resurrectionsong

October 07, 2004

The "No Mullah Left Behind" Energy Policy

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times makes an interesting case (free subscription required) that our current administration and its energy policies support the worst Arab oil regimes and terrorism. In short, he believes that these countries would change from within if their governments weren't feasting at the oil-money trough, then happily paying off any dissent.

Of all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia - where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance - that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.

This is easy for Mr. Friedman to write, but he doesn't follow it with any solutions:

We need to dramatically cut our consumption of oil and bring the price back down to $20 a barrel. Nothing would do more to stimulate reform in the Arab-Muslim world. Oil regimes do not have to modernize or govern well. They just buy off their people and their mullahs. Governments without oil have to reform to create jobs. People do not change when you tell them they should - they change when they tell themselves they must.

The haves and have-nots of the Arab world--great examples to support his case:

Where is all the innovation in the Arab world today? In the places with little or no oil: Bahrain is working on labor reform, just signed a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and held the first elections in the Arab gulf, allowing women to run and vote. Dubai has made itself into a regional service center. And Jordan has a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and is trying to transform itself into a knowledge economy. Who is paralyzed or rolling back reforms? Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, all now awash in oil money.
When did Jordan begin privatizing and deregulating its economy and upgrading its education system? In 1989 - after oil prices had slumped and the Arab oil states cut off Jordan's subsidies. In 1999, before Jordan signed its U.S. free-trade accord, its exports to America totaled $13 million. This year, Jordan will export over $1 billion worth of goods to the U.S. In the wake of King Abdullah II's reforms, Jordan's economy is growing at an annual rate of over 7 percent, the government is installing computers and broadband Internet links in every school, and it will soon require anyone who wants to study Islamic law and become a mosque preacher to first get a B.A. in something else, so mosque leaders won't just come from those who can't do anything else. "We had to go through a crisis to accept the need for reform," says Jordan's planning minister, Bassem Awadallah.

Posted by Don O at October 7, 2004 05:06 PM

Comments

Artificially inflating prices through punitive taxes does not strengthen the economy, it weakens it. I am not against taxes, and think that they are important. However, I am against regulating behavior through tax policy. It's been a failure everywhere in the world. I went to England recently, where gas was equivalent to almost $6.00 a gallon. The roads were jammed with cars, even in London. The Left is not using facts in its arguments, just fairy tales.

Oh yeah, we only get about 20% of our oil from the Middle East.

What the Left refuses to acknowledge is that it is their policies that have left the U.S. vulnerable to world oil markets. We have plenty of oil in our own country that the Left is against using. Even without that oil, there is another energy source that would make us very energy independent, and that would make electric cars feasible -- Nucular Power. [Yes, I know how to spell nuclear, I just like pissing off the people who care.]

Using nuclear power would mean never having to build another dam. Never having to mine another acre of hillside for coal. Never having another acid rain day. Electricity from nuclear power plants would be cheap enough that electric cars would be economically feasible. Guess what else goes away (if it ever even existed) -- global warming.

While Jimmy Carter was spending his failed presidency destroying our nuclear energy industry other countries, including France, have made great strides in issues dealing with creating and disposing of radioactive waste. (By the way, the canard of 10 thousand year half-life is a load of BS. Radioactive material with a long half-life means that the material is stable and not all that radioactive. The shorter the half-life, the more dangerous the material is.)

Wind power generators are as ugly as oil derricks (ask Walter Cronkite, you aggressively fought wind power generators where he lives), and kill birds by thousands. Industry still has not been able to efficiently generate enough power from the wind to make wind power econoically feasible.

Creating solar cells requires the use of selenium, which is more toxic to our environment than nuclear waste. And again, solar energy is incapable of meeting our needs.

On the Island of Hawaii the peace/love/green/gaia/ecology/liberal/loonyleft activists shut down a working and profitable thermal energy plant because -- get this -- it stank. There's a lot more to this story that won't fit into a post, but essentially, the power plant was on the side of a volcano and was releasing the same gasses into the atmosphere as was the volcano. Even though the plant was releasing a small fraction of what the volcano was, the plant was forced to shut down.

I apologize for the long comment Zombyboy, I am just sick and tired of the Left's constant spewing of lies and half-truths when it comes to important policy that will have long term effects. Please feel free to edit or delete, as you see fit.

Posted by: Remy Logan at October 7, 2004 05:43 PM

You can raise the gas tax all you want, but most oil doesn't go to consumer gas consumption. I can't imagine a dumber idea. We'd wind up with $3 dollar gas and still have $50 dollar oil. The only ones who'd benefit would be some fat cats in Washington.

Posted by: Walter at October 7, 2004 05:59 PM

"Okay, Mr. Friedman, I'm going to say a word or phrase, and you say the first thing that comes to your mind. Ready?"

"Ready."

"High gasoline prices."

"Must raise taxes."

