The $140-per-barrel, partial epiphany beats none at all
posted at 9:07 am on June 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Charles Krauthammer marvels today at the irony that the energy crisis has produced in the presidential election. The candidate of change now excoriates his opponent for adapting public policy to over a quarter-century of changing conditions, and the marvel according to Krauthammer is that John McCain hasn’t adopted even more change. If drilling in the heretofore pristine oceans works for McCain, why not the tiny portion of ANWR set aside for just that task?
At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the past 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years.
That’s nearly a quarter-century of energy independence. The situation is absurd. To which John McCain is responding with a partial fix: Lift the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling, where a fifth of the off-limits stuff lies. …
The oil crisis handed McCain an unexpected and singularly effective campaign issue. A majority of Americans now favor drilling in the Arctic and offshore. Democrats stand in the way of increased production, just as they did 13 years ago when President Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Domestic oil production would be about 20 percent higher today if the Republican Congress had been allowed to prevail.
As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. “His decision to completely change his position” to one that would please the oil industry is “the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades.” One can only marvel at Obama’s audacity in characterizing McCain’s proposal to change our policy as “old politics,” while the candidate of “change” adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.
McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa — as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy policies — is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.
Unlike Krauthammer, I’d accept an incremental approach to the problem. It would at least be an improvement over the last quarter-century of stubborn refusal to access our own resources rather than keep us at the mercy of murderous regimes in volatile regions. If we start with the OCS and move towards shale and interior oil deposits in Montana and the Dakotas, we can keep ANWR as an open issue for later efforts. Unlocking those assets will bring plenty of supply back to the market, and that will curtail the shortage issues that fuel speculators.
In a rational policy, ANWR would be opened as well. The entire intent of creating that portion of the refuge was to get oil from it. We didn’t need it in the early 1980s, and the lack of effort then to pursue ANWR allowed it to become a tradition, of sorts, for the self-sacrificing need to pay homage to bleak tundra in the name of environmentalism. And perhaps that didn’t work out badly, as the advances in drilling technology made during that period means that we can drill more safely with less potential damage now than we could have hoped thirty years ago — the same argument that McCain makes for drilling in the OCS, as a matter of fact.
Boosting domestic oil and energy production would start a series of effects for our economy that reach much farther than the gas pump. We would purchase less of our oil from abroad, which would cut into the trade deficit. That would strengthen the dollar, which would then cut the price of oil even further. Food prices would stabilize. The boom in the energy industry would add good-paying jobs to the economy, which would boost retail sales as well. It could help take the edge off the credit crunch in the long run as people would have less need of credit.
We should be thankful that at least one of the two presidential candidates has shown the willingness to demand change to meet changing conditions. For Americans who wonder why we continue to hold our economy hostage to the vagaries of foreign potentates and a region full of conflict, that candidate could offer real solutions in real time, rather than a desperate cling to outdated policies of the past. It may turn out that John McCain is the real candidate of hope and change, even if Krauthammer feels he hasn’t changed enough yet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Usually when people try to point out how a society self-destructs, they have to use esoteric or philosophical examples, like “the decline in morality.” Most don’t get it.
But not drilling is a concrete example. Seems like everybody sees this for what it is, even the purposely obtuse.
There are a few holdouts, but it’s not like they could run for public office or anything.
JiangxiDad on June 20, 2008 at 9:14 AM
No, we should not be thankful that only one of our candidates has deigned to consider rational energy policy.
We should be angry.
McCain is the lesser of two evils, but only slightly.
spmat on June 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Our politicians have been “kicking the can down the road” for decades now, when it comes to critical issues facing America. Energy independence, Social Security; the threat of Terrorism; over regulation of our industries forcing businesses to move away from America…
Now we sit here in deep shit… This election must be about the failure of our government to face up to these real problems and bring about solution. No time left for politics of the past. Kicking the can down the road must stop now.
Keemo on June 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM
And frankly, the longer we kiss his pasty white mavericky nethers, the longer we’re going to be held hostage by the leftists and bureaucrats. McCain is an exceedingly poor alternative to Ellsworth, on nearly every substantive issue on the docket. Every day I hear the man speak, I cringe for the future of the country.
