Rant of the Week: Energy policy, Part II: Sticking it to Dubya and McSame.

The “new” neocon (which includes Bush, and yes, McCain too) energy policy is to drill more oil wells. Period. Specifically, Republicans are pushing for opening up off-shore drilling and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They also want to lift the moratorium on oil shale development in western CO, Utah and Wyoming, even though the oil companies say the technology isn’t ready to produce oil from shale economically or safely. This week McCain spoke at a bikers’ rally: “We're gunna become energy independent. We’re not going to pay $4 a gallon for gas because we’re going to drill offshore, and we’re going to drill now. We’re going to drill here. We’re going to drill now!” This is the Republican party energy mantra. The GOP occasionally pays lip service to alternative energy and conservation, yet their actions and words indicate they are serious about no such thing. Conservatives contend increasing domestic supply will bring down prices. This is actually an enticing option to many people because it plays on simple supply and demand economics. If we increase supply, price goes down, right? This is just not the case.

Last week I told you three factors that are contributing to the rising price of gasoline. Republicans and the oil and gas industry like to blame “liberal environmentalists” for resisting domestic drilling and not allowing any more oil refineries. I’d like to ask them when “liberal environmentalists” have had any political power in the last 10+ years. If this issue was so important to the GOP, why didn’t Bush address this issue when they had control of Congress? I’d also like to ask them why we’ve got more drill rugs running right now on American soil than ever before. In Colorado, the BLM has opened up the Roan Plateau for development and will do the same for Vermillion Basin. So who’s restricting development again? Oil and gas companies have over 30 million acres of federal minerals leased in the US (mostly under public land in the west) that they’re not drilling. And don’ tell me restrictions hurt you. You’re making astronomical profits. We need to make these companies ante up that extra money to drill with fewer impacts.

Okay little diversion rant there, but back to the important point that drilling offshore and ANWR will simply not lower prices by any significant amount, and what small impact it will have will be a decade off. Both the Bush-controlled Department of Energy and the energy industry agree (when they let the truth slip). Even oil baron T. Boone Pickens understands and has put forward an energy plan relying heavily on renewable energy. Lets hear what the experts have to say. First from the Casper Star-Tribune:

Looking to the next year, Charles F. Mason, the H.A. "Dave" True Jr. professor of petroleum and natural gas economics at the University of Wyoming, said the notion that the nation could simply drill more wells to become "independent" of foreign oil imports simply isn't realistic."It's a myth," Mason said.

Of America's potential to unlock more domestic resources, Mason said, "It's truly small potatoes in the context of the global oil market."

Former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, Thomas B. Evans, summarized the situation well in a recent editorial for the Tampa Tribune when he wrote:

“Unfortunately, some find it easy to take advantage of these hardships. These misguided leaders are capitalizing on the high price of gasoline...It is terribly misleading to suggest that drilling would reduce the price of oil anytime in the near future...Speaking as a Republican, I fervently hope we will not be led down a path that may benefit oil companies but is so clearly wrong for America.”

In an article in The Advisor, Lee Fuller, a lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, let it slip:

“There’s very little Congress can do in the short term because we’re dealing with a global market.”

Even by the Bush administration's DOE’s admission, opening ANWR to drilling will not produce results until 2018, and even then the contribution to the global oil pool will be insignificant.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

I would also like to ask these GOP dolts this: If we have more drill rigs running on US soil than ever before, why is the cost of natural gas and oil increasing? Why isn’t your simple supply and demand philosophy working now? Finally, let’s not remember that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Regardless of how much we drill, we will eventually run out. Instead of buffering against this impending supply decrease, we’re continuing to feed our addiction. The shortsightedness of Bush and McCain is downright frightening.

Following the lead of the neo-cons when it comes to energy policy would be a monumental mistake for this nation. The environmental impacts are one thing, and I worry about the affects to climate more than those which can be more easily mitigated. However, we cannot overlook what this “no change” philosophy will do to our economy. The US used to have the best bunch of scientists and engineers in the world. While we can make the case that we still do, no one can deny the fact that we’re falling behind. A president could issue an ultimatum to the American people to lead the world in development of AE (much like Kennedy challenged us to beat the Russians to the moon), which could stimulate a scientific renaissance. This resurgence will create jobs and help shift our economy away from what could be a catastrophic collapse if we don’t wean ourselves off oil.

