Energy is in my opinion, the most important issue facing our nation today. Terrorism and foreign threats are a big issue, but where do they get their money? From oil. So that, along with many other reasons that I will not go into detail about right now, is why I feel very strongly about the energy issue. But I am a bit frustrated with the ideas I am hearing from candidates this year. Lets hear what they’ve proposed.
McCain just proposed that the government hold a contest to find a car battery that can completely power a vehicle and can leap frog any current electric car on the market. The prize would be $300 million, about $1 from every U.S. citizen. I think this is a great idea and relatively low cost to the tax payer for such an important technology. But let’s talk about the other solutions for the energy crisis all candidates have made.
The first idea to get a lot of press and subsequently shot down was Hilary’s idea of a gas tax holiday. I am a democrat from New York and I did not care for Hilary and thought this idea was one of the worst I’ve ever heard. But at least she stood up and said “Here’s my idea. Where’s yours?” So eventually the other candidates starting talking. Obama has called for more “green” energy and investing in alternatives while bashing any idea of drilling for more oil. I intend to vote for Obama for a number of reasons, but I am concerned that when it comes to energy he talks about spending a lot of money in a lot of places with a very vague goal. McCain has always called for more oil drilling and has re-iterated that call lately by saying we need to drill off shore. The idea is to increases the amount of oil in production and bring down the price at the pump. Now here are the problems with all of these ideas.
Energy and oil prices come down to simple supply and demand. Politics are too concerned about saying the right things at the right time so that the right people hear them, instead of DOING the right thing. Oil is expensive, yes, but people all around the world are still buying it. This means that if the oil supply were to double overnight, the price would stay the same. How is this you ask? The trend has been for prices to increase with oil production remaining the same. More oil would mean that the prices would stay at the rates they are now ($4.26 for me). This is because the supply is simply MEETING the demand, not surpassing it. So McCain, drilling will not lower the price of oil. Granted remaining the same is better then increasing, but ideally we want the price to decrease. So how do we do that?
If we did not drill for more oil and just went after new energy sources, oil prices would increase more and not stop until we had a large source of alternative energy and then it wou
ld take years for that energy to become widely available to point where it would decrease oil prices. So the solution is to do both. In the sprit of free democracy, bi-partisan bills need to be passed to drill for more oil and invest in other sources. Drilling for more oil will help stop the massive increase in prices, and investing in other sources will drive demand for that other source, lowering the demand for oil. It is only at this point, when the DEMAND for oil decreases, that prices will decrease.
Still don’t believe me? You might be saying “Well now people are decreasing their demand for oil by buying smaller cars and driving less.” This is only partly true. Demand world-wide has been increasing over the past 10 years, more so in the last 3-5. This means that even if the U.S. started to taper their demand, they are still asking for more than before, just not as much more. The demand is still rising and it would take drastic changes to stop the demand from growing and even more drastic change to make the demand decrease. And even drilling in some parts of the U.S. won’t immediately help the U.S. This is because it is cheaper to sell oil from Alaska to China, Japan and other Asian countries than it is to transport it across the U.S. We will be drilling oil for others. (Yes it will help but not the way most people think it will.)
So that’s my 2 cents. If you feel I am wrong, or got someone’s position incorrect or just feel like commenting, PLEASE DO! Thank you.
McCain just proposed that the government hold a contest to find a car battery that can completely power a vehicle and can leap frog any current electric car on the market. The prize would be $300 million, about $1 from every U.S. citizen. I think this is a great idea and relatively low cost to the tax payer for such an important technology. But let’s talk about the other solutions for the energy crisis all candidates have made.
The first idea to get a lot of press and subsequently shot down was Hilary’s idea of a gas tax holiday. I am a democrat from New York and I did not care for Hilary and thought this idea was one of the worst I’ve ever heard. But at least she stood up and said “Here’s my idea. Where’s yours?” So eventually the other candidates starting talking. Obama has called for more “green” energy and investing in alternatives while bashing any idea of drilling for more oil. I intend to vote for Obama for a number of reasons, but I am concerned that when it comes to energy he talks about spending a lot of money in a lot of places with a very vague goal. McCain has always called for more oil drilling and has re-iterated that call lately by saying we need to drill off shore. The idea is to increases the amount of oil in production and bring down the price at the pump. Now here are the problems with all of these ideas.
Energy and oil prices come down to simple supply and demand. Politics are too concerned about saying the right things at the right time so that the right people hear them, instead of DOING the right thing. Oil is expensive, yes, but people all around the world are still buying it. This means that if the oil supply were to double overnight, the price would stay the same. How is this you ask? The trend has been for prices to increase with oil production remaining the same. More oil would mean that the prices would stay at the rates they are now ($4.26 for me). This is because the supply is simply MEETING the demand, not surpassing it. So McCain, drilling will not lower the price of oil. Granted remaining the same is better then increasing, but ideally we want the price to decrease. So how do we do that?
If we did not drill for more oil and just went after new energy sources, oil prices would increase more and not stop until we had a large source of alternative energy and then it wou
ld take years for that energy to become widely available to point where it would decrease oil prices. So the solution is to do both. In the sprit of free democracy, bi-partisan bills need to be passed to drill for more oil and invest in other sources. Drilling for more oil will help stop the massive increase in prices, and investing in other sources will drive demand for that other source, lowering the demand for oil. It is only at this point, when the DEMAND for oil decreases, that prices will decrease.Still don’t believe me? You might be saying “Well now people are decreasing their demand for oil by buying smaller cars and driving less.” This is only partly true. Demand world-wide has been increasing over the past 10 years, more so in the last 3-5. This means that even if the U.S. started to taper their demand, they are still asking for more than before, just not as much more. The demand is still rising and it would take drastic changes to stop the demand from growing and even more drastic change to make the demand decrease. And even drilling in some parts of the U.S. won’t immediately help the U.S. This is because it is cheaper to sell oil from Alaska to China, Japan and other Asian countries than it is to transport it across the U.S. We will be drilling oil for others. (Yes it will help but not the way most people think it will.)
So that’s my 2 cents. If you feel I am wrong, or got someone’s position incorrect or just feel like commenting, PLEASE DO! Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment