Energy hatred is the problem

Houston Chronicle:

When it comes to the raging national debate over energy policy, reality is often in the eye of the beholder.

President Bush declares that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve will reduce the price we pay at the pump without threatening endangered Alaskan wildlife. Democrats say drilling under the Arctic tundra will have no impact on gasoline prices for at least a decade — if ever — and risks environmental catastrophe for what would be nothing more than a few drops in the proverbial bucket of world oil supplies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declares that an excess-profits tax on American oil companies would recoup some of the unconscionable profits obtained through gouging consumers at the pump. Republicans respond that a replay of the ill-conceived 1980 windfall profits tax would cost Americans jobs and shift even more energy production overseas.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., a one-time Harvard professor, famously remarked that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. However, political debate in America has become so polarized that it is often difficult to cut through the rhetorical clutter to separate fact from fiction, spin from reality.

"We may accent different facts and statistics," said Sen. John Cornyn, "but it's undeniable that unless we increase our oil supply, we are stuck with high gas prices indefinitely."

To which Sen. Chuck Shumer, D-N.Y., has his own set of facts.

"Even as someone who supported targeted oil drilling in the East Gulf (of Mexico)," he said, "I know you can't drill your way out of the problem."

...

What we know is that Shumer's statement is a matter of Democrat policy and is not a fact. Democrats have opposed almost every form of energy to get us to the point where we are dependent on an artificial famine of oil and other resources. Their opposition to drilling is just one part of the problem. Democrats also are opposing new coal plants and new nuclear plants. They oppose wind farms and their environmentalist allies are delaying new solar projects. It is hard to fine one form of energy production favored by Democrats. They think you can drill for conservation by starving the market of real energy resources.

In a long article on the energy shortage in the NY Times you see a thinly disguised tome to conservation an the failure to impose new CAFE standards in the 90s along with the failure to impose higher taxes on energy. Both are wrong headed approaches to the energy problem.

The problem is the Democrats and environmentalist. The Democrats are OPEC's best friend. They are deliberately holding oil off the market by restricting exploration and production. It is an absurd policy that has made us vulnerable to stiff price increases caused by increased demand elsewhere. You can't conserve your way out of this problem.

The conservation that would have been produced by the Democrat plans of the 90's would not have offset the increased demand elsewhere which is driving up the prices. Increased production would lower those prices and would also increase the US economy by halting the transfer of wealth to the middle east and elsewhere.

The royalties from increased offshore and Alaska production could pay off the national debt, and that is not counting the increased tax receipts from US companies who would profit from the increased domestic production.

An example of energy hatred by Harry Reid is discussed here.