I’m all about a three pronged approach of seeking alternative energy sources, conservation (including forcing many conservation measures, such as fuel standards), and some responsible domestic drilling. But until we get moving on those other two legs to the stool, we should open no new areas to oil and gas development. Until our government shows that it is dead serious about AE and conservation, no giveaways to the oil and gas industry. To me, maybe next to foreign policy, this is the most important issue of the 2008 election. I can’t think of a worse way to address this issue than the Republican energy policy.

Professional Rant of the Week: Know-Nothing Politics

Paul Krugman came out with an op-ed about the neocon energy policy at the right time to support my Rant of the Week.

Know-Nothing Politics

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid.

Now, I don’t mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don’t mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Rant of the Week: Energy policy, Part I: Letting Dubya and big oil off the hook

Okay, it’s Friday night and I’m putting off my head altering activities to pound out this potentially long and very broad topic about energy policy. I’m taking another look at this on Saturday morning and I want to go camping, so instead of writing one long piece, I think now I’m going to split this topic into two posts. In this post I will try to argue the forces that have raised gas prices are largely beyond our government’s and oil companies’ control. The next post I will rip part the Bush/Republican energy “policy,” which will just make things worse. I’m also looking for a lot of participation on this one, because *gasp* I can’t find many ways to blame the Bush administration or “big oil” for the rising price of energy in America.

As far as I see it, there are up to 3 reasons why gas prices have increased in the last 6 months.

1. Millions of people in the world are pulling themselves into the energy-consuming middle class in countries like India and China. This is increasing global demand, which of course, raises the price of a barrel of oil.
2. The US dollar is very weak, which means we’re paying more for a global resource.
3. There is a lot of “futures” speculation going on.

Folks aren’t arguing about the first two reasons, but there’s some disagreement as to how much futures are contributing. This concept is a bit confusing to me and maybe some of you can enlighten me. Futures are contracts that require delivery of a commodity of specified quality and quantity, at a specified price, on a specified future date. Um okay….so how does this affect prices? Any help from the market experts? I’m also reading that there’s some market manipulation going on that could be affecting prices.

So how can we hold oil companies responsible for high gas prices? Yes, Exxon and their friends are making a bunch of money, and so are their CEOs, while we suffer.
These companies make billions in profits, but they also have very high costs. Exxon made 10% last quarter. That’s a lot, for sure, but Apple, for example, made 15%. So why aren’t we protesting Steve Jobs for heading up an evil corporation that makes too much money? (I do acknowledge that buying an Apple is a luxury and buying gas, for some, is not). Isn’t it a company’s job to make as much money as they can? Don’t they have a responsibility to their share holders to do just that? Why in the hell would I want to own any stock in Exxon (which I surely do in my 401(k)) when they decide to sell gas for less than the market will pay? Of course, if the government decided pull out those billions of dollars in subsidies (or maybe even increase taxes, such as windfall taxes, but I’m undecided on that), I’d be all for it, but it’s not up to the companies to do that.

The one gripe I have with oil companies is that there’s no real competition going on. I can’t drive from the Exxon station to a Shell station and get gas for much less. It seems all the companies increase their prices at the same time, kind like gas stations in Craig or Salmon. These oil companies seem to be colluding to increase prices together. Because competition is not driving down prices, the market just isn’t working the way it should. Please chime in with other reasons we can hold oil companies accountable for high gas prices.

So how is Bush responsible? He has to be, right? There’s no doubt he and Cheney love the oil and gas industry. And there’s no question their corrupt Department of the Interior is making it easier for oil companies to make money by opening up more areas and going very light on restrictions. But specifically, what have the neocons done to raise the price of a barrel of oil? Sure, Bush supports subsides for oil and gas companies, but he doesn’t create these subsides—Congress does. We can also point the finger at Bush for not pushing the development of alternative energy (AE), but creating incentives and requirements to use AE isn’t done by the Executive branch of the government. Again, it’s Congress who has been sitting on their hands. Bush has squandered an opportunity to provide leadership in development of AE, but other than that, I’m having a hard time linking him to high prices.

So here’s your challenge, my fellow Bush-detesting readers. Tell me how oil companies and Bush are responsible for high gas prices. Even if they aren’t responsible for gas prices, the Republicans are taking the worst possible steps to “remedy” the problem. Stay tuned for next week when I won’t be as nice on Dubya.

