Oil independence
Indeed.
Market conservatives were cool about the initiative, as well they might be. The truth is that the only thing that has ever, or will ever, change Americans’ attitude towards energy is a little thing called price. In that sense the recent rise in the cost of petrol is the best thing to happen for America’s energy independence (if not for SUV-making Detroit) in a long time.
New non-carbon based energy sources will only get real private sector investment when oil prices make other energy sources look like bargains. It’s no accident that hybrid cars have taken off in sales as petrol has taken a bigger bite out of Americans’ pay packets.
The one thing the American government could do to wean the US off oil is simple. All you have to do is raise the petrol tax. Alas, no one likes higher petrol prices, especially in the rural heartland, which is over-represented in the Senate. North Dakota, for example, has two senators for 600,000 people. California has two for 34m. There’s a reason urbanites tend to lose in energy policy debates. And there’s a reason why most oil substitutes require big subsidies to agricultural companies in the Midwest.
After 9/11, however, there was a golden opportunity. For a short time the nation could have agreed to radical sacrifices to counter the oil-rich terror sponsors in the Arab Middle East. The president could have urged a petrol tax increase as a way to pay for the war, slowly deprive terror regimes of America’s oil payments and accelerate technological research.
Comments (3)
Boy, I wish I could remember the entire context / who was being interviewed about this on NPR the other day, and I hesitate to bring it up without a link to back the claim up. Still, they said something to the effect that most of our oil importing is from Canada, and that oil from the Middle East is far down the list on where we import from. The argument being that basically, our crusade to bring peace to the Middle East in order to get oil doesn’t hold much water. Can anyone confirm this? Mike?
Top 15 crude-importing countries in November 2005 according to the Energy Information Administration. From that list the top 5 percentage sources are:
Canada - 18%
Mexico - 17%
Saudi Arabia - 13%
Nigeria - 12%
Venezuela - 10%
If you add up the 3 Mideast countries on the list, they supplied us with 22% of our crude that month. Looking at the other table, total petroleum imports, then Canada’s percentage goes up to 24% and the Mideast contribution totals 23%.
Another point that has been made recently…Mideast oil is cheaper, and since oil is bought by private companies not the government, any reduction in consumption will mean we buy less of the expensive Canadian oil first. In effect, the percent that Mideast countries sell to us will actually increase.
Also, I don’t think it is Bush Admin people asserting that our crusade to the Mideast is in order to get oil. That may be the case in fact, but the assertion is made by Bush opponents. No blood for oil!!
Well, reduction in oil imports would necessarily increase the percent of Mideast oil relative to our entire import base. However, US-based oil and oil alternatives would reduce our overall imports and potentially reduce our dependence on Mideast oil. I’m sure there is a line of demarcation there where we would produce enough fuel to cause reduction in total Mideast oil imports even if ALL our imports were from that region.