As Rush says, this election is a referendum on Obama and the disgusting klepto-socialism he represents.
spmat on June 20, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I’m just wondering when some Republican will point out that the Dems are out sourcing energy production jobs. These are mostly good paying union type jobs.
mred on June 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM
OCS, the Gulf and ANWR will take some time, but shale can start tomorrow.
drjohn on June 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM
The political problem here is trying to get the American people to give a damn about what will help America 10-20-30 years from now. The Democrats are playing this perfectly by pointing out (with their MSM friends) to the public that drilling will do nothing to help you at the gas pump next Wednesday.
The Republicans haven’t done a damn thing about it either. Since Teddy Roosevelt where the hell are the ‘drilling’ Republican adminstrations?
Keemo is right about kicking the can down the road. It is the American way.
Limerick on June 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Lordy, Ed, I almost broke my tooth biting on the candy coating.
BigD on June 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I saw a disturbing site this morning. An overweight middle aged woman on a small scooter wearing what looked like a football helmet with the face guard removed. When you see something like that in my town, you know things are getting bad.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Why is McCain satisfied with an incremental improvement? Ed, why don’t you expect/demand more of McCain?
Why do you want to keep ANWR open for later use? What’s the justification for that opinion?
JiangxiDad on June 20, 2008 at 9:31 AM
It’s about time the Unions wake up and start making some noise. It would help tremendously by putting the Dems on the defensive.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Hahahahahaahhaahahahahhaaha. Did she have a Go Obama bumper sticker?
JiangxiDad on June 20, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Nah, I got the impression this was somebody forced onto the scooter by economics just running to the store. Not too many (any?) Moonbats where I live.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Meh… seems obvious to me why he doesn’t.
spmat on June 20, 2008 at 9:36 AM
I thought you were in Boston.
JiangxiDad on June 20, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I saw a disturbing site this morning. An overweight middle aged woman on a small scooter wearing what looked like a football helmet with the face guard removed. When you see something like that in my town, you know things are getting bad.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Sounds like a scene at most of the Wal-Marts I’ve been in - not-that-old and not-really handicapped absurdly fat people whizzing around in scooter-carts. And with a strange air of self-satisfaction on their faces.
Walking is a healthy exercise, I’ve found. And taxpayers don’t have to subsidize it…
TexasJew on June 20, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Metro Boston. South Shore.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM
It’s NOT about JUST the oil.
We ruined our oil equipment manufacturing industry. Think about how many jobs will be created when we ramp it up again. OIL JOBS, not Wal-Mart jobs
American workers getting paid a stronger American dollar. Just because we drill more,doesn’t mean we can’t do all of the other things necessary to improve our energy independence.
originalpechanga on June 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I’m not so optimistic. Remember, our elected idiots…I mean officials…tried to pawn off the same crap to us over the illegal immigration debate just before the 2006 elections. Even though most Americans rejected comprehensive immigration reform Senator Reid still tries even to this day to cram it down our throats or sneak it in the dark of night through other legislation.
I imagine that the Democrats, once they realize what a hot issue this is and start to see the polling numbers will once again do an “End Around” and run to the right of Republicans to defeat them on this issue. This will then secure their majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Once they have achieved this goal, they will then continue to (as someone else here mentioned) “Kick the can down the road” and do nothing.
There will eventually be a breaking point, but where or when that will be is anyone’s guess. For me personally I have figured I could manage up to $5.25 a gallon gasoline before I would be financially crippled and would have to make drastic economic changes in order to survive.
The politicians will do nothing until they see the pitchforks and torches of their constituents on their doorsteps.
Scorched_Earth on June 20, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Dr. John:
Oil shale development is the key to bursting the oil bubble and unlike the 1970’s Shell is ready to go with proven extraction technologies. Opening the West to oil shale development will increase world oil reserves by a factor of 2-4 times. What the dimwit Democrats and a small minority of RINOs don’t understand is that the massive increase in reserves drives down the future value of what the major oil producing countries have in the ground. This creates an incentive to pump and develop now while the price is high instead of continuing current production rates and be stuck with $40 oil five years from now.
The Saudi’s fully understand this problem which is why they are desperately trying to burst the bubble and get the price of oil below $70 a barrel. That is the breakeven point for startup production of Western oil shale reserves.
jerryofva on June 20, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Absolutely agree.
