Energy Independence/National Security Archives

The National Center for Public Policy Research issued a press release a few minutes ago on offshore drilling:

Policy Groups to Congress: Lift Federal Ban on Offshore Energy Production

Washington, D.C. - The National Center for Public Policy Research has delivered a coalition letter to all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, urging them to remove the moratoria on offshore oil and gas production.

"States that wish to permit oil and natural gas leasing in their adjacent offshore waters should be afforded the right to do so," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for The National Center. "It is far past time for the federal ban on such leasing to be lifted."

National policy organizations that signed the letter include: Coalitions for America, the American Conservative Union, FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Defense Council Foundation.

State policy organizations, including the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, the Maine Heritage Policy Center and Kansas Taxpayers Network signed the letter as well.

The letter notes that Cuba recently announced its intention to permit China to explore oil and gas production just 50 miles off the coast of Key West, Florida. America's self-imposed ban on offshore drilling means that Cuba can develop resources in its portion of the Florida Straits, yet the U.S. can't do the same on its side.

"Increased energy costs have become a burden for millions of Americans," said David Ridenour, vice president of the Center. "Developing these vital resources in the Outer-Continental Shelf would help lower energy prices for the over 60 million American homes that depend on natural gas for heating."

A copy of the letter can be found online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/OCSLetter0606.pdf.

Project 21 Senior Fellow Deneen Moore has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal:

Regulate Gasoline, Create a Nightmare

In regard to the June 5 editorial-page commentary 'Tradeable Gasoline Rights' by Martin Feldstein: Mr. Feldstein believes that the government should be the arbitrator of individual liberty by allowing government authorities to design an economic scheme to regulate drivers' behavior and thereby control the amount of gasoline used in the nation each year.

Let's not be deceived -- tradeable gasoline rights is socialism cleverly disguised as a free-market mechanism. Why not suggest 'tradeable calorie rights' to address the obesity issue. The surgeon general can declare an ideal weight for American citizens and obese individuals can buy calorie rights from thin people.

Deneen Moore
Senior Fellow, Project 21
New York

Dr. Feldstein is a reputable fellow, to say the least, but his idea in this case sounds awful. Reminds me of World War II gasoline rationing. (Yes, I know we won that war.) I suspect an unintended consequence of Dr. Feldstein's idea, should it ever be implemented, would be to teach a generation of young people to hate the federal government ("sorry, junior, we can't go, Mommy used up her TGRs"). However, surrendering freedom to teach people to love freedom would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

P.S. Speaking of gas prices, my husband David has an op-ed out about this topic this week. Here's a link to it as it appeared in the Biloxi Sun Herald.

Project 21 Senior Fellow Deneen Moore has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal:

Regulate Gasoline, Create a Nightmare

In regard to the June 5 editorial-page commentary 'Tradeable Gasoline Rights' by Martin Feldstein: Mr. Feldstein believes that the government should be the arbitrator of individual liberty by allowing government authorities to design an economic scheme to regulate drivers' behavior and thereby control the amount of gasoline used in the nation each year.

Let's not be deceived -- tradeable gasoline rights is socialism cleverly disguised as a free-market mechanism. Why not suggest 'tradeable calorie rights' to address the obesity issue. The surgeon general can declare an ideal weight for American citizens and obese individuals can buy calorie rights from thin people.

Deneen Moore
Senior Fellow, Project 21
New York

Dr. Feldstein is a reputable fellow, to say the least, but his idea in this case sounds awful. Reminds me of World War II gasoline rationing. (Yes, I know we won that war.) I suspect an unintended consequence of Dr. Feldstein's idea, should it ever be implemented, would be to teach a generation of young people to hate the federal government ("sorry, junior, we can't go, Mommy used up her TGRs"). However, surrendering freedom to teach people to love freedom would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

P.S. Speaking of gas prices, my husband David has an op-ed out about this topic this week. Here's a link to it as it appeared in the Biloxi Sun Herald.

[Posted on behalf of Indur Goklany]
The price of gasoline is on everybody's mind these days, but affordability is just as important. To help put recent gasoline price hikes into perspective, some analysts and media outlets even provide us with information on the real price of gasoline, that is, price adjusted for inflation of the dollar. But even that provides, at best, an incomplete picture. A broader perspective is obtained by looking at trends in price relative to the personal income of the average American, as shown in the following figure. This figure plots the trend in the price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. from 1949 through the first quarter of 2006. This trend is displayed using three different measures: (a) nominal (or current) dollars, (b) real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) dollars, and (c) a ratio of the gasoline price to the per capita income. The last measure is an inverse proxy of the affordability of gasoline: inverse, because the lower this number, the more affordable the gasoline, and a proxy because it is an imperfect measure of affordability (more on this below). Each curve is normalized so that the price using any of the three measures is fixed at 65 cents per gallon (or $0.65 per gallon), which was the nominal price in 1978.

