Daily Kos

Energy Policy as *the* Democratic Issue

Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:53:12 PM PDT

Jim Kunstler has the following to say about the recent uptick in oil prices:

On Sunday, the New York Times ran a roundtable discussion (in the Book Review) between three prominent young "liberal" intellectuals (Katrina vanden Heuvel, Michael Tomasky, and Peter Beinhart) about what the Democratic Left can do to reclaim its place as a credible opposition. None of these hotshots mentioned the fact that the nation faces a defining crisis over our energy supplies. I don't think the word "oil" was even mentioned by this clueless trio. They have no idea what kind of convulsion we are heading into.

     Somebody ought to bring this to the Democrat's attention. America has a problem bigger than social security, or the price of prescription drugs, or gay marriage. America is heading into a situation in which it will no longer have an economy. The Republicans at least have an excuse for their willful blindness -- they've already taken the position that the life of extreme car-dependency and everything it implies is not negotiable. They are committed to defending that position, no matter how foolish it may be.

The Democrats need to get on the ball about this. Oil prices have been skewing back and forth between $40 and $55 for eight months now. The fundamental reason why this is happening is geology and physics, and has only a tangential relationship to current events. Oil is a limited resource. The US is nearly out: we only have 3 years or so of oil in the US. Alaska is a non-starter. The North Sea reserves are in terminal decline. Everywhere, oil is fading. And as oil goes, so goes our civilization.

At this point, no force on earth can or will return oil prices down to below $40 ever again. Prices will rise and rise and rise: up three clicks, back two, up three more, etc. The process is already starting. Supplies are dwindling, and we will soon have nothing to power our economy. The oil age is over, and we have nothing at present to take its place. Remember the Arab oil embargoes of the 70s? Think of that. Endlessly, getting worse every week. With no other swing producers of oil, imagine what America will look like.

Social Security is a non-starter. Privatize it or don't privatize it: it won't matter. It will not exist in 30 years because all the Social Security math depends on an economy that expands at around 2% a year. More likely, our economy is going to contract at a much higher rate than that. So by all means fight privatization, but the Democratic party's highest priority must be energy policy.

Gay marriage? By all means fight for it, but even gay people won't care about it once the oil crisis begins in earnest. Getting married will be the least of anyone's concerns when the economy is in a permanent recession with food, water, gasoline, electronics, and everything else uncontrollably spiraling upward in price.

Forget 9/11 and terrorism also. No one will care about these things, except to the degree that terrorism will probably be an attendent event to a meltdown of American society. And don't forget that the terrorism issue was proximately caused by the oil issue, at least in Osama's case.

The Democrats cannot afford to be the sniveling whiners many of them have been recently. The Democrats cannot just have a one-point position on the topic, for example thinking that if we raise CAFE standards on SUVs then this problem will magically go away. This nation needs real leadership long-term, because unlike most other Bush disasters, this is something we won't be able to clean up in a decade. The recent spikes in oil prices are just the initial storm surge of a wave that threatens to drown us in famine and war. It may already be too late to stop it.

NASCAR nation will probably not like the idea of becoming less car-dependent, so we need to come up with a frame for the issue. I'd suggest framing the oil issue as a security issue (America is dependent on IRAN for our economic security! How can this be?). We need a serious push for renewable energy, and we need to examine our urban planning and make sensible policy decisions. But most of all, we need to provide real leadership. The Democratic renewal in America is about to go through a baptism by fire, and the decisions we make now will affect the lives of millions for hundreds of years to come.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 30 comments

  •  Yep (none / 1)

    SW's Energy Gap: ": 'the folks at PIPA have an interesting report out about how average citizens would like to reallocate the federal budget. 1,182 adults were given a spreadsheet that showed current spending in a variety of categories and were then asked to either accept the current amounts or move them around in a way that kept total spending constant. As the chart below shows, respondents overwhelmingly wanted to make drastic cuts to defense spending and voted to redirect the money to deficit reduction and a variety of mostly social programs.'

    Kevin Drum thinks this is crazy. He points out that any candidate that proposed cutting the defense budget significantly in favor of domestic spending would get stomped in this environment. I would suggest an alternative explanation. The people responding to this survey are smarter than the people planning the budget, They are just as concerned about national security as Kevin thinks. But they have a more refined sense of what makes us secure as a nation. As an example I would point out that one of the things highlighted by the PIPA study is that the public thinks we should be spending about ten times as much on conservation and renewable energy research as we are currently spending. But the folks at PIPA classify this as an environmental concern. Well, yes, a greater reliance on renewable energy and conservation would be good for the environment. But it would also be good for national security and it is incorrect to ignore this connection. Here is the result on the spending priority for conservation and renewables, Amazing. But this mission has always enjoyed popular support far in excess of its financial support.

