First, this is an energy diary, not a candidate diary. I used the headline for a news story on Clinton's plan, and I'll go through her comments here. But the bottom line is that there is nothing that our favorite candidate, whomever he or she may be, will be able to do to lower energy prices in the near term, or likely the long term. If we want lower energy prices, we'll need demand destruction. That's not going to be pretty.
Here's the news story that goaded me to write.
Hillary's energy plan
At a PA gas station, here is what Hillary Clinton proposed today to ease energy prices:
Clinton called for investment in alternative energy, higher fuel economy standards for vehicles and a one-year moratorium on additions to the nation's strategic oil reserves.
OK, let's start with alternative energy (which, truth in advertising, I work on). For the liquid fuel problem, there is no short-term solution for replacing oil, or supplementing it enough to lower prices. What percentage of our gasoline usage can be replaced by ethanol? A few percent at best. Meanwhile, we starve the developing world by hitching the price of food to the price of oil. Check out posts by Robert Rapier and Stuart Staniford over at The Oil Drum (www.theoildrum.com) for more details.
It is not even clear that there is a long-term solution to the demand for oil unless we give up our love affair with the automobile. And China and India better not even think about starting one. Have you heard of "cellulosic ethanol"? Don't hold your breath.
Now, how about higher fuel economy standards? I'm all for it. But how long does it take to replace the car fleet in this country? About 15 years at best. This is no short-term solution, and is unlikely to have a serious impact if China's demand keeps growing.
Finally, what about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Hell, Ted Kennedy dumps more oil in Nantucket Sound than gets put into the SPR on occasion. Seriously, the amount of oil being stored in the SPR is so small compared to the increased demand coming from the developing world, it's crass political maneuvering to even bring it up in her campaign. She knows better. She's no dummy (although she's taking voters to be).
Clinton goes on to pander to voters:
Bush should have put more pressure on OPEC to increase production, Clinton said. "I will not be a president who holds hands with the Saudis," she said.
OK, what's our oil doing under their sand? Let's get serious about the problem. We're not going to solve it unless we make serious moves to rail transportation (Warren Buffet's no fool), and water transportation of goods. Public transit needs to be built out in a serious way. In other words, I don't think we are going to solve the problem of rising energy prices until it really, really hurts. Iraq is bad, really bad, but it's only going to get worse.