You Can't Have It Both Ways in Energy Policy

One of the most contentious areas of American politics is energy policy. With rising gas prices, energy has become even more important. One of my major problems with the leaders of the Democratic Party on this issue is that they seem to want to have it both ways. Read this excerpt from an article about Nancy Pelosi and her views on energy policy, and then I'll explain what I mean. Story from the International Herald Tribune.

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

[...]

In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the coastal ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans and the White House. She attributes today's energy problems to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a comprehensive approach, its ties to the industry and a mishandling of the economy.

[...]

"We have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will say, 'Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent."

When the Democrats took control of Congress nearly 2 years ago, they claimed that they had a solution to gas prices and that they would go down under Democratic leadership. In all reality, there was no plan. They have no plan because they have two divergent goals that they try to push together. The first goal is to lower gas prices. The second goal is to stop using oil as the major fuel source.

If you try to lower gas prices, you either have to increase supply or decrease demand. If you increase supply, you are doing nothing to get off of oil. And you're never going to get enough of a drop in demand to help to lower the price. In other words, if you stick to this first goal the focus remains on petroleum.

If you choose the second goal, you have to turn away from oil. That means you do not increase supply, and in a world of rapidly increasing petroleum demand that's not going to help gas prices one bit. Additionally, you are going to have to get American consumers to use another product instead of oil. That will cost billions if not trillions to set up the delivery system for new fuel sources. Again, that will make it more expensive. And this does not take into account the actual cost of the fuel. Who is to say that this new fuel will not be even more expensive than petroleum is now. It might well be less expensive, but who really knows. In the transition period between petroleum and whatever alternative sources we end up using, the cost of energy will definitely go up.

In the end, these two goals diverge rather than converge. If you're going to fulfill one goal you have to ignore the other. That's the basic truth that the Democrats, nor anyone else for that matter, are not willing to publicly face. As long as they're not willing to face that reality they're just going to continue the blame game, and nothing constructive will ever happen. Over the last 30 years, discussions on energy policy have been nothing more than a dance around the hard truth. It's time to face reality as it is, and stop the decades long procrastination.

(Hat tip: Say Anything)