The price of oil is being driven on expectations of present levels of supply and increased demand 5 years from now.
Any real efforts to increase supply will knock down oil prices quickly and in a meaningful amount.
drjohn on June 20, 2008 at 9:57 AM
The politics of change is just the same old race hustle of days gone by, with a pretty face. Nothing new at all, except the young inexperienced black guy beat the more experienced girl, once again.
Drill here, drill now, pay less. Change you can really believe in.
I read in an oil industry paper that break even for Colorado oil shale was $40 a barrel. The water needed to produce it was the big issue.
tarpon on June 20, 2008 at 9:59 AM
America could be energy self-sufficient. We just can’t do it overnight, and we’ll never do it with Democrats controlling the US House, or more importantly the US Senate. As with most types of progress, the first step that has to happen is that Democrats have to lose elections.
RBMN on June 20, 2008 at 9:59 AM
On the news this morning, they mentioned that drilling in ANWR will lower the price about $1 per gallon, bringing oil down to $139. I think that’s the answer.
dave742 on June 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM
$1 per barrel…
dave742 on June 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Incrementalism is what Libs do, and we need radical solutions to fix the problems they have created going back to the 1980s.
We need all options available to us, and despite claims to the contrary, we can get ANWR up and running in 3 years. Frankly, I wish Bush would just issue an executive order to commence operations there and get on with it.
It’s also important to note this aspect of Krauthammer’s piece:
Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we’re not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world’s most wretchedly poor.
Our environmental imperialism does not just redistribute pollution to people who can least afford it. It generally increases the total overall damage because oil extraction in the wealthier and more technologically advanced United States is far more environmentally sensitive.
Buy Danish on June 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM
F.Y.I., the Drill Here, Drill Now petition is now up to 1,054,812 signatures. Woo Hoo!
Buy Danish on June 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Does OPEC still have enough capacity to flood the market and whipsaw the price of oil? If so, they can and will wipe out the billions invested in alternatives whenever it’s most advantageous for them.
Bugler on June 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I want ANWR open, but the political ploy of “saving” this one area is pretty smart. McCain can argue that he is for “responsible” drilling, not wholesale drilling.
As a slippery slope ANWR can be opened later if needed. McCain can still argue he is environmentally aware and by standing up to the ANWR group he can show his independence.
A good political strategy that takes away a good part of the liberal mantra that he is in the pocket of the oil companies or that he doesn’t care about the environment.
Once on line with off-shore drilling, and the non-effect, and the addition of nuclear power plants and the non-effect…we can move in on ANWR.
right2bright on June 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM
On the news this morning, they mentioned that drilling in ANWR will lower the price about $1 per gallon, bringing oil down to $139. I think that’s the answer.
dave742 on June 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM
The answer to the question “what’s the biggest load of crap that you’ve heard all year?”"
TexasJew on June 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM
McCain needs to hammer home the point that if you’re energy policy hasn’t changed in a post 9/11 world with soaring energy costs, there’s something wrong.
BadgerHawk on June 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM
ROFLMAO! If anybody could predict with any accuracy the future price of oil and the impact of new sources they would keep their mouths shut and get filthy rich trading futures.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 10:29 AM
No one’s paying $140 a gallon for anything that goes into a car.
BadgerHawk on June 20, 2008 at 10:29 AM
No one’s paying $140 a gallon for anything that goes into a car.BadgerHawk on June 20, 2008 at 10:29 AM
BadgerHawk on June 20, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Dave742, don’t be so naive…just the announcement of opening to drill would lower the barrel cost by 10-20%, the speculators would start to dump their purchases. Agreeing to fast tracking refineries would drop it another 10-20%, adding dozens of nuclear plants would further lower it.
It is the shift in policy that will lower the price immediately, not the actual drilling. It is the speculators that have driven the price above $75 per barrel.
Sheesh, doesn’t anyone read the financial’s anymore?
right2bright on June 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I’m not convinced McCain has had any epiphany at all. My analogy from yesterday went something like: it’s easy to be in favor of law and order when your sitting is being torn apart by riots. There’s the mayor, McCain..I support the police doing something about these riots. I hope someone will call them soon.
All he’s doing is talking. Talk is cheap, especially with someone who has a grand history as a backstabber. Let’s see some legislation and some votes on solving the problem, then we can do the McCain cheer.