    The Federal Budget:

    The Public's Priorities

    March 7, 2005 Environmental Spending By far the largest increase in percentage terms was for conserving and developing renewable energy. This amount was increased $24 billion, from $2.2 billion to $26.2 billion--an extraordinary increase of 1090%. This was also the area increased by the largest majority--70%.

  •  I've seen a lot of comment on the fact... (none / 1)

    .. that America needs a new "national project"... like the Manhatten project, or the Apollo landings. Here it is. Energy independence. Nothing galvanizes people more than a sense of purpose.

    The definition of an idiot is someone who's always absolutely sure that they are right.

    by The little blogger that could on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:46:21 PM PDT

  •  Everyone talks here about defining our values... (none / 1)

    before we try to frame. Well, this is one of mine that I believe in passionately. I have been disappointed all of my life with a lack of leadership on this issue... I have seen a number of recessions and energy crises in my lifetime, and nobody ever seems to get it. We always seem to inevitably take the blue pill on this one. I am convinced that there will be no more pills this time, unless it's a black pill. Let's make the Democratic Party the Energy Party...

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:51:08 PM PDT

    •  Its sort of amazing (none / 0)

      I could see the next dem candidate for president making a big, successful issue out of this.  Even if not everyone understands that we're in Iraq for the oil, they do understand that most of what's happened in the last three years is at least related to oil. Sort of befuddling when you think of the damage the 70's oil crisis did to the Carter administration.  

      It all seems a no-brainer to me.

      NetrootNews coming soon!

      by ksh01 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:11:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been one of my soapbox speeches (4.00 / 2)

    for the last three years.  Energy independence is all about that -- independence.  No more having our foreign policy held hostage, no more having to mute our support of Israel so that the gas pump stays on, better jobs and far less pollution.  It's easy to sell people on the idea that we believe in these things, and it's even easier to get them to agree with us.  But who will pay for it, especially since Bush & Co have run the national treasury down to pay for their Iraqi misadventure?

    It is difficult to win an argument when your opponent is unencumbered with a knowledge of the facts. Dr. Nordstrom's First Rule of Debate

    by DemInTampa on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:51:47 PM PDT

    •  How to pay for it (none / 0)

      A combination of tax increases on those who have lived high off the hog since Bush got into office, and decreases in some of the more ludicrous defense spending, like "Star Wars," would be a good place to start.

      If we trash the planet, none of the rest of this matters...

      by Dem in Knoxville on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:54:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very smart move (none / 1)

    If this is done right, it can address energy and environmental issues at the same time.  

    The quickest, cheapest, and easiest steps we can take right off the bat are in conservation, while we get the newer technologies up and running.  And that helps a range of environmental issues too.

    This issue addresses our long-term security, children's health, etc...  A real winner.

    If we trash the planet, none of the rest of this matters...

    by Dem in Knoxville on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:52:22 PM PDT

  •  Better late than never (none / 0)

    Developing new energy technology could have been our saving grace. It's the sort of thing that generates wealth instead of destroying it like the weapons industry.  We could have been the world's leaders in this enterprise, and we would have seen many new jobs and significant export business from it.  

    Instead, we are just followers at best, with nothing but empty rhetoric from this dirty-industry administration.  

    It's getting very late in the game, but if the demos framed alternative energy correctly, they could generate excitement.  Certainly better than blood for oil...

  •  And as an added bonus,,, (none / 0)

    the other big issue of the day, climate change, takes care of itself. Without America, Kyoto is a waste of time...

    The Royal Society has calculated that the 13 per cent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the United States since 1990 will dwarf the cuts resulting from all other countries that will follow the Kyoto protocol.

    The definition of an idiot is someone who's always absolutely sure that they are right.

    by The little blogger that could on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:56:26 PM PDT

  •  Tax Shifting (none / 1)

    A large portion of the current tax burden should be shifted to energy and other resource use. This has been advocated by Paul Hawken in his book "Natural Capitalism" and by others. Nothing has yet happened however.

    (1) The first priority should be to shift revenues for social security and medicare to general revenues, getting rid of the highly regressive payroll tax altogether. This would also eliminate the penalties paid by employers in creating jobs.

    (2) Put back the tax cuts made by Bush for the top 2%.

    (3) Put on for the next 10 years or so a 2% annual accumulated wealth tax on amounts over $2 millon accumulated value, exclusive of primary home and business assets. Purpose is to retire the bulk of the national debt. Eleventh year and beyond, reduce rate to 1%.

    (4) Starting immediately upon first round of tax shift, raise  taxes on oil by $10 per barrel by end of 2006, and $10.00 per barrel every year until $2010.

