In a quest for affordable energy and independence, we need to develop both fossil fuels and renewable energy technologies.
Since oil prices have skyrocketed in response to the Ukraine war, there has been renewed interest among the public and politicians in finding a solution to America’s dependence on foreign energy. Utah Governor Cox, as well as politicians on both sides of the aisle have realized that our energy dependence, which is largely on the world’s worst dictators, is actually a national security risk.
As explained in another Byway article in this issue, President Biden has largely placed the blame for rising gas prices on Russia President Vladimir Putin, and secondarily, on U.S. oil producers. At the same time, the Biden administration has made substantial efforts to stop domestic oil production, in spite of their claim to the contrary.
“It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production, that’s simply not true,” Biden said.
Others disagree.
In a scathing rebuke of the Biden administration, the Wall Street Journal editorial board penned a piece called “Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo” which acknowledged the 9,000 unused drilling permits Jen Psaki mentioned, but then listed out all the other steps the Biden administration has taken to halt oil development at every other step between oil exploration and the gas pump. Apparently, a drill permit isn’t the only thing required to make gasoline.
But the Ukraine war is only the short-term crisis that happened to expose a long-term problem: that our oil dependence and preference for foreign oil over domestic oil has made the U.S. unprepared for times when one of our oil-producing enemies flies off the handle. It’s not entirely fair to place the square blame on Putin: we share the blame too, for not working harder for energy independence.
In the current climate, the American public is shocked by gas prices and Biden critics are now buying too many Biden “I did that” stickers to place on their favorite diesel pump.
The American public is also arguing about how to solve the problem, right now. This argument has led to two seemingly opposite desires: first, to gain independence by drilling and pumping more domestic crude, and second, investing in any domestic energy source, including renewable energy. Even the “drill baby, drill” crowd is not opposed to renewables such as solar, as long as they don’t have to pay out the nose for it.
White House press secretary sparred with a reporter last week, stating that even with high gas prices, Biden was not planning on allowing the Keystone XL Pipeline to restart construction after vetoing it on his first day in office. The pipeline was to move crude oil from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast where it would be exported onto the world market.
Psaki explained that the project would not be able to move oil for over a year even if construction could continue starting today. And second, the installation of a pipeline does not actually increase oil supply like a new oil field would: it just moves the oil.
Her first point is correct: the pipeline would not provide relief today. But her assumption that the pipeline wouldn’t increase global oil supply misses the mark. It actually might lead to more supply by making it easier and cheaper for producers to extract and deliver crude.
Instead, the Biden administration is forcing oil producers to transport the oil by truck or train — which ironically, burn more fossil fuels. And even if Keystone only delivered to the global market rather than to the U.S. directly, the new supply added would force prices lower since oil prices are dictated by the global market.
The point of contention, it seems, is the desire to fix oil prices immediately, but also to gain energy independence in the long run, say, with renewables. Of course, pumping more domestic oil is the quickest solution, but the federal government also wants to change the energy game: while most of the world’s oil is controlled by dictators, the federal government wants to change the energy “currency” from oil, to renewables.
This strategy has an effect that is two-fold: not only leads to energy independence, but it also leaves the dictators in the dust, who are still trading a commodity that will become increasingly obsolete.
On the one hand conservatives have been beating the drum of drilling and pumping more crude to solve a short-term problem, but it is not a sustainable, long-term solution. On the other hand, the White House, media and celebrities have snubbed domestic oil producers, using the latest crisis, hopefully, to press the public into renewable energy and electric vehicles.
With the two sides talking past each other, one to solve short-term problems and the other to solve long-term ones, Some are saying that both strategies are worth pursuing. Governor Cox wrote that “the transition to a low-carbon, green global economy will take time. Meanwhile, the world and European countries will continue to rely on oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels while this transition occurs.”
Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson made a similar comment: “Maybe decades from now we will have the technology to replace fossil fuels, but until then it is reckless to leave ourselves vulnerable.”
Jacobson also pointed out that, in his opinion, the green agenda is an “elitist” one, ignoring the cost imposed on working-class people to make the transition to clean energy.
Yet pressuring the costs of fossil fuels higher could be desirable to environmentalists, and could be used as a strategy to force people onto clean energy. Most Americans choose what cars to drive and what light bulbs to buy based strictly on cost. If clean energy can’t be made cheaper, driving higher the cost of fossil fuel energy would also work.
The Democrats’ environmentalist base might press hard for this strategy, but forcing the transition too early merely by allowing traditional energy costs to skyrocket comes with great peril to Democrats who are currently in control. President Biden, who has largely portrayed himself as a moderate, is in the uncomfortable position of appeasing his base, all while not getting himself and his colleagues thrown out of office by angry voters — all of whom are made to pay the price of a forced transition to green technology that is economically not ready for wide use.
Some Americans are doing the best they can to make the transition, however. Especially in urban areas where charging stations are more readily available, electric vehicles are becoming more common. The move to green technology like EV’s is still too expensive or too impractical for many, however.
And while all the Tesla drivers out there may be on the right track, it is important for them to remember that their contribution to a better environment is probably not as great as they think: The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that in 2020, 40% of electricity generated in the U.S. was from burning natural gas, and another 19% was generated from coal. That is really what is fueling your Tesla.
So in our quest for inexpensive, renewable energy and energy independence, we still have a long way to go.
– The Byway
Feature image caption: Milford Wind Farm. Courtesy Trent Nelson, SL Tribune.