As to the $1 decrease poster above, I think I would want to do a bit more research before I start mocking the idea of drilling. In some places gas prices have dropped 10 to 12 cents just from the talk of drilling. We pass legislation and starting building infrastructure to drill, it’s going to go down more than a dollar. MSM is trying to slow down the enthusiasm on drilling so you’ll see a lot of stories like that. Don’t believe them.
austinnelly on June 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Egad. Sitting=city. That’s what happens when I post sans coffee.
austinnelly on June 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Tarpon:
The sustainable price for oil is in the $40 range after the initial investment. The startup price is in the $70-$80 range.
Bugler:
OPEC, principally Saudi Arabia, can play at the margins with an ANWAR without throwing its budget out or whack but they cannot deal with production increases on the order of even 5mbpd. They would go bankrupt. The smaller countries, i.e, everybody else will pump like mad to maximize their revenue stream. Our Western oil shale reserves can completely meet our needs for 100-300 years. It is a cartel breaker.
jerryofva on June 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I have got a suggestion. Let us just stop oil production in the U.S.A. to help the enviroment, and I am sure that OPEC will increase production and lower prices. They will, will they not?
Johan Klaus on June 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM
McCain needs to hammer home the point that if you’re energy policy hasn’t changed in a post 9/11 world with soaring energy costs, there’s something wrong.
BadgerHawk on June 20, 2008 at 10:28 AM
McCain should hammer home the fact that he was the deciding vote NOT to drill in ANWR the last time that it came up for a vote, after 9/11 and in a then-Republican Senate and House.
In fact, he should kiss President Bush’s in Macy’s window, as they say. Bush was the one pushing it, and McCain went into his bullshit “Maverick” mode, killing the drilling.
So 1.5 million BOPD are now being paid to foreign government oil companies, and the price is heading upstairs.
Thanks, McCain!
The moral of the story is:
The biggest hooker in town shouldn’t give celibacy lectures.
TexasJew on June 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM
So there would be no need for the govt to guarantee a price to domestic producers to protect their investment? If this is true, shale certainly looks like the way to go.
Bugler on June 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Oh no! Looks like McCain stole some Change™ from Obama!
Seixon on June 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM
This all makes one think that an unwritten part of our energy policy (if we even have one) is to let supplies elsewhere dwindle to the point that we’re the only country left with any reserves.
flipflop on June 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Bugler:
Nope, government subsidies are not the way to go. Oil Shale production should stand on its own not on the backs of the taxpayer.
jerryofva on June 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Agreed. . . imagine Kennedy saying we want to send people half way to the moon. Quite an accomplishment, but not quite the ingenuity you might expect from the government of the greatest nation on earth.
What if Saudi Arabia agreed and said we only want to pump from half our oil wells because our desert is pristine. . . how would McCain feel about that?
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 10:58 AM
ANWR production is projected to peak at 0.78 mbpd. US consuption is at 20 mbpd. This is less than 4% of our consumption, which will not even account for the demand increase over the next 3 years. I do not see ANWR bringing gas prices to $2 again.
dave742 on June 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Ed, question on this:
I hope you realize there are wells in ANWR. Putting up a rig in the gulf or atlantic will still take longer then ANWR, because they either have to move a rig over to that area or build a new one. Has anyone here ever seen a Rig built for the water? I was very impressed with the one they built here… but it took over a year.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
McCain is not actually calling for drilling in the OCS, contrary to some peoples opinions. He is calling for allowing the coastal states to decide whether or not to allow drilling 20-200 miles off their coasts. Big difference.
And I’ll believe that he is serious about even that largely ineffectual position when he introduces legislation for it.
This strikes me as being of a piece with his “promise” to secure the border. It only looks good as long as you’re not paying attention.
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Govt price protection isn’t something I’d want to see, but I thought it might be necessary temporarily to get shale production started. If it can be done without it, all the better.
Bugler on June 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I have lots of money to invest. What should I do?
I decided to invest in oil futures and buy 1000 barrels of oil at $130 a barrel.
Why? Because in the “FUTURE” my $130,000 oil investment will be worth more.
How do I know? America, with the largest supply of untapped oil resources, declared they won’t produce more oil. That will make my oil worth more money in the “FUTURE.”
