 | Thursday Open Thread: The "What Have You Done with The Press Release?" Edition | The Oil Drum | The more things change, the more they stay the same |  |
The Politics of Oil: The Discourse Must Change
Posted by The Oil Drum Editors on April 28, 2006 - 2:36am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Leaders of both political parties are expressing concern about the high price of gasoline. President George Bush announced yesterday that he was suspending deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to make more oil available to consumers as well as putting on hold the traditional regulations requiring additives to make fuel burn cleaner during the summer driving season.
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have had their own response to rising gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced his support for the Menendez Amendment, which would "provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to the American people by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days." Senator Charles Schumer recently called for a federal investigation to determine whether oil companies are withholding gasoline production, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has blamed high gas prices on the administration's cozy relationship with the oil companies, price gouging, and royalty relief.
The editors of The Oil Drum are ideologically diverse. Over the last year, we have created a forum at www.theoildrum.com to encourage an open, rational, and fact-based discussion of energy issues. While individual editors frequently express an opinion on a subject, we have never felt it necessary to take a unified position on any specific issue. That is, until today.
Public statements by political figures over the past several days would seem to suggest that oil companies and their record profits are the sole factor determining the price of gasoline. Not only is this untrue, but it is dangerous to give the American people the impression that only oil companies are to blame. The American people need to understand that the phenomenon of high gas prices cannot be attributed to a single source. They also need to understand that no one political party will be able to fix our current woes.
The major factor that determines gas prices is the price of crude oil from which gasoline is derived. When crude oil prices are high, so are gas prices. The following are just a few factors that affect the price of a barrel of oil:
- Oil companies do not single-handedly determine the price of oil. The price of oil is set on the crude oil futures market. Simply put, these prices are affected by supply and demand because, at present, oil trades in a global commodity market where increased demand or reduced supply in one place instantly translates into price shifts everywhere. A variety of publicly available information sources show that supply is relatively static at the moment, while world demand continues to grow as economies grow.
- We have provided evidence many times at The Oil Drum that the output of major oilfields is declining and that we may now have reached a peak or plateau in global oil supply. Oil companies have not been able to increase production for a number of years, and it is unclear that OPEC is accurately reporting their reserves. Even if there were significant sources of high quality oil remaining, it is getting increasingly difficult and expensive to drill. These factors, along with aging infrastructure for oil exploration and a retiring workforce are also contributing to high oil prices.
- The geopolitical situation is volatile, and an astute citizen may notice that every time there is news from Nigeria or Iran, the price of oil goes up because of the potential and real effects of these situations on world oil supply. Again, oil traders are fearful that the supply will not remain stable forever.
- Countries like China and India are industrializing at a great pace, and while we are accustomed to obtaining oil at a comfortable quantity and price, it will be impossible (and immoral) to deny similar resources to these countries. China is working furiously to secure new oil supplies, and they're content to negotiate with countries we're reluctant to deal with, like Iran and the Sudan.
Demagoguery and grandstanding are not strategies for addressing our energy problems. As an alternative, the editors of The Oil Drum put forth the following recommendations:
- It is nonsensical for political leaders of both parties to eliminate the gas tax temporarily or permanently as this will only worsen our dependence on oil by disincentivizing the innovation of oil alternatives and oil conservation efforts.
- Both mainstream American political parties are doing their country a disservice by accusing convenient scapegoats of price gouging or price fixing instead of educating the public about how the price of gas is actually set.
- Right now, governments should be focused on helping us cure our "addiction to oil." The answer does not lie in lowering gas prices, which will only encourage people to drive more and further waste our valuable resources. As the Department of Energy funded Hirsch Report on Peak Oil laid out, the consequences of not taking steps to transition away from oil could be dramatic to our economic system. Appropriate solutions include large-scale research, development, and implementation programs to improve the scalability of alternative sources of energy, other projects geared towards improving mass transit and carpooling programs across the country, providing incentives to buy smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, and promoting a campaign to increase awareness about conservation.
The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation. We, the citizens of the US and the world, must move our attention to this the issue of energy more than any other. We must hold our representative governments accountable for having an open and honest debate on the subject.
Simply put, we must learn more about where our energy comes from.
All that we can ask of all of you is that you send this link or the .pdf to everyone and anyone you believe can help us get this perspective out into the discourse. Post it on blogs, media outlets, discussion fora, you name it.
This is an opportunity, a teaching moment. We have to seize it.
RR
Send it to the DOE ..
Send it to the Senate Energy Committee
Jim Bunning R (KY) is chairperson
Send it to the MSM .. CNN/FOX et al
Triff ..
You can find your congressman's web site here:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Dig around and find their PR person, email directly to them.
