BLM Freezes New Solar Development for Two Years

Alex Knapp | Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Bureau of Land Management has placed a two year moratorium on new solar power projects proposed for building on public lands.

Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

Now, this won’t affect any pending proposal–apparently there are about 130 in the works. But at least on face, this ban doesn’t appear to make a lot of sense. It seems to me that there isn’t any reason why the BLM couldn’t study the environmental impacts of solar power while still allowing new proposals–as new information is gathered, the EIR’s for new projects could just be changed accordingly. At a time when we’re giving due consideration to opening up new oil and gas projects on public lands, a freeze on solar power seems counterproductive.

Tags | Alex Knapp, Environment, Science & Technology Gas, Oil, Solar

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Fastest Flip-Flop In History?

Alex Knapp | Friday, June 27, 2008

Kevin Drum awards the world record for fastest flip-flop to Sean Hannity in a show yesterday commenting about the North Korea deal:

HANNITY: The news today brings a clear foreign policy victory for the Bush administration. But will the press report it that way? Joining us now for analysis, former ambassador to the U.N. and a Fox News contributor, John Bolton. What do you think this means?

BOLTON: I think it’s actually a clear victory for North Korea. They gain enormous political legitimacy….In return, we get precious little. I think this is North Korea demonstrating again that they can out-negotiate the U.S. without raising a sweat.

HANNITY: Boy I tell you they’ve done it time and time again, and I’m sorta perplexed, Mr. Ambassador, to understand why we keep going back to the well knowing that they haven’t kept the agreements in the past. Whatever happened to Reagan’s “trust but verify”?

That’s just funny right there. You’d think someone who makes a living spouting their opinions to the world could stand up for them for at least 30 seconds. Or, at the very least, acknowledge that he’s changed his mind.

Just one more reason why I don’t bother watching news or political opinion on TV. Except for Stewart and Colbert, of course.

Tags | Alex Knapp, Media North Korea

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Activist Judges Overturn Democratic Process Again

Alex Knapp | Thursday, June 26, 2008

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the D.C. handgun ban, thwarting the democratic process.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the District of Columbia cannot ban a citizen from keeping a handgun at home, throwing out one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws.

The Supreme Court has overturned Washington, D.C.’s strict gun ban.The 5-4 decision marks first time the court has ever definitively addressed the issue, which had been one of the great unresolved constitutional questions as experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state’s right to arm a militia.

The opinion isn’t up on the Supreme Court’s website as of the time of this writing, but I’m sure that conservatives will be quick to excoriate the flagrant judicial activism of the court in this case, while liberals will be defending the Court for upholding an individual right enshrined in the constitution.

Right?

Update: SCOTUSBlog has the opinion here. I haven’t time to do much but skim the summary, but it seems on first glance to be a good decision. The most interesting thing to me so far is that the Court declined to overturn U.S. v. Miller.

Update (James Joyner): I had planned to write something similar when the decision came down, since this was the expected result. Snark aside, while I think this is exactly the right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment — one can’t imagine that the Framers, so soon after gaining their independence in a war initially fought by people supplying their own weapons from their private cache meant merely to protect state-owned arms — it’s not a “conservative” decision in two senses. First, stare decisis would seem to have indicated the contrary ruling. Most recent precedent has been in favor of states and municipalities restricting firearms; the 2nd Amendment had previously been construed very narrowly. Second, as Alex suggests, it overturns the will of the people of DC as expressed through their elected representatives.

Update (Alex Knapp): I’ve now read the entire decision, and I think it provides a fair reading of the Second Amendment. The way I understand it, though, it doesn’t appear that most gun control laws are going to be at risk as a consequence of this ruling–just particularly onerous ones or outright bans of commonly used guns. And, as Dodd points out below, this opinion does not overturn Miller because Scalia does not find Miller to be incompatible with the Second Amendment, which is the view of a number of legal scholars as well.

It’s also worth pointing out that James is absolutely correct that this isn’t a “conservative” opinion, because the democratic process was, in fact, thwarted. Which goes to show the value of a republic over a democracy. We’re supposed to be living in the former.

Tags | Alex Knapp, Law and the Courts

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• Polimom Says  linked with  A more-grounded SCOTUS in Heller

General Taguba: Bush Administration ‘Guilty of War Crimes’

Alex Knapp | Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Physicians for Human Rights has just published a report detailing the medical evidence of detainee torture at the hands of U.S. Personnel in Iraq, Afghanist, and Guantanamo Bay.