So if anybody wants to buy 500 barrels for $140 a barrel now, I’ll sell. It’s going over $140.
But If America decides they’ll start drilling soon I will sell you my 1000 barrels for $135.
And if America declares they will do everything they can to become energy independent I will sell you my 1000 barrels for what I paid, $130.
If I can’t get $130 for my 1000 barrels because everybody else is selling their barrels cheaper, I’ll probably take the best offer.
Who am I? I’m a Speculator.
coffee260 on June 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Do you remember what happened in the early 80’s when people speculated? The bottom dropped out and that huge bubble burst.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Bingo. He only said that he would stop outlawing drilling from a federal government without that jurisdiction constitutionally anyway.
These people that say it won’t help are like people who can’t ever seem to lose weight on a ‘diet’. The sure way is to eat less AND exercise. Some people exercise but eat like a pig. Some people starve themselves while they watch their soap operas on the couch all day. You have to do BOTH.
Even WALKING is enough exercise. Cutting back on snacks is usually enough of a ‘diet’ too. You don’t have to fast, and you don’t have to become a professional athlete.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Dave:
There are far more oil resources available to the US then just ANWR so why do you continue to focus on the one field. If we develop, ANWR, near and distant offshore oil and gas plus our immense oil shale reserves then we are talking about doubling maybe even tripling annual US production. We also hold the world’s largest reserves of coal which can be turned into liquid fuels. America has enough resources to sustain a hydrocarbon based economy well into the “Star Trek” era.
jerryofva on June 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I don’t think it is speculation so much either. Speculators generally hold short term positions and are washed out of the market. I think it is the Asian subsidies that keep demand artificially high, and I think the Chinese government is using the money they get from exporting their stuff to us to stockpile oil (increasing demand and reducing supply at the same time). Price will go back to 60-70 after the olympics.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
The way I see it, when (if) Congress decides to open up drilling in any of the forbidden areas, we should see an immediate reaction in the cost of oil. I realize that there are several factors driving this increase in the cost of oil, but one of them is market speculation. Once the speculators learn that there will shortly be an increased supply of crude, prices will start to fall - before the first drop of oil is extracted.
karatecon on June 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Dave, I may agree with you in the big picture, but this claim is not worth reporting on. Predicting the future is gosh darn near impossible. By the time, ANWR oil starts to impact prices, who knows what the world situation will be?
Finland could be at war against Bolivia.
thuja on June 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
You stumbled over yourself a little bit there Dave. You said drilling in ANWR would lower price $1 per GALLON. . . meaning $3 at the pump instead of $4. . . a BIG difference in everyday budgets.
Oil per BARRELL is $140. . . which only speculators and oil companies pay.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Dave.. do you know that a Nuclear power plant that came online in the early 80’s was one of the reasons the oil bottomed out? And that was just one Plant!
Think about it… if McCain actually lets us get 5 or 6 Nuclear Power Plants up… what do you think it may do? What about the Economy in general? This is looking like a repeat of what happened 20 years ago.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Thacker, have you noticed those speculators are now in economist positions?
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM
McCain is such a dumb-ass. I hope Mitt will serve when he is elected.
cjs1943 on June 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
My take on the situation is similar to Charles Krauthammer’s column last week that ridiculed CAFE standards and suggested that we need to tax gas to keep artificially high when gas is cheap. Oil has substantial environmental and political negative externalities.
I am aware that of the current ploy by some of the right to argue that the current price is causing tremendous suffering among the American people. I don’t think identity politics is ulimately the problem with politics. The problem is delusional appeals to suffering. Identity politics is mostly about fantasized suffering like the suffering from a $4 a gallon gas.
But there is a real problem we need to address: how do we balance the environment against our funding of the terrorists? Some countries that are profiting big from the price of oil are sponsors of terrorism: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela. I don’t claim to have the answer, but I think McCain’s recent pronouncements about Outer Continental Shelf drilling is a start if we also take steps to reduce oil consumption.
thuja on June 20, 2008 at 11:36 AM
If for the sake of this discussion we accept as a given the much discussed fundamentals, China/India demand etc, the price of crude is going to continue higher, possibly dramatically, without substantial new production. Of all the deposits available only ANWR offers immediate availability. Everything necessary is in place including the famous pipeline.
