This is a sequel to my review of “the Onion” on Washington of October 23, 2005, www.SustainabiliTank.info

October 21, 2005, the press reported on a smiling Tom DeLay being booked for whatever financial misdeeds that came about because of his political zeal in promoting darling causes of the Republican base.

October 18, 2005, The Wall Street Journal editorial, “Agony and Energy” was raving “finally, a decent oil and gas bill from Congress”; other media described the voting procedure in the House, at the time when the GOP held open for 48 minutes the voting, until Tom DeLay managed to twist the arms of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland in order to insure the hair thin victory of 212-210 needed to pass that miserable bill. Let me acknowledge my prejudice here. When the Wall Street Journal editors are full with ecstasy on an energy matter, I assure you dear reader, that this is plain misery.

The WSJ article points out five subjects, relating to that bill, three the editors liked best, and two the editors did not like:

(1) It gives the President authority to designate certain federal lands — including shuttered military bases — as possible refinery sites. (So in order to bypass certification needs as established by law.)

(2) It reduces the number of “boutique fuels” to six from 17 which are required in different parts of the country in the name of reducing pollution (So, let’s say the hell with environmental regulations when we want to feed our hungry SUVs.)

(3) Cities will be able to petition for more time to meet costly new 2010 ozone standards. (So, City Administrations will be able to cater easier to the industry interests while forgetting the health needs of the people that in their stupidity elected them.)

(4) A weakness the WSJ editors found in the bill is that the Republicans fell for phony populism and agreed to require the Federal Trade Commission to set standards for “price gouging” (the quotation marks by the WSJ) and often punish offenders, so companies that raise prices in order to guarantee supply in a crisis will run the risk of civil fines. (This point seems to me, in good New York English - the heights of Chutzpah - I would never have believed that the WSJ would stoop down to such a lousy argument.)

(5) A second bad idea according to WSJ editors is a fund to pay refiners for government inaction or for legal costs stemming from fights over their permits. The WSJ sees in this taxpayer-funded insurance against bureaucracy and/or frivolous lawsuits. “We dislike the excesses of the trial bar as much as anyone, but subsidies aren’t the answer here; tort reform is” conclude the WSJ editors. (This is a tricky point - we clearly do not like the point in the bill, but the WSJ suggestion is even worse - having won the votes, now they want a total disarmament of the populus and a give away to the industry. Further, what taxpayers? Since when do the WSJ friends pay taxes?)

Considering the WSJ editorial, and believe me this is nothing personal, one can only be sorry that in order to have avoided this miserable bill passed by the House, the booking procedures of Rep. Tom DeLay should have happened a week earlier. But, not everything is lost yet. We hope that the US Senate will rethink this misery.

————————————

Newsweek of August 29/September 5, 2005, had an article by Fareed Zakaria: “How to Escape The Oil Trap”. It should be made obligatory reading at the White House and US Congress. It deals, like most of Zakaria’s articles, with American Foreign Policy.

Fareed starts out: “If I could change one thing about American Foreign Policy, what would it be? The answer is easy, but it’s not something most of us think of as foreign policy. I would adopt a serious national program geared toward energy efficiency and independence”. If you feel like establishing contact with Professor Zakaria he can be reached via comments@fareedzakaria.com

Fareed quotes Michael Mandelbaum, the author of “The Ideas That Conquered the World” - “Everything we are trying to do in the world is made much more difficult in the current environment of rising oil prices”. Neither Fareed Zakaria, nor Michael Mandelbaum are raving revolutionaries but level headed thinkers. Fareed, in his one page article proceeds to look at a series of topics that are dear to the President and to his GOP friends: Terror, Democracy, Iran, Russia, Latin America, China, and it is obvious that Fareed has many more such targets which he could not handle for lack of space.

Over the last three decades, Islamic extremism and violence are funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world’s first and second oil exporters, awash in money we send them - this should say something about “Terror” to the Washington folks; as well this explains the avoidance of change in the Middle East - this should tell Washington something about “Democracy”. Oil money explains “Iran’s ambitions” leading to its becoming a nuclear power. A gush of oil money has strengthened the Kremlin’s might, allowing Putin to consolidate power and the “Russian model” appears to have taken hold in much of Central Asia. In Latin American money from oil production has changed Venezuela, and now impacts also Ecuador and Bolivia’s position in relations with the US. So on regarding Nigeria.

Why is this? China is growing but uses only 6.5 million barrels of oil per day - the US needs 20.4 million barrels a day and demand is rising. The US is the only country that needs now more gasoline per car then 20 years ago. If American cars could average 40 miles per gallon, the country would need less 2-3 million barrels of oil a day. That could translate to over $20 drop per barrel of oil and a substantial decrease of funds to the supporters of terrorism - those opposing democracy, etc.

To get there Fareed refers us to: read Amory Lovins “Wining the Oil Endgame” (or go to www.oilendgame.com)

Please note, I said nothing here about the environment/global warming. These arguments are pure US position as an underdog when measured against those that own the oil we think that we need.

We don’t need a Manhattan Project to find our way out of our current energy trap. THE TECHNOLOGIES ALREADY EXIST. WHAT WE ARE SEARCHING FOR IS POLITICAL VISION AND LEADERSHIP. For a starter we need fuel-efficiency rules and fuel taxes.

I would add to the above - we need better editors at the Wall Street Journal and arm twisters in US Congress that have at heart the interest of their country, rather then the interest of the small number of people that funded their campaigns.