"Unemployment."

"Must raise taxes."

"Inflation."

"Must raise taxes."

"Violent crime."

"Must raise taxes."

"Terrorism."

"Must raise taxes."

"Dropped toast always lands butter side down."

"Must raise taxes."

Posted by: McGehee at October 7, 2004 07:20 PM

I can't believe people still believe this pipe dream. I'll try and cite these later, it's been a while since I looked this stuff up (I think you can find most of these here), but here are some relevant facts, though some of the numbers may be a little off.

Western Europe imports slightly more oil from the Persian Gulf than US. That's in absolute terms. (Europe imports something like 25% of its oil from the Gulf compared to the US's 15-20%(?) because Europe's total use of oil is less than the US's.) If we were to assume that only the US and Europe and buy Mideast oil, that would mean about half the profits the Saudis make are from European sales. So even if we could reduce our Mideast oil consumption to zero, the best we could hope for is cutting their profits in half. (And that wouldn't happen in the only realistic case where our Mideast oil consumption goes to zero because we start getting oil from other countries. Europe would probably buy more oil from the Gulf to pick up our slack.) What could we get from conservation? Reduce consumption by 10%, so we could reduce the Saudis profits by 10% of the 50% they get from us? Wow, their profits will go down 5%. That'll put an end to terrorism.

Until cold fusion becomes a reality, oil-rich Arab countries will still have plenty of money to give to terrorists. The only way to stop it is to get the Saudis et al. to stop funding terrorists (something they "seem" to be starting to do). But even then, it's not any sort of massive funding that makes terrorists dangerous, it just makes them more dangerous.

How much do box cutters cost? How much does it cost to buy plane tickets for 19 people?

Posted by: dorkafork at October 7, 2004 11:19 PM

Does anybody remember how the name of Osama bin Laden's oil company? How many oil wells did he have? How many gallons was he pumping every day?

What's that? Oh. Osama wasn't in the oil business, his family got rich from the construction business. I learn something new everyday.

Dorkafork, thanks for running the numbers. It's amazing how quickly liberal arguments crumble.

Posted by: Remy Logan at October 8, 2004 12:45 AM

I don't know what the hell you guys are all talking about, but you are all obviously partisan operatives. Because Ohio is a battleground state, I see Kerry and Bush ads all of the time. Kerry keeps saying in one that his plan for the future includes energy independence. He doesn't say how he's going to accomplish that, but I don't care. I know that he will because is isn't Bush, and Bush is evil (Bush = Hitler). Plus, Cheney worked for Haliburton and so we know that the Afghan and Iraq wars were all about oil.

Jeeze, you guys are so stupid. It's just like THK says, you are all idiots.

Posted by: Jerry at October 8, 2004 08:53 AM

I have to agree with Walter about where the actual taxes would end up. Increased oil taxes rank right up there with tobacco and gambling/lottery tax proceeds, which have done wonders for our healthcare and education systems.

Posted by: OpinionEngine at October 8, 2004 08:59 AM

Jeez Jerry,

I'm trying to figure out if you are being sarcastic, doing some troll fishing, or if you are sincere. Since you don't link to a "real" website, or provide an actual email address, I'm going to assume that you are sincere.

Let's take a little stroll down memory lane, neither Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43 (who is involved in a war so we'll give him a little bit of a break) have been able to achieve the holy grail of 'energy independence.'

Now, Kerry has a "secret" plan. Since he has been a Senator since 1985 (elected in 1984, sworn in the next year), we assume that because he is a war hero and patriot, that he didn't have this "secret" plan during the Reagan, Bush 41 or Carter years, otherwise he would have announced his plan to the world and saved us all from terrorism.

That leaves us with he developed this "secret" plan during his presidential campaign. Now the war hero wants to hold the whole country hostage to his "secret" plan. "If you don't elect me I'm not going to reveal my 'secret' plan to save this country from terrorism. I'd reveal it now, but I'm such a panty-waist that I can't deal with any criticism. But when I'm president I'll to just shove my plan down America's throat and say fuck you to the critics."

I bet I know what Kerry's "secret" plan is -- long ago one of his crazy uncles developed a secret formula where when you add a pinch of pixie dust to a gallon of water you get a gallon of gasoline. The oil companies found out about it and bought the formula and then destroyed it. Fortunately for America, when Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia with his pet dog VC, he received a letter from his uncle that contained the formula. Kerry copied the formula into his diary, and then forgot about it until just now.

I feel better about a Kerry presidency already.

[If you're being sarcastic Jerry then forget everything I just said.]

Posted by: Remy Logan at October 8, 2004 03:33 PM

Jerry's one of the guest posters here, so I'm guessing sarcastic;) (Unless he's really some sort of leftist infiltrator. You let your mask slip, Jerry! I'm onto you!)

Posted by: dorkafork at October 8, 2004 07:21 PM