    (5) Take significant amount "off the top" to restore electric transportation infrastructure, e.g., convert all transit and school buses to hybrid-electric propulsion, build and expand urban rail transit lines where potential patronage justifies, electrify the mainline freight and passenger railroads, including 4,000-5,000 miles of new high speed 220+ mph connecting key cities in East, Midwest, with Texas, Arizona and California, with branches to places like Houston and Las Vegas.

    (6) Take steps to encourage people to replace gasoline powered autos with so-called "pluggable hybrids" that can go 30-60 miles on 10% electric power, and longer distances on gasoline (Peter Huber is right on that technology). This could very quickly reduce urban fuel consumption by 80%. Price increase in fuel is needed to prevent increase in gasoline consumption as experienced 1970's-1990's.

    (7) Experiment with new forms of auto ownership and pricing, e.g., price by mile rather than monthly payment system. Under this system, if you only need to drive 200 miles per month, you'd save tremendously over monthly car payments and  insurance. Current "car sharing" experiments show the way, but will only work with good alternative transit available and in areas where walking/biking is feasible.

    (8) As gasoline usage drops, new ways of collecting road taxes to maintain what already exists will be needed to replace gasoline taxes currently dedicated to streets and roads.

       

    •  You should... (none / 0)

      ...diary this. It sounds like a good platform, maybe we could get a plan like this together along with a political strategy to sell it.
    •  I like many of your ideas (none / 0)

      I'm a little concerned about

      Experiment with new forms of auto ownership and pricing, e.g., price by mile rather than monthly payment system.

      to the extent that it would give anyone access to my speedometer (someone in another diary mentioned a car tax based on miles driven rather than price of the car), but it would be interesting to see this and your other ideas fleshed out.

      NetrootNews coming soon!

      by ksh01 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:27:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tax Shifting (none / 0)

    A large portion of the current tax burden should be shifted to energy and other resource use. This has been advocated by Paul Hawken in his book "Natural Capitalism" and by others. Nothing has yet happened however.

    (1) The first priority should be to shift revenues for social security and medicare to general revenues, getting rid of the highly regressive payroll tax altogether. This would also eliminate the penalties paid by employers in creating jobs.

    (2) Put back the tax cuts made by Bush for the top 2%.

    (3) Put on for the next 10 years or so a 2% annual accumulated wealth tax on amounts over $2 millon accumulated value, exclusive of primary home and business assets. Purpose is to retire the bulk of the national debt. Eleventh year and beyond, reduce rate to 1%.

    (4) Starting immediately upon first round of tax shift, raise  taxes on oil by $10 per barrel by end of 2006, and $10.00 per barrel every year until $2010.

    (5) Take significant amount "off the top" to restore electric transportation infrastructure, e.g., convert all transit and school buses to hybrid-electric propulsion, build and expand urban rail transit lines where potential patronage justifies, electrify the mainline freight and passenger railroads, including 4,000-5,000 miles of new high speed 220+ mph connecting key cities in East, Midwest, with Texas, Arizona and California, with branches to places like Houston and Las Vegas.

    (6) Take steps to encourage people to replace gasoline powered autos with so-called "pluggable hybrids" that can go 30-60 miles on 10% electric power, and longer distances on gasoline (Peter Huber is right on that technology). This could very quickly reduce urban fuel consumption by 80%. Price increase in fuel is needed to prevent increase in gasoline consumption as experienced 1970's-1990's.

    (7) Experiment with new forms of auto ownership and pricing, e.g., price by mile rather than monthly payment system. Under this system, if you only need to drive 200 miles per month, you'd save tremendously over monthly car payments and  insurance. Current "car sharing" experiments show the way, but will only work with good alternative transit available and in areas where walking/biking is feasible.

    (8) As gasoline usage drops, new ways of collecting road taxes to maintain what already exists will be needed to replace gasoline taxes currently dedicated to streets and roads.

       

    •  Also (if I can piggyback)... (none / 0)

      (9) Invest large amounts of taxpayer money in R/D and scaling up of solar biodiesel, TDP,  or similar methods of oil/gas production (for example, algae-derived biodiesel). We'll always have a need for high energy-density fuels (air travel, trucks maybe, plastic, fertilizers), so if we can make it out of free-floating CO2, then the environmental issue is cured, and we have enough fuel to run a sustainable society.
      •  Biodiesel (none / 0)

        Man, I am bad with attribution, but I read Mike Briggs' (?) paper on algae-derived biodiesel fuel, and dayum.  We can fuel the entire country on renewable fuel, with no net CO2 emissions.  

        I believe in this so strongly that we're going to begin a biodiesel business over the next couple years.  I talked about it with my winger mom, who was skeptical, but when I framed it as "Wouldn't you like to stop paying those rich Arab oil sheiks so we can run our country by ourselves?" she agreed strongly.