Maj. General Antonio Taguba (Ret.) authored the preface to the report, in which he accuses the Administration of having committed war crimes:

The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted—both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions, including physicians and psychologists, became complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect.

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The answer to that question? No. They won’t be.

(link via Radley Balko)

Tags | Alex Knapp, Iraq Conflict, Law and the Courts, Military Affairs Iraq Prison Scandal

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

McCain Proposes Prize for Battery Breakthrough

Alex Knapp | Monday, June 23, 2008

John McCain has proposed offering a $300 million dollar prize to the developer of “breakthrough battery technology.”

Senator John McCain on Monday proposed the creation of a $300 million prize for anyone who developed breakthrough car-battery technology and he recommended greater tax incentives for buyers of nonpolluting autos, saying that only a combination of increased oil production, conservation measures and ingenuity could ease the fuel crisis and slow global warming.

[...]

Perhaps McCain’s most striking proposal was the $300 million prize “for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

That’s not a bad idea, assuming that the prize conditions are well defined. I’ve always preferred the incentive approach to research as opposed to direct subsidies. Plus, if the car battery principles can be applied to other energy storage, it might help boost the transition to fluctuating power sources such as solar and wind.

(link via Balloon Juice)

Tags | Alex Knapp, Economics and Business, Environment Gas Prices

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Were There No Oil Spills From Katrina?

Alex Knapp | Friday, June 20, 2008

In the comments to my latest post on domestic oil production, in which I continue my skepticism over the benefits to more domestic oil production, a number of claims were made in the comments that raised some interesting issues. So I thought it might be worthwhile if I went ahead and investigated some of these claims and presented the evidence. Some of these claims are going to require more research than others, so I’ll be spreading them out over several posts.

For today, the claim I thought would be the easiest to look up was the continuous repeat of John McCain’s recent claim that there were no significant spills from offshore oil platforms due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Is this true?

Well, the U.S. Minerals Management Service commissioned a study of this very issue, which concluded that:

The impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were typical of this historical experience. While cleanup was required. The volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from the offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor.

Case closed, right? Well, not exactly. Reading further into the study reveals the total extent of the damage:

As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs. Pipelines were accountable for 72 spills totaling about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate spilled into the [Gulf of Mexico]. Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no onshore impacts from these spill events.

How can we evaluate whether this amount spilled was truly “minor”? The criteria I think it’s best to focus on are the guidelines are spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations and used by the EPA and Coast Guard to evaluate oil spills:

(1) Minor discharge means a discharge to the inland waters of less than 1,000 gallons of oil or a discharge to the coastal waters of less than 10,000 gallons of oil.

(2) Medium discharge means a discharge of 1,000 to 10,000 gallons of oil to the inland waters or a discharge of 10,000 to 100,000 gallons of oil to the coastal waters.

(3) Major discharge means a discharge of more than 10,000 gallons of oil to the inland waters or more than 100,000 gallons of oil to the coastal waters.

17,700 barrels of oil corresponds to 743,400 gallons, which is more than sufficient to qualify as a “major discharge” under Federal guidelines. Now, that 743,400 gallons is certainly small potatoes compared to the over 8 million gallons of oil which spilled inland along the Mississippi River and other locations in Louisiana. Still, if it’s over seven times what the EPA considers a “major discharge”, I have to take issue with the MMS’s report characterization of the spill as “minor.” While it appears that no individual leak appears to have been a major discharge, the sum total of oil spilled from oil platforms after Katrina and Rita is more than enough to qualify as one.

Thankfully, the environmental impacts from these spills appear to be minor. But the idea that there were “no significant leaks” from offshore platforms after Katrina and Rita doesn’t appear to be justified by the evidence.

Photo credit: NOAA

Tags | Alex Knapp, Environment, Science & Technology Gas Prices

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

The Economic Benefits of Drilling in ANWR? Negligible.