The other way gets lower priority. Even better is to call their office.
help get this link out , like this
http://www.buzzflash.com/contact/
I saw some guy from a Cambridge, Massachusetts think tank/online-publication yesterday doing just this yesterday. I think his name was Mac Johnson. He could have used some coaching from more moderate voices here. It seems that the only ones challenging the notion that it is not about gouging are primarily righties. Moderates and lefties need to get on board.
You guys are a shining example. I give this press release 99 out of 100 points. Keep up the good work.
When in the course of modern events it becomes necessary for one people to assume greater control of their energy needs through indigenous sources provided by the Creator, a decent respect for humanity impels them to explain the rationale for their decision.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sources of energy are not created equal, that some are endowed with indisputable flaws, most especially fossil fuels. ...
Excellent idea! We do need a Declaration of Detritus Independence! Biosolar habitats and protective Earthmarines--Here we come!
Consider this blurb of mine I just reposted from the previous thread in a reply to AlanfromBigEasy:
Hello Alan,
Checkout this EnergyBulletin link:
http://energybulletin.net/15325.html
Chris Miller is running on a Peakoil platform!
Some of his comments: "We need to kick this growth habit before it is too late, while Maine still has the strength of community and rural infrastructure to do it with thought and grace," he states in a campaign letter. "Every day the sun shines on 21 million acres of Maine. That is our energy income.
Rather than send Maine's National Guard to another war to find the cheap energy and natural resources that feed this growth, Miller said he would call the Guard back here to lay rails to build an interurban railroad, if the steel is available.
Alan, here is your entree' for railroading--He will need an expert on his staff to explain the advantages, costs, savings, and building timeframes to sell to the public. Go for it--email him now.
Another article excerpt: "Miller talks in environmental terms about bioregions, or regions sharing a common geography, culture and climate, such as Casco Bay and the St. John Valley."
This sounds to me like he understands the need to build large and distinct sustainable biosolar habitats just as I have speculated about in numerous postings. After the soldiers finish building the railroads they can be transformed into the initial vanguard of Earthmarines to keep the hapless detritovores from invading postPeak.
The following links illustrate the growing political movements in New England to secede from the Union. If they can join hands with Peakoilers and biosolar survivalists tremendous progress towards Powerdown can be achieved:
http://maineindymedia.org/newswire/display/2134/index.php
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695553
http://www.freestateproject.org/news/media_archive/0090.php
http://www.cumberlandmaine.com/cumberland%20legislation%20revised%202-17-06%20Including%20SAD%2051.p df
I think the growing drive for secession is directly related to the growing revulsion to infinite growth, environmental degradation, and ever-rising detritus prices. Everyone in the US should be encouraging the secession drive of the NE & NW areas of the country.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Toto,
This is not my work at all but rather appears to be that of one Jack Coleman as posted in the link I provided above.
I agree that it is a great idea to make a Declaration Independence, which is why I posted the link and some of the initial text. But no kudos to me. Give it up for Jack.
Thxs for responding. No problem here, Full Credit to Jack Coleman. If we could somehow get the biosolar habitat idea rolling, I think thousands of Peakoilers will sell everything they have for a chance to relocate to these Powerdown areas. I know I would ASAP. Just imagine living a 'Tuscan' lifestyle as hypothesized by Jeff Vail's EnergyBulletin link:
http://energybulletin.net/14902.html
I encourage all TODers to study his article. I think even Kunstler would agree that this is the better alternative to continuing our present paradigm. I feel strongly that this should be the direction of future 'truthful discourse'. Secession of the NE & NW US does not require that all the unwashed masses have to understand Peakoil; it provides a political mechanism for those that do to isolate themselves from those that will never give up their 'addiction'. Time will tell if we can incorporate Entropy into our lifestyles.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
A most excellent piece! Where has it been sent so far?
PDFs are meant for printing, which means those nice blue links won't be clickable.
Sadly, snail-mail still carries a lot more weight with politicians than those new-fangled "computer letters." Not least because it takes more time and effort to send. And it proves you're willing to shell out for a stamp - which gives you more credibility, at least according to some. ;-)
http://www.theoildrum.com/politics_of_oil_printable.pdf
Applause for oildrum.com pushing a united agenda, but I have reservations about the statements conservatism. I think our situation so precarious and course so fixed that the program advocated would have no hope of succeeding in the time available.
Would new energy techs still have to compete against extraction-cost fossil fuels? Would culture still promote hyper consumption and material accumulation thru misreprentation? Would we still tax effort more than resource use? These are not details that can be worked out later, they are the first real turns of the ships wheel and the measures you mention would have little prospect of making a difference in the 2? decades we might have without them.