But lets say you disagree. OK. My response, again assuming the fundamental demand issues are accurate, sooner or later, as we search and develop deposits, ANWR will be pumped. If not now, perhaps $6 a gallon at the pump. It is getting pumped not to lower the price per se but perhaps more importantly, to keep trillions of dollars at home instead of shipping them overseas. It is this fact that is continually lost on the folks who hyperventilate about not being able to “drill our way out of this problem”. At $20-$40 a barrel the money was less of an issue.
That said McCain needs to get his ass on a plane to Alaska, where with the Gov Mrs. Palin, they can go do a photo op on the coastal plane of ANWR, a meet and greet with the locals who favor drilling and more importantly start educating Americans about what a godforsaken place it really is. Part of the process will be showing folks that the pics they have been spoon fed these last 25 years have not been of the coastal plane but instead the incredible interior, well over 100 miles inland. An area that will never be touched, EVER. Leadership is about education. He needs to do a town hall on the North Shore.
Maybe as a bonus he could pick Palin as VP!
patrick neid on June 20, 2008 at 11:37 AM
IIRC, you are the commenter who lives in Manhattan and does not own a car. In which case I suppose that you are not exactly suffering. But you’re right, it is identity politics, in a “screw the poor people” sort of way.
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Do you have any practical proposals for how we might reduce oil consumption? By practical, I don’t mean Soviet style forced relocation of people into densely populated urban areas where they will all take trains and buses.
flenser on June 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Faster than lightning,
No one you see, is smarter than he!
misterpeasea on June 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
yeah, is it like a good idea that money for school budgets is going to the high gas prices to pay for school buses? There are no solutions to gas guzzling busses any time soon. I don’t see a prius bus. . . and every taxpayer pays for that. AND it is money taken away from education.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
lower gas prices. . . it’s for the chiiiiillllllldrren.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM
“Let’s say a pension fund, like the California Public Employees Retirement System, wants to increase its exposure to commodities. Calpers, a speculator according to the CFTC, does a total-return swap with Goldman Sachs Group Inc., a hedger. Goldman promises to pay Calpers the total return on the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and hedges the swap by buying futures contracts. Calpers’s speculative bet on commodities gets recorded as Goldman’s hedging in the COT report. In so doing, investors circumvent the position limits on non-commercials, says Aronstein, who estimates that passive commodity index exposure in commodities amounts to some $250 billion.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aZBYblEmb.v0&refer=columnist_baum
The author of the above quote with the link to the larger story has forgot more in her toe clippings than most of us will ever come to learn. Read and re read the article. It will explain everything you need to know about the current state of the futures market. Having spent eleven years trading crude oil and other commodities at EFHutton I know a little of what I speak. Read her. Put her in your favorites.
patrick neid on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
You are so right. I’m going to listen to every whine of a poor person from now on–no matter how misinformed. Let me go contribute to some Democrat who wants single-payer socialized medicine. Perhaps, after that I’ll go find some bum on a street corner who needs some change to buy “food”.
You can always find some poor person suffering somewhere for any reason you can imagine. And we should admit the truth here. The Democrats are much imaginative in finding the “suffering” poor and using the poor as political symbols than we are. I suggest we stop playing the game. To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to poor people when they tell us about their suffering, but the cheap manufacturing of theoretical poor people for some political end does not improve our politics nor does it help the poor.
thuja on June 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Must be nice to be so well informed about other States and the world, in a Concrete Building and never have to drive anywhere.
Why don’t you deal with Bumble-Bloom and your higher taxes and leave ANWR to the people who have been there.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
thuja, I mentioned school buses because of your posts. high gas prices takes money out of education budgets across the country. Instead of money going to education, it goes to gas in the buses. Schools are starting to go to a 4 day week instead of 5 primarily because of gas prices. . . it’s not good when the gas is too high for kids to get a public education.
ThackerAgency on June 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
If we are going for the cheap ad hominem, my brother was up at Prudhoe Bay eating in a oil company cafeteria the day Senator Paul Wellstone died. The people in the cafeteria cheered the news.
thuja on June 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Ummm and I care why? I live in Alaska not Minnesota! Good Lord.
If someone is screwing over your State that bad, and it is the people who elected that individual into office. Then let them cheer! Most of the people who work on the slope are conservative’s and understand what it takes, no matter what State they come from to work up there.