Alex Knapp | Thursday, June 19, 2008

As the debate over opening up more avenues to domestic oil production continues, it’s worth noting that last month, the Department of Energy, at the request of Senator Ted Stevens, produced an economic forecast about opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. The overall benefit? Well, not much, really.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

In other words, the absolute, best case scenario for ANWR’s oil production is that if we open it up today, then 19 years from now the price of a barrel of oil will be $1.44 less than it would have been. While the most likely case expects that 17 years from now, a barrel of oil will be about 75 cents cheaper. Note that these are prices for a barrel of crude–not a gallon of gasoline. So the economic effect looks to be pretty marginal.

Granted, this report is merely a projection and subject to all the caveats thereto, but it should certainly give people pause with regards to the “great economic benefits” to be gained from opening ANWR to exploration. In all perfect honestly, I don’t really care much one way or the other if ANWR is opened to exploration (as opposed to opening up more offshore drilling, which raises some more serious environmental considerations). But given that the feds inevitably foot part of the bill for this type of deal, I think that we should question whether this is a worthwhile expenditure of resources, or if those resources are better spent elsewhere.

h/t Matthew Yglesias

Tags | Alex Knapp, Environment, Science & Technology

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

A Difference, Not a Defect

Alex Knapp | Thursday, June 19, 2008

In reference to James’ post below, it’s worth pointing out that a biological cause for homosexuality does not, in any sense of the word, make for a birth defect, and we should be careful how we define the phrase. Calling homosexuality a “birth defect” (as some will no doubt begin to do so), implies that homosexuality causes some interference in a person’s flourishing or capabilities. Clearly, it does not. Calling homosexuality a “defect” is akin to calling left-handedness a “defect”–it doesn’t make sense, because being left-handed doesn’t affect health or flourishing. Neither does homosexuality. Homosexuality is just a difference from the norm. But from a purely biological perspective, there’s nothing wrong with it.

It’s worth considering, too, that calling homosexuality a “defect” is based purely on the Judeo-Christian moral sense. Homosexuality is certainly not a taboo in many human cultures, and has been celebrated in many. Additionally, from a pure empirical perspective, you’ll have a tough time convincing me that being gay would be bad for my kids when you consider that homosexuality appears to be based partially on brain structure. Given how intwined the various aspects of brain function are, you have to consider that if a “cure” had been available and used throughout history, there’s a good chance that human culture would have been deprived of the works and ideas of:

* Michaelangelo
* Socrates
* Alexander the Great
* Desiderius Erasmus
* Francis Bacon
* Walt Whitman
* Oscar Wilde
* Cole Porter
* Leonard Bernstein
* T.E. Lawrence
* Christopher Marlowe
* Leonardo da Vinci
* Horatio Alger, Jr.
* Hans Christian Andersen
* Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
* Alan Turing

And many, many others. How sad this world would be if parents tried to change the very structure of their children’s brains because of a primitive superstition regarding love between persons of the same sex. If you ask me, a desire to mold your child into being a person who satisfies your own selfish desires is the defect, not homosexuality.

Tags | Alex Knapp, Gender Issues, Science & Technology

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

On “Moderate Islam”

Alex Knapp | Thursday, June 19, 2008

Steven Cook has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on the mistake that Western policymakers make when they urge “boosting moderate Islam”.

Given the wildly different criteria for what constitutes “a moderate,” policymakers will run in circles trying to determine who is a moderate and worthy of support, and who is not. One person’s moderate is another person’s radical, and another person’s moderate is little more than a patsy of the West. A policy built on support for moderate Islam is only asking for trouble.

A smarter position is to avoid theological discussions altogether. As with all faiths, there will be heated debates between competing groups within Islam over the proper interpretation of sacred texts and the relationship between religion and politics. Yet because these arguments are so opaque to outsiders, policymakers should resist the urge to jump in. Given that moderation is in the eye of the beholder, Washington should not have an ideological litmus test for whom it wishes to engage. Rather, policymakers should focus on identifying those who can contribute pragmatic solutions to the many problems we confront in the region, “moderate” or not.

This is one of those insights that is just blindingly obvious, yet doesn’t actually appear to be part of the debate. It’s definitely something worth thinking about. Read the whole thing, especially its descriptions of “moderate” Muslims who aren’t really friends of the West. It also really gets to the point that we should be focusing on trying to persuade unfriendly governments to support our policies, and work on infiltrating and dismantling terrorist organizations–not trying to encourage the dominance of one religious sect over another.

