Bush: The New McCain
Remember when John McCain transformed overnight into a finance reform crusader once he was denounced in the media as the only Republican member of the Keating Five?
History is about to repeat itself in an even more farcical way:
For those inclined to believe that Bush's new energy policy will be a stick in the eye to Iran and Saudi Arabia, you might want to note that the biggest oil supplier to the United States is Canada.
This smacks of Bush trying to bury criticism of his oil industry past. I think he's greatly overestimated the appeal of living in a wilderness shack to the vast majority of Americans.
History is about to repeat itself in an even more farcical way:
Bush’s declaration that the U.S. is addicted to oil is another step toward demonizing the oil industry, in a repeat of what happened to the tobacco industry in the 1990s. The tobacco companies are now so heavily taxed and regulated that they have almost become an arm of the government. Bush intends for no such thing to happen to the oil sector, but as Bill Clinton learned after repeatedly saying he “would end welfare as we know it” without quite meaning it, words have consequences.
The word “addicted,” of course, is morally loaded, implying an unhealthy and irrational dependence. But since oil provides the cheapest and most efficient way to power automobiles, our dependence on it is natural and sensible — the very opposite of an addiction. Bush is the James Frey of energy policy, exaggerating the negative to play to an important market segment — in Bush’s case, the mushy middle of American politics primed to believe the worst about Big Oil.
Bush isn’t proposing any far-reaching proposals to deal with this newfound addiction. President Clinton resorted to microinitiatives — school uniforms, teenage curfews, etc. — when he was in a political tight-spot. President Bush is resorting to microindustrial policy. A few billion dollars here and there on developing fuel alternatives — and also on funding scientific research and education — and everyone can feel good that the federal government is “doing something,” while members of Congress shove the money out the door and energy interests gobble it up.
Bush’s new Advanced Energy Initiative, which is charged with developing better batteries for electric cars and figuring out how to make fuel from wood chips, is redolent of all the past federal initiatives to find alternatives to oil and to gas-powered cars. Who can forget the glories of President Nixon’s Project Independence? Or Carter’s Synthetic Fuels Corporation? Or the first Bush’s U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium? Or Clinton’s Partnership for New Generation Vehicles?
They all failed. So far, the $10 billion spent since 2001 on trying to develop alternative fuels that Bush bragged about in his speech has also produced nothing. “That’s scarcely an advertisement for even more lavish subsidies,” commented energy expert Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute. If there are commercially viable energy alternatives, the market will discover them without the clumsy guiding hand of government. Ethanol, the corn-based, government-subsidized fuel, has long been a favorite alternative, but still doesn’t make economic sense. As many industrial-policy programs do, the subsidies have become chiefly a favor to an important political constituency — midwest farmers, especially those who vote in the Iowa caucuses.
For those inclined to believe that Bush's new energy policy will be a stick in the eye to Iran and Saudi Arabia, you might want to note that the biggest oil supplier to the United States is Canada.
This smacks of Bush trying to bury criticism of his oil industry past. I think he's greatly overestimated the appeal of living in a wilderness shack to the vast majority of Americans.
2 Comments:
The whole thing is particularly galling when you consider how much of a 180 it is from the (more sensible) position of arguing for more drilling and oil exploration on land we control.
The push to increase battery life made two groups happy: loonybird environmentalists and Toyota execs. The enviros because they see all-electric or hybrid-powered cars as a panacea. Toyota suits because, well, they have the best (and most well-marketed) hybrid system on the market today.
Now, I happen to be all for hybrids, and if people want them, more power to them. That said, I think the price premium you pay up front kind of defeats some of the purpose. Sure, I'll spend less on gas, but I am paying a few grand more for the car.
That said, some very interesting new hybrids are on the way, too, like GM's Hybrid Tahoe, which is said to deliver 20MPG in real-world driving. That's impressive for a truck that size, and despite what people like Bill O'Reilly say about Americans needing to go to smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, the reality for many Americans with families (who do not want to drive a @$&%ing minivan) is that the big trucks make sense (try fitting 3 kid seats in a midsize truck).
Me, I'm going to see how the ethanol thing pans out. GM is pushing it...hard (I just posted about this), and I don't think it should be ignored at all. Also, count me among those waiting for the new low-sulfur diesels to hit the market. As soon as that happens, watch for a rash of excellent diesel engine choices to hit the market here, especially from the Europeans, who have diesels for essentially every make and model on the Continent. Better still, the diesel/electric hybrid projects that are being worked on look promising, take the excellent fuel economy of diesel and add onto it with hybrid power...good things could happen.
It's not just about "building better batteries" or waiting for the hydrogen fuel cell to become a technology that is affordable to the average person. There are things out there on the horizon, and the automakers are working on inniovations on their own, not because some politician is telling thrm to, but because innovative, high-quality technologies help sell cars and improve the bottom line.
The President whould have been better off saying nothing in his speech, because he oversimplified matters and made it seem like there are fewer potential (and practical) solutions than what's actually being worked on.
Keep working on innovations, and in the meantime, make the oil-consuming engines we use more efficient. Revolutionary changes like what the President proposed do not happen overnight (if they happen at all). Let's let the manufacturers try new things and let the market determine what works best. I think we'll see several generations of incremental, solid, marketable advancements in engine technology before we see the leaps forward the President hypothesized in the SOTU.
And you know what? For all we know, that may be enough to get the job done.
Exactly!
If Dubya's going to steal Democrat issues, why not steal good ones?
If Dems really cared about energy independence, they'd stop talking stupidly about ethanol, wind, solar, and every other failed money pit glitterpolicy and build a couple of nuclear plants till ANWR starting pumping oil.
We all know that the Forest Marxist won't let them do that, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home