You might want to take a trip out of your city. I think the walls are starting to close in on you. You might learn something as well.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
upinak,
Take no offence that I’m always trying to steal your governor.
patrick neid on June 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Go for it! I think it is high time that someone step up behind the President (like Cheney as much as everyone hates him) and make sure they get the real deal. VP’s are also known to help with an alternative idea way back when. I don’t see why that is such a problem. The more advisors the better. And if she does get in the VP slot…. I wouldn’t be surprized if she was asked to run as President.
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM
But my question.. What about Jindal?
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I just find Ms Palin’s personal story and attributes so much more compelling. Her cleaning out corrupt Repub politicos etc. The Fred Barnes article says it all. She’s just the medicine the party needs right now. With four years as VP she could spend the time wisely boning up on foreign affairs and what not.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp
My fear is the Washington elite might think her and her husband are too “country”, bumpkins for short.
Either way McCain needs to get up to ANWR and get an education from her.
patrick neid on June 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Mr. McCain, and congress, is there any truth to this ?:
The Energy Non-Crisis - Lindsey Williams
byteshredder on June 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM
LOL! You mean Back Woods Eskimo or like a Tundra Wooky? Give me my ULU, I got Fish to filet. BTW, Ulu’s work very well on Fish.
Seriously, do people really think Alaskans are that stupid? Or just is it the fact we don’t give a crap about what others say?
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Yeah for years I’d assumed that was the rationale behind US energy policy and that in was quite smart but in the last few years I now think it is too clever by half. The Arabs are trying to conquer large chunks of the earth and this policy is paying them to do it.
aengus on June 20, 2008 at 2:07 PM
thuja, let me provide you with some perspective. I’m from the middle class. I make a decent wage, about the highest I can make without going into management. I work in IT at an insurance company, looking at emerging technologies. My wife (w/o college degree) stays home and homeschools our kids, so we only have my one income.
In the last two years…
Food for my family of 6 has almost doubled. (3 of 4 kids are teenagers)
My oldest daughter has a steer project for 4-H. With her first steer project (2 yrs ago), feed (mostly corn) was $70 for 500lbs of feed. Yesterday, my wife bought feed for $152 for 500lbs. It has more than doubled in 2 years!
I drive to work 34 miles a day, round trip. My wife/daughter have to drive out to the barn to take care of her steer twice a day (round trip of 16 miles… mostly in town). We’re talking close to 70 miles a day.
If you include some other associated items, I figure we’ve seen our expenses increase about $600 a month over the last two years, without any real corresponding increase in pay.
I am extremely successful in my field, and yet our family is struggling financially right now.
The problem is that these stupid, greedy congressmen care more about their politics than about the people they’re supposed to represent.
dominigan on June 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I read your story. Thanks! It’s good for us to tell stories as you did, as the stories ground us in the facts we know. Of course, sometimes we can be wrong in telling our stories. We humans have a tendency to tell stories in the ways that best suit our interest, and too often our own immediate interest without taking a long run view–not that you were guilty of either. I just think it’s always important to keep in mind our limits in self-narrative.
You didn’t use the word “suffering” in your story. So I don’t think I can fairly be accused of attacking you in noting that by any possible historical standard or even by current global standards, it’s hard to see the suffering in your story.
thuja on June 20, 2008 at 2:46 PM
upinak,
You guys chew your skins before sewing them, we all know this! LOL!
I don’t know if DC is ready for the husband of the VP to be a 3x time winner of the world’s longest snowmobile race at 2000 miles. What’s next a truck pull winner? You see where this leads. :)
Anyway I want her for VP.
patrick neid on June 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I see… afraid of off the wall winter sports like snowshoe baseball and the Dogs of the North Weight Pull!
But just a little info. Sarah hunts and fishes as well as net fish. I don’t think many of the liberal women will like her… unless they are sporty and understand killing an animal for food. Caribou sausage comes to mind and making my hungry!
upinak on June 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Neither of these guys is terribly swift. Assuming Obama is not actually a saboteur, one would have to conclude that his knowledge of most public policy issues is on a par with my twelve year old granddaughter. McCain is about a tenth as well versed in public policy as he thinks he is.
burt on June 20, 2008 at 9:16 PM