Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama for his unsurprising victory after an unusually long and unusually bitter campaign. Many campaigners and analysts kept promising energy would be a major election issue, but the closest the candidates came to a real energy debate were the clouds of smoke each generated.
Both pledged to work for energy independence, an objective that those in the energy business know is not possible in 10-20 years and is perhaps not even desirable. Would US voters pay more for homegrown energy if cheaper foreign supplies were available? Not likely.
Back in the 1950s when independent producers and governors of oil-producing states testified that increased imports of Middle East oil eventually would result in energy dependence, Congress’ response was: “You just don’t want the public to have access to all this cheap oil.”
Irwin Stelzer, director of Hudson Institute’s Economic Policy Studies, said the US will remain dependent for transportation purposes on imported oil from unfriendly nations for the foreseeable future–“whether or not we decide to drill at home.” He said, “For both transportation and other energy needs, neither nuclear nor alternative fuels can be developed quickly enough–even if politics and environmental concerns were not an issue.”
From its initial discovery, this continent has prospered primarily because of its vast resources. We had so much crude we once were a major exporter, supplying the “sea of oil” that carried us and our allies to victories in World War I and World War II. Problem is, US citizens long ago became so used to cheap fuel that most now consider it their birthright. If that fuel is now more expensive, it can’t be the result of diminished resources, or rising production and processing costs, or a faltering economy, or poor government policies. No, it must be a conspiracy of some sort.
Conspiracy theory
David Blume, executive director of the International Institute for Ecological Agriculture, predicted US gasoline prices would swiftly escalate immediately after the presidential election. Blume, an ethanol expert, claims to have price index data over the last 20 years proving the “world price of oil is totally dependent every 2 years on the federal elections in the US.” He claims it clearly shows “prior to each national election in the US the price of oil plummets for a several-month cycle prior to November voting, and then immediately climbs back up to record-setting highs by about Mar. 1.”
He concludes that movement may result from “incumbents who want to avoid blame for high prices on their watch and are willing to grant concessions and deals to Big Oil interests in return for temporary price drops.” Apparently Democrats and Republicans both are willing to encourage illegal price-fixing to keep pump prices low and voters dumb and happy until they cast their ballots. Blume says the problem would be resolved when ethanol competes.
According to Frank Maisano, a pro-energy Washington, DC-based public relations specialist, the only energy issue being pushed by the John McCain camp just days before the election was a charge that Obama’s climate plan would put into place an economic cap so tough that it would “bankrupt” any coal-plant builder. That was picked up by the Congress of Racial Equality, who called vainly on the Congressional Black Caucus to disavow support for such policies.
Still, EPCglobal, an “engineering staffing specialist,” acquired in October by Modern Professional Services recruitment group in Troy, Mich., said energy was a salient election issue to 1,013 respondents to an Oct. 22-27 online survey that is “broadly demographically representative” of 1.5 million US engineers. For 99% of those respondents, energy policy was “very” or “quite” important, just ahead of the economy and jobs at 98%.
According to 85% of respondents, the principal energy issue requiring a presidential policy response is satisfying the country’s future needs for more power. Less important are opportunities from “green collar” jobs (33%).
Of the respondents, 45% said McCain had the most effective policy package to address short and long-term energy problems. But that fell to 31% among female engineers. Only 27% of the responding engineers favored Obama’s policies. Yet among engineers under 45 years of age McCain’s support dropped to 33% while Obama’s rose to 37%. “Significantly, almost one fifth of engineers think neither candidate has the solution,” said EPCglobal officials.