        This is a Democratic issue that can win us even hard right people.  And even if we haven't signed Kyoto (insert rant here), if we can get the nation's transportation on B100 rather than petrodiesel, we've cut emissions dramatically.

        And what's next?  Burning biodiesel in power plants rather than coal?  Biodiesel can already be used for home heating oil.  It'll take massive amounts, but it's doable with algae production.

        You can't tame the white supremacist power structure with cheese!

        by andlorr on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:51:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I agree this is a very important issue, but (none / 0)

    I think it will be a very difficult sell.  This will take a lot of work, and a lot of convincing.  The first thing we will get is some BS about ANWR and how important it is to drill there.  Then we'll get the ridicule about "the sky is falling."  

    Energy is my chosen profession. I have been a Certified Energy Manager.  I am a believer in most of what the diarist says.  But take heed: This will not be easy.  We will be lucky if we can get this going over several years IMHO.  The opposition is perfectly willing and probably believes the best course of action is to use military power to take whatever we need.

    We need to do this very carefully, and very deliberately.

    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

    by beemerr90s on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:13:54 PM PDT

    •  Oil=Terrorism (none / 0)

      What convincing does it take to explain that oil money funds terrorism?

      Where did bin Laden get all his money? He's a direct beneficiary of oil money.

      Those "sky is falling" arguments don't work. The f-ing sky fell already, and 3000 people are dead. Next?

    •  PROBABLY believes military power is the best ? (none / 0)

      Yeah, they probably do believe that.

      I think they believe it enough to "demonstrate" a nuclear weapon on somebody's city, then stand back and watch the rest fall into line.

      They certainly believe it enough to kill a hundred thousand iraqis, and thousands of Americans, to have their way.

      Their methods will fail, of course, in the long run, but I'm worried they will devastate the globe, in the short run.

      The question of the hour: how can we stop them?

      "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

      by dratman on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:48:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  but (none / 0)

      if the sparhawk is correct, we don't have "several years."

      NetrootNews coming soon!

      by ksh01 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:31:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  agree 100% (none / 0)

    Energy policy is foreign policy, which is national security policy.  Examples abound:

    China is cutting deal after deal in Central Asia and the Middle East to buy oil.

    9/11 funded by oil money.

    Russia dealing with the Yukos scandal and collapse, creating more unrest in that part of the world due to the Oil business.

    Venezuela in serious domestic turmoil because of societal conflicts brought on by socializing the national oil industry.

    Nigeria deals with political assassinations ordered by oil companies.

  •  Security (none / 0)

    A winning issue for the Democratic Party.  Energy and the environment, but it must be tied to National Security.

    Convince people that their asses won't get blown up if they stop using oil, and they'll stop.

  •  Nope (none / 0)

    When you use the words "energy policy," 80% of Americans tune out instantly (just look how well Jimmy Carter did with this issue).  You mention CAFE standards, restricting access to SUVs, or raising fuel efficiency and car prices, and you lose 10% more (leaving only the die-hard environmentalists behind).

    The only way this issue will have any traction with voters is by framing it as a security/health issue.  And I don't just mean international security.  How about: Global warming can kill you and your family.  Sending oil money to Saudi Arabia ends up funding terrorists who may kill you and your family.   Urban air pollution causes asthma that can kill your children.  Yadda, yadda...

    Obviously, it doesn't have to be this apocalyptic, but energy policy is a big-time loser of an issue unless framed appropriately.  The issues have to be compelling and local, not vague and global.  So far, I haven't seen any indication that the democratic party is ready to take up this cause, but they'd best get on it soon.

    In times like these, you have to grow big enough to hold both the loss and the hope. - Ann Pancake

    by Scott in NAZ on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:34:29 PM PDT

  •  Funny you should mention it... (none / 0)

    Here is a snippet of a thread you might be interested in

    Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal. Drop by and support the Human Agenda

    by k9disc on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 06:42:33 PM PDT

  •  Even Frank Lutz agrees (none / 0)

    In his section on Energy policy, he refers to these as Democrat (sic) Words That Work:

    I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Suadi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future - so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

    John Kerry would be President today if his rhetoric began and end with this sentiment. When I was out doorknocking for myself, talking about the environment with Dems, Indies and Reps, they all got fired up about Middle Eastern oil. Even (and especially) Iraqi vets. And they all strongly preferred Kerry over W - even those with the Wrong kind of bumper stickers.

    He hit on the two keys to winning elections today:
    Economic Populism and Family Security. If only...

    Early in 2003, I heard him talk about "going to the moon and back within this decade..." only this time it's going to be independence from foreign oil and the new energy frontiers - and I thought it was 1960 again, that hard Massachusetts accent and all...

    State Rep. Jeremy Kalin Energy, Transpo., Elections & Pub.Safety

    by JK Minnesota on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:36:16 PM PDT

Permalink | 30 comments