(link via Andrew Sullivan)

Tags | Alex Knapp, Middle East, Religion, Terrorism

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Psychic Information Began Child Abuse Investigation

Alex Knapp | Wednesday, June 18, 2008

A Canadian mother was recently subjected to a child abuse investigation on the grounds that a psychic informed a school district employee that a child was being abused.

The mother of an autistic girl says the public school board was “completely unprofessional” to formulate a theory that her daughter was being sexually abused based on a psychic’s perception.

Barrie resident Colleen Leduc wants an apology from the Simcoe County District School Board, which called in the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) to investigate.

According to the board, the case is still under investigation, although Leduc says it was closed.

[...]

The board stands by its decision, despite where the initial information came from. “It has not been board practice to use psychic readings,” Zaretsky said.

On May 30, Leduc picked Victoria up from school, where she’s enrolled in an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) class with several boys around the same age. When Leduc returned home, there was an urgent call asking her to return to the Livingstone Street East school.

Frightened, Leduc rushed back to the school. She and Victoria entered a room where they were met by the principal, the vice-principal and the teacher.

Leduc said they advised her that Victoria’s educational assistant (EA) had visited a psychic, who said a youngster whose name started with “V” was being sexually abused by a man between 23 and 26 years old. Leduc was also handed a list of recent behaviours exhibited by her daughter.

School principal Brian Tremain — who referred phone calls seeking comment to the board — advised Leduc that the CAS had been contacted.

Considering that a child abuse allegation can follow someone around for life even if they are vindicated, this is a particularly deplorable act. This is the twenty-first century! It should be a matter of shame and social stigma that somebody believes in psychic abilities and trusts a psychic enough to act on the “information” provided. The fact that some con artist’s word led to an investigation that might have separated a mother from her daughter is simply disgusting.

Tags | Alex Knapp Canada

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Welcoming Our Robot Overlords

Alex Knapp | Monday, June 16, 2008

It appears that the British military, in conjunction with private industry, has begun building Skynet:

With the launch of a new communications satellite, the British military has completed a highly advanced network that will allow robotic military units to be controlled at long range. Sound vaguely familiar? They actually named the thing Skynet. When the T-1000s come knocking, keep an eye out for the “Made in UK” sticker.

Skynet 5 is the latest iteration of a global communications system deployed by the British Armed Forces. The final satellite in the system was launched this week, and will allow high-bandwidth telecommunications between British forces located anywhere in the world. In addition to voice communications, it will allow data transfer and the remote control of robot airplanes, one of which is called “The Reaper.”

Okay. Deep breaths. Somebody just needs to upload a copy of a tic-tac-toe game into the network and get it to play itself. Stat!

Tags | Alex Knapp, Military Affairs, Science & Technology United Kingdom

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Obama’s Baby Mama

James Joyner | Thursday, June 12, 2008

Today’s Manufactured Outrage of the Day* is that, on a mid-day Fox News program featuring Megyn Kelly and Michelle Malkin debating the impact of Michelle Obama on the race, the production assistant in charge of writing chyrons dubbed the would-be first Lady “Obama’s Baby Mama.” Apparently, this is a racial slur which suggests that she and Obama aren’t actually married and the children are illegitimate and therefore they should just head on back to Africa. Or something like that.

Salon’s Alex Koppelman has the most linked story about this on memeorandum and he’s got a video of the segment and the above screencap, which I’ve appropriated. Otherwise, he’s in Just the Facts, Ma’am mode. His colleague, Joan Walsh, is more apoplectic, bringing out the 1990s catchphrase “Oh, No They Didn’t” to show her hip displeasure.

Where do you even start when criticizing Fox’s slur? Do you try to explain that “baby mama” is slang for the unmarried mother of a man’s child, and not his wife, or even a girlfriend? Are they racist, or just clueless? Isn’t there racism even in their cluelessness, if somebody didn’t know what “baby mama” means, but used it anyway? Even at Fox, won’t somebody have to apologize? Am I wasting my time even thinking about that?

Yes, actually.

Oliver Willis helpfully suggests, “Hey Fox News, Just Call Her A N***** And Be Done With It, Okay?”

So here’s the thing (because during this campaign I’m apparently learning that we black people have our own secret code and hand signals so this stuff has to be explained like you are speaking to a child at times), using the phrase “baby mama” to describe this woman implies that like too many people in the black community, she is a mother on her own with no man around doing his job.

