Our Views: The politics of energy
Print
Email
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
As fuel prices soar, Democrats and Republicans are both trying to find political advantage in the problem, but they rarely seem willing to admit the truth:
There is no short-term solution to the energy crunch, which means that Americans are in for more pain at the gas pump, at least in the foreseeable future, regardless of what politicians do.
A couple of conservative groups recently attacked the energy policies of U.S. Rep. Don Cazayoux, the New Roads Democrat elected to fill the vacancy created when longtime lawmaker Richard Baker resigned from his 6th District seat. Cazayoux is facing stiff opposition in his fall campaign for a full congressional term.
The National Republican Congressional Committee and Freedom’s Watch have accused Cazayoux of blocking Republican amendments that would allow extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Cazayoux said the charges relate to his opposition to procedural votes that are used to slow down Congress. He said he has supported legislation that would open up the refuge and other restricted areas to oil drilling.
Cazayoux’s support for more unrestricted oil drilling seems pretty clear to us. Cazayoux is also correct when he points out that the conversation on drilling should have been started years ago. Even if drilling in ANWR were allowed, it would be 10 years before the oil extracted there could translate into lower gas prices, Cazayoux said. He added that in addition to drilling, Congress must also support other solutions, such as tax credits for renewable energy.
Cazayoux’s embrace of the longer view has not been consistent, though. He voted to increase the oil supply by temporarily diverting oil shipments from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a store of oil meant to be used for national emergencies. Cazayoux’s office referred to expert estimates that such a diversion could lower gas prices anywhere from 5 to 24 cents a gallon.
Diverting oil from the reserve in an effort to nominally reduce gas prices might have populist appeal, but we don’t think it’s sound energy policy, and there is not enough oil in the reserve to affect prices for any significant length of time.
Cazayoux also has supported legislation that purports to limit “excessive speculation” in energy markets, but this seems more symbol than substance in regard to the real energy problems facing the nation.
Meanwhile, Gov. Bobby Jindal, no doubt sensing public anxiety about fuel prices, said that he will look at ways to reduce fuel prices, including efforts to bolster alternative fuel sources, expand the state’s oil refining capacity, and promote research and development of new energy technology.
However, a governor has very little influence on global energy trends, and while we support investment in research and development, that will not affect today’s fuel prices, or even next year’s.
Politicians seem to be scrambling to address the high cost of fuel, and we can chastise them for not acting years ago to avoid this problem.
But if they had argued for prudent energy policies years ago, when the cost of gas was relatively low, how many of us would have listened?
There is no short-term solution to the energy crunch, which means that Americans are in for more pain at the gas pump, at least in the foreseeable future, regardless of what politicians do.
A couple of conservative groups recently attacked the energy policies of U.S. Rep. Don Cazayoux, the New Roads Democrat elected to fill the vacancy created when longtime lawmaker Richard Baker resigned from his 6th District seat. Cazayoux is facing stiff opposition in his fall campaign for a full congressional term.
The National Republican Congressional Committee and Freedom’s Watch have accused Cazayoux of blocking Republican amendments that would allow extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Cazayoux said the charges relate to his opposition to procedural votes that are used to slow down Congress. He said he has supported legislation that would open up the refuge and other restricted areas to oil drilling.
Cazayoux’s support for more unrestricted oil drilling seems pretty clear to us. Cazayoux is also correct when he points out that the conversation on drilling should have been started years ago. Even if drilling in ANWR were allowed, it would be 10 years before the oil extracted there could translate into lower gas prices, Cazayoux said. He added that in addition to drilling, Congress must also support other solutions, such as tax credits for renewable energy.
Cazayoux’s embrace of the longer view has not been consistent, though. He voted to increase the oil supply by temporarily diverting oil shipments from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a store of oil meant to be used for national emergencies. Cazayoux’s office referred to expert estimates that such a diversion could lower gas prices anywhere from 5 to 24 cents a gallon.
Diverting oil from the reserve in an effort to nominally reduce gas prices might have populist appeal, but we don’t think it’s sound energy policy, and there is not enough oil in the reserve to affect prices for any significant length of time.
Cazayoux also has supported legislation that purports to limit “excessive speculation” in energy markets, but this seems more symbol than substance in regard to the real energy problems facing the nation.
Meanwhile, Gov. Bobby Jindal, no doubt sensing public anxiety about fuel prices, said that he will look at ways to reduce fuel prices, including efforts to bolster alternative fuel sources, expand the state’s oil refining capacity, and promote research and development of new energy technology.
However, a governor has very little influence on global energy trends, and while we support investment in research and development, that will not affect today’s fuel prices, or even next year’s.
Politicians seem to be scrambling to address the high cost of fuel, and we can chastise them for not acting years ago to avoid this problem.
But if they had argued for prudent energy policies years ago, when the cost of gas was relatively low, how many of us would have listened?
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
