A reader remarks…

     What about the argument that the oil companies are not drilling on leased areas as it is and the deregulation of futures speculation (Enron loophole) that has also contributed to driving up the price of oil? Why wont US oil companies get oil from South America or Canada? Why does most of the oil have to be bought from OPEC?
     Seems there's more to it than the offshore drilling solution… Not that I am against it, because I am for it. But that is only part of the solution on Middle East oil dependence.
     Actually, we need a mix of traditional and new energy sources (natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as coal and oil) to gain our independence from foreign oil. Germany is leading the way in this area, with legal mandates and tax incentives for the adoption of wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and solar heat. Google the city of Freiburg and you’ll find a town that makes so much of it’s own energy that it has a surplus the citizens sell at a profit to the national grid. They have homes that lose so little heat they can be warmed comfortably in the dead of winter using 30 lit candles and the trapped heat the occupants give off. So yes, there is more to the solution than drilling.
    But when President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling yesterday the price of oil futures dropped by $9 a barrel, finally stabilizing at a net reduction of $7.33 by the end of trading. Supply and Demand. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if Congress followed suit?
    Right now there are oil fields off California that, if opened back up for drilling, would produce oil in one year. Other areas will take much longer to develop, but we are looking at the possibility of almost immediate relief.
    If there is oil to be had on the leased land I think the oil companies would be drilling for it right now, given the price per barrel. I suspect most of that leased land is not as promising to yield oil as the outer continental shelf, our western oil shale and the ANWR deposits.
    I’ve heard that speculation adds from 40 to 80 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline. This may well be. On the other hand –and hear me out on this— the speculators, oil futures buyers, provide a valuable service. There is competition among nations to buy oil. India wants it and so does China. The futures buyers secure a reliable supply for U.S. end users. In other words, they make sure that when we turn the car on, there’s gas in the tank. The $4.50 a gallon is the price of buying the gas in a competitive world market. Once again, supply and demand.
    If you look into whom the futures buyers are, you won’t find a crew of buccaneers like Enron. You will find pension funds and public employee unions.
     We do, in fact get oil from Canada, which has the biggest deposit of tar sand in the world. The oil is processed out of that material, which is mined. Our South American supplier is Venezuela, which is run by our adversary Hugo Chavez, who is every bit as obnoxious as any Arab oil sheik ever thought of being.
    So I’m with you. Let’s drill and let’s diversify our energy portfolio. That is a solution that is truly pragmatic and truly progressive.

Burning food in a hungry world…

     Count me out when it comes to ethanol, however. In a world where starving children bloat up and are too week to brush the flies off their own faces, it is a grotesquely selfish and ultimately obscene act to take edible corn and turn it into fuel for SUVs. By 2015 as much as half of the U.S. corn crop could be going into ethanol production. What will this do to the price of animal feed? Meat and milk prices are already rising, what about the thousand-and-one other food products made directly or indirectly from corn?
     We Americans can afford a bigger food bill. What about the less fortunate peoples of the world? What are they to do when food is either too expensive or unavailable at any price? It is something to think about as we crank up the air conditioning in our SUVs this summer.    

Mr. Obama goes to Washington…by way of Baghdad

     Barack Obama is going to Iraq. The only question is …why? The answer is far from obvious because Obama went to some pains yesterday to say that the war in Iraq was a strategic mistake and it’s the war in Afghanistan that we absolutely, positively must win.
    There was no hint that Obama planned to modify or refine his position on the war for any reason. That’s because his net roots are being especially vigilant in examining anything he says about the conflict for signs of a shift to the center.
     This puts Obama –ahem!— between Iraq and a hard place because while the Democratic primary candidates bickered earlier this year about who would get us out of Iraq the fastest, the Surge worked and we more or less won the war. The terrorists have not been completely eliminated, but they hold no cities, Al Qaida in Iraq has been reduced by about 90 percent and the Iraq army is taking on more and more responsibility in the conflict.
    This calls for at least for a more nuanced approach to withdrawal by the Democratic standard-bearer. But with a civil war brewing on his own website over his shifts to the center on faith-based programs, gun rights and immunity for the telecoms who helped the government wiretap terrorists, Obama cannot move to the center on the war. He cannot cross the Netroots on the signature issue of the campaign.
    So if going to Iraq is not going to change his mind on policy, what’s the point? Frequent flyer miles? Or the excellent roast lamb they serve in Baghdad?