This figure shows that:
1. The nominal price of regular gasoline is higher now than at any time since 1949.
2. The "real" price during the first quarter of 2006 was at approximately the same level as it was in the early 1980s. Today (May 10, 2006), it is higher.
3. Relative to 1978, the price of regular gasoline has increased by 260 percent in nominal terms and 47 percent in real terms. However the price-to-income ratio has declined by 17 percent, i.e., it is more affordable today.

Read More »

The Senate blamed oil executives for oil supply shortages Wednesday, while the House, finding its budget-saving measure held hostage by a tiny group of anti-drilling Republican moderates, decided to drop an effort to permit drilling for oil.

From the Washington Post:

House GOP leaders agreed last night to strip plans to permit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the offshore continental shelf from a $54 billion budget-cutting measure, probably securing the votes to pass the bill today.

The move is a blow to President Bush, who has made expanded oil exploration a priority since he took office. Lawmakers said the White House applied pressure yesterday to Republicans to save the drilling provisions, especially in Alaska, even wooing conservative Democrats who have steadfastly opposed the GOP budget package...

No word on what energy source was used to get the moderate Congressmen home, but it probably was oil.

Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research has more on the ANWR provision the House dropped.

Addendum: PostWatch has a photo. Two photos, actually.

Peyton Knight, who joined The National Center for Public Policy Research's staff Monday as the new director of The National Center's John P. McGovern MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, is making a plea for eco-sanity on our military bases.

Our brave men and women in harm's way have enough burdens to shoulder these days - without being hamstrung by environmental ideologues.

According to the Associated Press:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Monday that procedures designed to protect the environment can sometimes jeopardize U.S. troops and should be balanced against military needs.

Yet over the weekend, the White House was busy "playing environmental matchmaker, encouraging odd couples such as the Nature Conservancy and the Pentagon as they team to save wild birds and military ranges," according to the AP.

The fact is, environmental organizations have been wreaking havoc on U.S. military preparedness, using the Endangered Species Act, for years.

For instance, due to its unique terrain and coastline, Camp Pendleton in Southern California is regarded as one of the best places to train U.S. Marines. Unfortunately for the military, it is also home to the California gnatcatcher, the San Diego fairy shrimp, the tidewater goby, and more than a dozen other species listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

To comply with endangered species regulations, our men and women in uniform, when training at Camp Pendleton, must make pain to avoid treading in certain areas.

If they don't, they could find themselves subject to penalties and fines.

Considering that about 25 percent of all species listed under the ESA are found on military bases, the conflict between the ESA and military prepardness may only grow deeper.

Unfortunately, Congress missed its chance to exempt crucial military training exercises from the long arm of the ESA two years ago, when related legislation was derailed in the Senate. Perhaps now is the time to reenergize this effort.

Rather than play environmental matchmaker, Congress and the White House should promote eco-sanity on military bases. Considering the tremendous sacrifices our troops are make on a daily basis, it is not too much to ask that they be afforded the best training possible. After all, their lives are on line.

(Cross-posted to The National Center's blog.)

Well, actually The Knowledge Problem on power and related issues. Some worthwhile posts on the energy bill, the Economist's survey of oil, and related stuff. See here and here.

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren explain how both Republicans and Democrats are advocating nonsensical energy policies. NR's Rich Lowry agrees.

But it gets even worse, as Gristmill reports some members of Congress are starting to embrace "peak oil" theories. (Wasn't it just a few years ago that Scientific American was excoriating Bjorn Lomborg for suggesting anyone believed in looming oil shortages? Just checking.)

Several people and groups who have been stalwart opponents of policies demanded by environmental alarmists in the past appear to have changed their tune in the light of the argument that national security will be enhanced by reducing American dependence on oil. The Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor rejects this argument (see this Wall Street Journal article for a detailed explanation of why), and he will debate Bush I White House counsel C. Boyden Gray on the issue next week. Anyone interested in this debate would do well to attend.

Foreign Oil Dependence and National Security: What to Do?
POLICY FORUM
Thursday, May 5, 2005
11:00 AM (Luncheon to follow)

Featuring C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel to former president George Bush, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural Resource Studies, Cato Institute

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

A new left-right coalition of environmentalists, business interests, and former national security officials was launched recently to address America’s dependence on foreign oil. C. Boyden Gray, a member of the Steering Committee for the Energy Future Coalition, argues that promoting alternative-fueled vehicles and energy conservation would make us less vulnerable to enemies in the Middle East. Jerry Taylor argues that foreign oil dependence has no impact on national security and that additional corporate subsidies and consumer regulation will prove counterproductive. Join us for a spirited debate concerning the future of energy policy during the war on terrorism.

Cato policy forums and luncheons are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by 11:00 AM, Wednesday, May 4, 2005. Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 789-5200.