Published on 7 May 2008 by ASPO-USA / Energy Bulletin. Archived on 7
May 2008.
by Dave Cohen
The disconnect between peak oil concerns and the presidential race is
almost total. As prices at the pump rise, each candidate is now
talking about their so-called solutions to the problem. Despite clear
new warning signs from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Nigeria that
peak oil is nigh, the candidates remain unwaveringly oblivious to the
true causes of rising fuel prices, preferring instead to dwell on
irrelevant=97actually, counterproductive=97measures like suspending the
federal gas tax during the summer months or taxing Big Oil. This is
akin to putting a band-aid on a melanoma.
Our nation's capital is a self-reinforcing bastion of ignorance about
the longer term oil supply issues, [Roscoe] Bartlett (R, Md) and a few
others excepted. The candidates and their energy advisers are full-
fledged members of the "Wa****ngton Insiders" club, a group that only
talks to each other and gets all of its information from inside the
Beltway or pollsters. A brief example suffices to demonstrate the
problem. Everybody in our nation's capital reads the Wa****ngton Post.
If you want to "know" what's going on, it's in the Post. Here are the
results of a Google advanced search survey of references to the exact
phrase "peak oil" in four newspapers.
Newspaper Hits
Wall Street Journal 3820
New York Times 1970
Houston Chronicle 617
Wa****ngton Post 389
The Wall Street Journal has about 10 times more allusions to "peak
oil" than the Post does. Bear in mind that this informal survey
includes comments by readers, guest editorials, and assorted other
references that are not part of the newspaper's re****ting. You will be
hard-pressed to find a news article in the Wa****ngton Post that uses
the term "peak oil." Earth to the Post's Editors, this is Earth calling
=97"peak oil" is a growing concern outside the Beltway, so it's time to
get with the program.
Examining the "oil dependency" positions of the candidates' energy
advisers gives us little hope our newly elected government will meet
the peak oil challenges head-on in 2009.
The Invisible Elephant in the Room
One can not say that Jason Grumet (Obama) or James Woolsey (McCain)
are completely uninformed about oil shocks, but they appear to be very
badly informed about the ever-accelerating peak oil squeeze. These
Wa****ngton insiders don't seem to get it, but most Americans are
already on the receiving end of our point. The oil price is $122.20/
barrel at this moment. Maybe this should be a seen as a "career-ending
price for many people in Wa****ngton."
Mitigating anthropogenic climate change is the imperative driving the
policies of all the presidential candidates, so their primary energy
initiative is a carbon emissions cap & trade system. Problems arising
from our oil dependency take a backseat=97these are not perceived as
urgent and thus can be solved gradually. This approach to our "oil
dependency" only makes sense from a climate perspective, which
requires us to change our energy consumption and infrastructure over
several decades.
The soaring oil price and its underlying causes are the invisible
elephant in the room in the presidential race. While many of the
candidates' proposals can be chalked up to pandering in an election
year, there is no evidence that I can find that any of the candidates
gets this "peak oil" problem. For example, Robert Hirsch and Roger
Bezdek briefed two low level Clinton staffers on the dangers of a
dwindling oil supply. No evidence sup****ts the idea that this briefing
has had the slightest effect on thinking in the Clinton campaign.
We are all being sold down the river in this year's election. As the
first DOE secretary James Schlesinger said, "We have only two modes=97
complacency and panic." Complacency rules, and panic awaits. I don't
know who the next president will be, but I can foresee that anxious
day when our leader-to-be (or Jason Grumet?) exclaims "Oh, no! Oil is
$161/barrel! The economy is falling apart! What do we do now?" Don't
say we didn't warn you.
|