Except, Barack and Michelle Obama are the exact opposite of this, and that is one of the reason America - especially black America - are so proud of them.

They’ve raised their children? Electing them to the White House is the least we can do!

Michelle Malkin, who was on air at the time and has nothing to do with writing the “Obama’s Baby Mama” chyron that appeared below her, doesn’t know what’s up with that.

I don’t know if the caption writer was making a lame attempt to be hip, clueless about the original etymology of the phrase, or both. But I do know that it was Michelle Obama herself who referred to Barack as her “baby’s daddy” and has used the phrase “baby daddy” to describe Barack while on the stump this year.

I’m going with “both.” Malkin also provides a helpful link to a two-year-old Slate piece with the awkward headline “” that explains that celebrity gossip rags have “seized upon baby-daddy and baby-mama, two useful terms that have long appeared in hip-hop and R&B lyrics, and are slowly stripping them of their emotional fangs.” Apparently, such black luminaries as Tom Cruise and Keven Federline had been referred to as “baby-daddy” even though they were married to the mother of their child.

So, perhaps Fox was secretly signaling that the Obamas are Scientologists?

UPDATE (Alex Knapp) I don’t usually weigh in on this sort of thing, but I have to disagree with my colleague James on this one–Fox’s caption on here is enormously disrespectful. I wholeheartedly agree with this portion of sci-fi author John Scalzi’s take on the matter:

Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News have a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to a) remind you the Obamas are black, b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men.

If we still had such a thing as civility and manners in this country, Michelle Obama would be referred to in the media as “Michelle Obama” or “Mrs. Obama”. Even if there was no racial intent on the part of Fox News, using the phrase “Baby Mama” for the wife of the Democratic nominee for President just shows no class, decorum, or manners.

UPDATE (James Joyner) I agree with Alex and with Steven Taylor that “Michelle Obama” or “Mrs. Obama” would be preferable and avoid the these sort of controversies. My strong guess — and I admittedly don’t know anything about this particular program or its tendencies — is that this was an attempt at “hip” and “cutesy” that backfired.

I much prefer my news without the hip and cutesy, thank you. You report, I decide and all that. But that’s a criticism of the Oprahization of the news rather than of Fox in general or this gaffe in particular.

____________

*If someone with better PhotoShop skills than I submits a graphic I like for this, I’ll use it henceforth, crediting the creator.

Tags | *FEATURED, Alex Knapp, Campaign 2008, James Joyner, Media, Race and Politics Barack Obama

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• Manufactured Liberal Outrage: Obama’s Baby Mama  linked with  Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!
• PoliGazette  linked with  Barack’s Baby Mama
• The Moderate Voice linked with Michelle Obama Is “Obama’s Baby Mama” Fox News Says...
• Sister Toldjah linked with Your daily manufactured-outrage-from-the-far-left alert...
• Right Voices linked with Mugabe militias burning women and children alive…a wave of worsening brutality before the run-off presidential elections in just over two weeks...
• Democrat=Socialist linked with NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (12 JUNE 2008)
• Going There « Michael Preston
• The Pink Flamingo linked with We Are Going to Miss George W. Bush!...
• 123beta linked with Browser Wars...
• StormWarning’s Counterterrorism  linked with  “It Was the Best of Times, It was the Worst of Times”
• third world county  linked with  The Ten Commandments
• Democrat=Socialist linked with NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (13 JUNE 2008) FRIDAY THE 13TH EDITION
• nuke gingrich
• WFFOT the 13th Roundup « nuke gingrich
• Justice and Mercy  linked with  Pursuing Holiness
• Pursuing Holiness linked with Justice and Mercy...
• The Pink Flamingo linked with A PINK FLAMINGO X-CLUSIVE - Obama's Birth Record - I Can't Find It...
• Right Truth linked with The Five Follies of Keith Olbermann...
• Conservative Cat linked with Phone Call from Deluded Democrats...
• Rhymes With Right linked with Senator John Cornyn...
• Democrat=Socialist linked with NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (14 JUNE 2008) JIHADI’S NOW PROTECTED BY OUR CONSTITUTION EDITION
• Rhymes With Right linked with Gore Vidal Denies McCain's Heroism, Time As POW...
• Democrat=Socialist linked with LOUISIANA OVERLORDS
• The Pink Flamingo linked with Conservatives Need to Quit Complaining about John McCain’s Energy Policies...
• Democrat=Socialist linked with NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (15 JUNE 2008) "BABY DADDY DAY" EDITION
• The Virtuous Republic linked with China Offically Overtakes U.S. as World’s Largest Polluter...
• Democrat=Socialist linked with PREPARATION FOR AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY
• Democrat=Socialist linked with NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (16 JUNE 2008) "NO ATHIEST IN FOXHOLES" EDITION