Of course you weren't laying out a program, just trying to improve the debate, ahem, soapbox stowed. But i do think underselling the effort reqd is a mistake. People will say its unthinkable, till gas goes up another 50%. Local radio last week had a talkback dj frantic with "well what will we use??" when Royal Auto Club flack told her oil will peak sometime 2008-2020 (he hasn't said it again). There are teaching moments opening up all over.
BTW I'm wondering whether it's a problem that the press release is, in a way, anonymous. People who are familiar with TOD know it has a lot of credibility; but for someone who hasn't heard of it, the impact might be lessened quite a bit by the fact that it's an anonymous press release.
Senator Chris Dodd (CT)
Congressman Chris Shays (CT)
Triff ..
And give the poor an income supplement, not a fuel supplement, so they see the need to conserve just as strongly as everyone.
"Just my voice can't shout to make them hear
Just your voice can't shout to make them hear
But if two and two and fifty make a million
We'll see that day come round, We'll see that day come round"
Pete Seeger.
But then... why would they deliberatly course for a disaster?
Why, oh why, must one think, would they??
In a sense it's criminal, in another sense it's our own fault, and in yet another sense, very restrictive term limits would do a lot of good.
Neither party can afford to be the bearer of bad news because the other party will benefit by saying that we aren't REALLY running out of oil and that it's those bad corporations and bad countries who are causing these high prices. Result, windfall profit taxes and more war. That's where we're heading in any case.
Our system just isn't set up to deal with this kind of situation. Even though I understand how speculation on futures can drive up the price in advance of shortages, it's a bit hard to take. Watching Jim Rogers make all that money is almost as repulsive as watching the government take it.
Very restrictive term limits could easily be worse than what we've got - though it might be worth a try.
I wonder if it's legal to take Occam's razor on a domestic flight?
It's more complicated than that. When propaganda was developed into a science in the early 20th century the political class seized on it quickly and they haven't looked back. By being able to manipulate a majority of the public with relatively small amounts of money (for them) they've removed the "risk" from democracy. Among the citizens those who understand even partially what is going on are largely disenfranchised and have either given up or cynically fight for one party or the other. Free speech can even exist without restriction, but as long as a majority of the citizens can be manipulated, it doesn't matter.
The last election provided a good example: the two candidates both went to Yale, are both from wealthy families, are both pro-corporate, and both are pro Iraq war. There was no difference between the candidates. Any real difference was largely an invention of the media who presented both candidates from a marketing perspective - presenting the framework of choice in terms of personal taste or style. Basically, choose your brand of jeans. Look at the subject of this article - both parties are saying almost exactly the same thing.
I agree, though, that allowing everyone to vote regardless of background brings with it its own set of risks and benefits. If we tried to roll voting rights back to, say, people with college degrees because we think (for example) such people are better informed and not as prone to emotional manipulation, they'll still vote for their own interests first, as they well should. The problem is, of course, it leaves everyone else with nothing.
I have a solution to this quandry, however: I'm going to invent a better version of humans!
Democracies do not deal well with life boat scenarios, which is what Peak Oil is in a way. I think the standard response is just a protracted stalemate and attempts to ignore the problem or propose small fixes and hope for a miracle, which is more or less what is happening now.
I noticed that too. It's fun to take Rawl's veil-of-ignorance procedure and theory of justice or Habermas's "ideal discourse situation" and try to apply them to a ship/lifeboat/swimmers-in-the-water/musical-chairs example. They don't apply very well.
I think Bush represents this attitude/trend. He uses populist rhetoric to criticise the nasty oil companies for high gas prices. Apportioning blame like this is not a good sign for the future. Can Bush or anyone else from his 'class' present the public with 'truths' or 'facts' that, in essence, begin a process of fundamentally questioning the foundations of the current economic/social/political model? I don't think he can or will do this. Whaterver the 'reason' for high gas prices is, it will not be 'framed' as problem relating to 'the Amercan way of life.'
My guess is, the 'system's' 'reply' to Peak Oil will not be all that dissimilar to many of the other problems we face. Simply put the 'model' is Hurricane Katrine and the Iraq debacle, but on an even larger scale.
This may sound cruel, but I take issue with the use of the word 'democracy' to describe the American system. It's a seems one can call it a form of reprenstative government, but just using the term 'democracy' seems rather loose and imprecise. Looking at the last Presidential election, one can see that around 55% of the total electorate bothered to go out and participate and vote. Of these just over half voted for the Bush ticket. So he got around 25% of the potential votes, how 'democratic' is this in reality? I'm not saying I know the definitive answer to this question, I just think it's worth asking. A truly democratic society is not the same thing as having nominally democratic elections.
