technology isn’t ready, is in fact decades away, and so isn’t part of a realistic energy plan. Well, ignoring the fact that limited investment in these technologies (relative, say, to oil subsidies) hasn’t helped, we’re now faced with a situation in which carbon solutions are years away. I’m willing to hear you out if you think that we should look at pursuing multiple options to alleviate today’s high fuel prices. But don’t try to defeat renewables as part of the solution by claiming that they’re not ready. Firstly, some renewables are ready. Secondly, domestic oil and gas isn’t ready either, and saying otherwise is not just dumb, it’s deceitful.
A new energy policy isn’t so much about spending more government money, it’s about spending government money differently. The energy industry today is subsidized. There are a number of reasons for this, and I choose to ignore the conspiracy theories. (Okay, I don’t ignore them. I love a good conspiracy theory. The Illuminati faked the moon landing at Area 51!) But if we accept at face value arguments that these subsidies are intended to protect consumers and stimulate our economy, then I think that the subsidies aren’t really getting the job done these days. There’s no way of ensuring that these benefits get passed on to consumers, even in part.
So, here’s a radical proposal: let’s take the money that currently is going to oil subsidies and spend it on something else. Perhaps, and this is crazy, I know, but perhaps we could spend it on things that will help energy consumers and stimulate the economy. Like… green investment. By subsidizing fuel efficient cars and clean energy development, we can both create jobs and give individuals the power to lower their own energy bills. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that we can reduce our fuel consumption by more oil than exists in ANWR just by implementing better mile-per-gallon standards, using technology we already have. Put that in your pipe and subsidize it. At the very least, renewable energy isn’t going to be competitive with carbon-based energy if it’s not a fair fight. And seriously, if we’re giving one side an advantage, why would we favor the technology that has the effect of causing climate problems, contributing to international instability and making exorbitant profits for a few at the expense of American consumers?
You can get back to me on that.