OTB Radio - Tonight at 7 Eastern

James Joyner | Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The next episode of OTB Radio, our BlogTalkRadio program, will record and air live tonight from 7-8 Eastern.

Dave Schuler and Alex Knapp will be joining me tonight to talk about politics, policy, and everything in between.

Please join us. We’ll also be taking your calls at (646) 716-7030.

You can play the show, subscribe to its feed, or share it with your friends via the widget below:

(Note: The playback automatically updates to the most recent show available. Older shows can be accessed at the show archives.)

Tags | Alex Knapp, Dave Schuler, James Joyner Media Appearances

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Is it Worth Drilling For More Domestic Oil?

Alex Knapp | Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions group has mounted an online petition designed to persuade Congress to open up domestic sites that are currently closed to oil and natural gas exploration. That’s certainly an understandable sentiment, given the skyrocketing increases in the price of oil over the past couple of years. But opening up for exploration is not going to do much for prices right now–oh sure, domestic exploration might drop the price of oil and provide some relief from any speculation driving up the price, but it’s not going to change the fundamentals on the ground for over a decade. In other words, oil might drop in the near term, but it won’t drop that much and it will start to go up again. Additionally, drilling for more oil won’t do anything for the price of gas without a concurrent expansion in refinery capacity.

So, even if we were to open up all of our offshore and onland sites for oil exploration today, it would be at least a decade, if not longer, before that oil started pumping. Meanwhile, over that decade, subsidized consumption in India and China would continue to rise, OPEC fields would continue to be maxed out, refineries would likely still be running at full capacity, and as a consequence, gas prices would still continue to increase at a decent clip. And the consequences of those gas prices rising–more mass transit, more fuel efficient vehicles, more investment in alternative energy sources–would also likely continue.

So after a decade of those trends, how much of a difference are new sources of oil going to make? If it turns out that alt-energy can’t keep the pace yet to make up for oil, then new supplies of oil might not be enough to cover ever-increasing demand. So at best we might just be looking at a slowdown in the pace of oil price increases. If it effects oil prices much at all. Granted, an increase of supply usually causes a decrease in prices, but given that offshore oil and shale oil cost more to extract than sources found in a lot of foreign fields, those costs have to be transmitted into the price. Not to mention the very real danger of demand exceeding supply a decade from now–even with the new oil sources. If that’s the case, our new sources of oil aren’t going to put a dent in the price. So is there really that much of a benefit, here?

On the other hand, if more alternative energy supplies become more feasible and help to decrease the overall demand for oil over the next decade, a sudden glut of new oil supply might threaten to take us one step backward by making oil cheap enough to slow down alt-energy development. Economically beneficial, sure. But even if you’re a global warming skeptic you have to admit that’s not good for the environment from other perspectives. Additionally, increased production from US oilfields would still not be enough to eliminate the necessity of the importation of foreign oil, so the problems associated with that would move back to the forefront.

On the other hand, if over the next decade alternative energy sources and ultra-fuel efficient vehicles become good enough, you might run into a situation where the higher costs of domestic oil extraction make it less profitable for oil companies to continue extraction–especially of shale oil sources. If that’s the case, then what’s the point of opening up the fields in the first place? (This is, admittedly, the least likely of these three scenarios, but it’s not that far out there.)

So what I’m left with here is a pretty high level of skepticism that, given the long time frame involved, opening up more domestic production of oil is going to have much of a benefit for the average American. So while I’m not necessarily opposed to more drilling in principle, in practice I just have to say that right now I’m not sure if there’s much point to it.

Tags | Alex Knapp, Environment Gas Prices

| | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• BitsBlog linked with Nightly Ramble: Abdication, voting for dummies,Crappy convention, T