If almost half the voters feel disenfrachized for whatever reason and don't vote, how 'democratic' is the system? One could argue that the American system has evolved or degenerated into something close to a 'democratic tyranny' where a minority in practice rules over the majority. 'Democracy' has a number of fundamental problems associated with it, and on many levels. Some are pratcial, others are philosophical, theoretical. Democracy is not a panacea for society's problems or a miracle cure. There's the funamental problem, for one thing, about how one deals with the rights and interests of the minority which looses. Does the 51% majority have the right to walk all over the interests of the 49% minority, just because they have 2% more votes? Exactly how 'democratic' is it to give so much 'power' to those 2%? The voters who tip the scale one way or another. That President Bush was effectively 'appointed' on a split vote in the Supreme Court, also somewhat undermines the contention that America is close to being the world's shining example of 'democracy' in action. And didn't Al Gore actually receive more votes than George Bush? So the candidate with the majority of votes in a democratic election ended up losing? Can this really be defended as a democratic system? I don't mind calling it something else, or qualifiying the terms of the debate, it's just this continual crowing about how 'democratic' the American representative system is, that get's slightly annoying sometimes. Not only that, today, when we really need effective and qualified political leadership, the flaws in this system appear rather dangerous and at the very least seem to require fundamental reform and modernization.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that blaming the 'people' for a political system which is so flawed, and has become so 'corrupted' is in it's practical application, is unfair. To paraphrase Ghandi, "What do think of Western Democracy? - "I think it would be a good idea!"
Excellent point.
We make many noises without stopping to think about their precise meanings. They are used as emotional trigger words rather than as rational descriptors. The full demographics of "We the People" are not the 'crats or rulers of America. Instead a small minority of highly manipulative personalities direct the herd to stampede one way or another.
Right now the herd is out of control. The "pain o' the pump" noise is making them run scared.
Via the CIA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic;
I don't think democracy is the real problem nearly so much as people's willingness to trust corporations to do the right thing. These entities never have, and never will. As long as the sheep continue to allow big business to run the world, democracy will simply be bought and sold. Free enterprise would be fine when guilded by ethical principles but it never has been. When they started to treat corporations as having the same rights as people, they should have also enforced that they abide by the same ethical and moral rules as well. These issues have far more to do with greed and human nature than any particular political system. All systems can be abused if not watched over - and by and large people don't want to bother with that mighty effort, whether under democracy, dictatorship or other variants.
Our present day systems are not much removed from that concept. He have Congressional Oversight Committees and Panels upon Panels of Experts at all sorts of alphabet soup agencies (FEMA, SEC, FTC, FCC, FDA, DOE) who are in charge of the hard hard thinking stuff.
The sheeple march forward in lock step, "staying the course" as we say, like a pensive but happy herd under the benevolent watch of our trusted shepards.
Anyway, wherever I went to school, I didn't get much Plato. My fault, not theirs. To me, Plato is a crater on the moon. ;-)
It seeems to me, though, that one of the things we were taught is that the American system of government places a high value on individual freedom. Most other Western democracies do as well. With this individual freedom comes a personal responsibility for each individual's actions or lack thereof, even if many of us would prefer to dodge it. I would also claim that we have a collective responsibility for our collective actions or inaction.
So when I consider what could come of the current actions and policies of our elected representatives and their designated oversight (hmmm, there's more than way to interpret that word) committees and panels, and as the result of our individual and collective behavior, that's how I come to my remark: In a democracy, the people get what they deserve.
No disrespect Captain sir.
Not that I mean to rock the boat sir.
But let me ask a few simple questions sir.
When ye was a born, sir:
- Did you have "freedom" to choose your parents?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose the language you first spoke?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose the religion you first practiced?
- Did you have "freedom" to choose which flag you first saluted when you started school?
- And where did you get that line drilled into yer head sir, you know, the one about "the people get what they deserve"? Seems like I've heard it once too often and it gets me nervous that maybe it ain't true sir.
- You ever stop to think that maybe the people didn't get what they "deserve"? Did they have freedom to choose the system into what they was born into sir? Did they have the freedom to not have that line drilled into their heads, over and over again until sometimes you just wonder if there is some brain washing going on here? Probably in Russia they tell 'em the Comrades get what they deserve. And in China they tell 'em the masses get what they deserve. It's all fair and balanced. Almost everybody is gettin' what they have comin' to them.
- But speaking of fair, aside from "We the People", shouldn't it be fair maybe once in a while that the "un-people", you know, the politicians who run the system be at least partially responsible for the system they dish out? Not just the "people" being totally desrving of it?
Sorry sir.I have a weird head sir.
Sometimes I question stuff.
Won't happen again sir.