Recipe of the week: Salmon Rice Bowls with Ginger-Lime Sauce

I'm a huge fan of Vietnamese food. The flavors are fresh and they do such a great job mixing sweet, spicy, sour, and salty. This dish is no exception, leaning on ginger, chiles, and garlic for flavor and lime and cuccumber for freshness. This salmon dish is a household favorite.

Ingredients
1 3/4 cups water
1 1/4 cups long-grain rice, rinsed
2 tablespoons minced, peeled fresh ginger
3 1/2 tablespoons sugar
1 Thai red chile, chopped
10 small garlic cloves
2 tablespoons fresh lime juice
2 tablespoons Asian fish sauce
2 kirby cucumbers (10 ounces), cut into thin strips
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
Four 6-ounce skinless salmon fillets
Salt and freshly ground pepper

Directions
In a medium saucepan, bring 1 1/2 cups of the water and the rice to a boil. Cover, reduce the heat to low and cook the rice for 12 minutes. Remove the pan from the heat and let stand for 5 minutes.

Meanwhile, in a mortar, pound the ginger with the sugar and chile to a coarse paste. Transfer the paste to a bowl and stir in the remaining 1/4 cup of water, the lime juice and the fish sauce. Add the cucumbers.

Heat the oil in a large nonstick skillet. Season the salmon with salt and pepper. Add the salmon to the skillet and cook over moderately high heat until lightly browned, about 3 minutes. Add the whole garlic cloves. Turn the salmon and cook over moderate heat until opaque throughout, about 4 minutes.

Mound the rice in bowls. Top with the salmon, garlic cloves and ginger-lime sauce with cucumber strips and serve. Pass any extra sauce at the table.

Adapted from Food and Wine recipe.

Professional Rant of the Week - How Obama Became Acting President

This bit from Frank Rich has been the "most emailed article" from the NYTimes since it was published on Sunday. Lots of good stuff in here you're not hearing about McCain.

How Obama Became Acting President

Rant of the Week - Wild horses

I’ve been feenin’ to rant about wild horses, but I was kinda waiting until the Little Snake Field Office does its wild horse roundup, scheduled for this October. The Sand Wash Herd Management Area (HMA) has an Appropriate Management Level of 163 to 362 animals. There are currently more than 450 horses there. However, this front page article in the Denver Post this morning made me decide to push up my timeline on my wild horse rant. Recently, BLM deputy director Henri Bisson presented euthanasia as a solution to a meeting of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. This sparked all kinds of outrage. I’d contend that besides the dog, no animal is more revered in America than the horse.

Management of wild horses should be built upon this premise: Wild horses are an exotic species. I don’t care if they were in North America 10,000 years ago. If that’s our definition of “native,” then elephants are native, too. They are relatives of feral horses, set lose by ranchers. They should be managed as such, not on par with native wildlife. Yes, ranching interests do have the upper hand on public land and yes, livestock do cause more damage to the range—but only because there are more. One horse does a lot more damage than one cow. Horses have top and bottom teeth, which allow them to snip off vegetation right at the ground, killing the plant instead of allowing it to regrow next year. Additionally, livestock can be managed when environmental impacts are imminent. The BLM can, and does, force ranchers to move or remove cattle and sheep from the range. Nothing can be done about horses, except the roundups which occur every 4 to 5 years.

Horses are very destructive, yet wild horse advocate groups argue there should be no management of wild horses; they should be allowed to run free and never be rounded up. Not only that, but they ask that horses are returned to areas they were removed from (because of mixed land ownership and lack of water and/or forage). In addition to the significant environmental damage that would cause, there would eventually be a huge wild horse die off. That’s not my idea of limiting animal cruelty. Not many environmental groups favor wild horses. Environmental interests and wild horse interests are very different in many respects. They don’t dovetail often (except to fight oil and gas development, and occasionally, livestock grazing), largely because the wiser environmental orgs know the damage this introduced species does. When was the last time you heard the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Environmental Coalition, etc speak out in favor of wild horses? If you want massive numbers of horses on the range, you’re going to see significant deterioration of the range and many starving horses. They reproduce like rabbits, and within 10 years we would have a massive ecological problem on our hands. Native vegetation and native wildlife would suffer greatly.

Wild horses are still really neat animals, and I support them being managed on public lands. Whether they’re native or not, they are still powerful and beautiful symbols of the west. But we can’t let radical animal rights groups dictate wild horse policy. “No easy fix” is correct. Euthanasia should be the absolute last resort, and I’m not sure we’re their yet. Fertility control sounds like a good compromise to me, and it we should be trying this approach in many areas. But even this is opposed by horse interest groups. In 2005, the Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition and the Cloud tried unsuccessfully to stop the BLM from experimenting with chemical contraception in Montana’s Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. I’ve dealt with many interests in natural resources, and none are more radical or uncompromising than wild horse advocates. The condition of the range should be the #1 objective, and to me that means fewer cows, sheep AND horses.

Let me close with this fact: The Interior Department spends almost $40 million on wild horses and burros, while it invests just $74,472 trying to keep the average threatened or endangered species in existence. Sorry, but that’s just plain wrong.

Rant of the Week - Debunking the Obama - Odinga Connection

It shouldn’t have surprised me. I should have seen this one coming. I read this post on the Denver Post forum the other day:

Yahoo "Raila Odinga Sharia Law". Obambi campaigned for this murdering thug knowing he had signed a pact to institute sharia law in Kenya if elected. This thug is behind the violence going on in Kenya now.

(Here's the tread. I post as 'niko.' You can tell the idiot worked me up, as I'm usually never this agressive.)

Here are two blogs which flesh out these lies. They're quite entertaining (albeit frustrating).
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/kenyas_killing_fields/index.html
http://caosblog.com/7071


Despite the fact that a Google search turns up more lies than truth, there is little in this statement that is true. Obama's perceived support for Odinga may have arisen from a speech he gave to university students in Nairobi during his 2006 visit. Obama spoke out against corruption in President Kibaki's government. Because Odinga is Kibaki's main political rival, Obama's criticism was misconstrued to mean that he had endorsed Odinga.

Obama did meet with Odinga, but there’s no proof of any endorsement. Obama has much support in Kenya, where he also enjoys a rock-star status. Raila took advantage of this for his campaign and tried to portray Obama's trip to Kenya as a personal endorsement. He even claimed Obama was his cousin, which is also false, showing a pattern of lying to make himself closer to Obama than what’s really the case. So although it may have been possible that Obama supported Odinga, there’s no proof of Obama “campaigning for” him.

The bit about signing an agreement to institute sharia law in Kenya is also unsupported. There is a doctored document on the internet, but wikileak refutes the allegation, adding:

Wikileaks’s analysis aside, it doesn't take very advanced math, wikipedia or googling skills to recognize that risking up to 80% of the vote (Kenya's Christian majority) to cater to a minority of 10% (its Muslims) doesn't add up.

There are claims from these idiots Odinga is a radical Muslim, which illustrates the pundits’ level of understanding of the subject.

Okay, so these assertions are lies. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say he did support Odinga’s presidential bid. The important thing to remember is that in 2006, while Odinga was a typical corrupt politician, his hands were fairly clean at this point. Obama even spoke out against tribal politics during his visit:

Ethnic-based politics has to stop. It’s rooted in a bankrupt idea that the goal of politics is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to ones own family, ones own tribe, or ones own circle of friends with little regard for public good.

Ethnic violence erupted in Kenya over a year after Obama’s visit and any fantasy endorsement. There is no proof of who facilitated the deaths of over a thousand innocent Kenyans. However, there’s little doubt, in my mind at least, that Odinga was a major orchestrator of this violence, along with President Kibaki and other prominent politicians. So calling Odinga a thug after the election is a fair analysis. However, no one even bothers to make up lies about how Obama might have shown support for Odinga after his hands were bloodied. The only evidence of any communication is when Obama took time off his campaign in New Hampshire to make a five-minute phone call to Odinga, urging him to talk with President Kibaki in order to avoid more bloodshed. So the only connection was that Obama was urging Odinga to stop the volence. That doesn’t sound like supporting a thug to me.

After searching through the first few pages of my Google search, I blelieve this is the first blog post stating the truth about Obama’s connection to Odinga. That’s fucking whacked. Thankfully, there are a few news articles that state the truth:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2008/01/the_kenya_conne.html

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/612/obama_and_the_kenya_deception/