First, addressing the numbers-based poAs always, I respect bueno's knowledge and perspective on this stuff. But in this case his post contains only one numbers-based point .... and that is that even if we use the estimates from Heritage (bueno thinks Heritage is the first partisan thinktank in history to lowball numbers in support of their own position), we "reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 4%."
I'll attack that argument first- 4% is already a piddling total, and let's remember that we're talking
oil only there. Oil is only one of the many resources, fossil fuel and renewable, that can be converted into energy for our use. And of course I think the estimate is high, if for no other reason than it comes from partisan sources. Furthermore, oil is globally traded at
pretty consistent prices, unlike natural gas which has more local markets. So the real question is how much does our increased production impact the global market? And the answer, obviously, is not at all.
So to review- "reducing our dependence by 4%" is talking only about oil, not all natural resources, is likely based on an overly optomisitc estimate of reserves, and is a farce to begin with since oil is a global good whose price is impacted by the global supply not the national one.
Now let's move on to the other points, those for which my good friend bueno has no hard data, only rhetoric.
1. There were some delays in permitting after Deepwater Horizon. Some would say with good reason. Regardless, that is mostly behind us now.
Here are actual Gulf of Mexico offshore permitting numbers. As you can see, the idea that the Obama administration is holding up most offshore activity is a myth created by the right to score political points. Incidentally, just a guess here, but I would bet that the "withdrawn" or otherwise canceled shallow water permits are due to the fact that natural gas (produced more in shallow water, oil more often in deepwater) is absurdly cheap right now, making it unprofitable to do offshore production.
2. The fact that natural gas is plentiful and cheap is an important counterpoint to silly doomsday predictions as a more general matter. For most consumer's purposes, natural gas can do everything oil can do except power your car, and that's only because the market hasn't forced widespread conversion yet. The technology clearly exists (Google "Compressed Natural Gas"). Gen plants fueled by natural gas are cleaner than coal or oil plants and obviously run cheaply too. And natural gas is plentiful in this country and in Canada, and will be far more plentiful as we tap into shale gas formations via hydraulic fracturing- and Obama has so far kept things relatively peaceful on the fracking front, letting industry and the states work it out.
Bottom line, the right likes to scare you with stories of brown people holding this country hostage because they have all the oil. That's silly. The absolute worst thing that would happen- and this is many years away- is a bunch of idiots who bought gas guzzlers would have to buy new CNG vehicles because they can't afford to fill the tank any more. Sounds like a good thing to me- cleaner air plus jobs.
3. On a related point- I would like for Obama to be pushing for more development of CNG, including, infrastructure, research, whatever. He's not really doing that. So I agree with bueno there. But I think it's strange for a right-leaning commenter to criticize Obama's lack of an energy policy. There's another phrase often used to refer to a government leaving an industry alone ... it's called "laissez-faire." You know, free market. If you want to drive your SUV back and forth to your exurb every day, you can pay for it yourself. The ocean and the air belong to all of us, not just the people who want to pay a nickel less for a gallon of gas in 2022.
4. Regarding the EPA- it is adversarial, but that cannot be avoided. Compliance with environmental regulations cost businesses money, so businesses and the agency charged with environmental regulation are by their nature adversarial. But the private sector is invited to the table before any EPA rulemaking. I'm not sure what changes bueno would want to the process, but his entire paragraph about EPA sounds like a collection of catch phrases, nothing more. Bottom line, the EPA and the environmental statutes they're charged with administering work. Ask anyone who lives near the Chesapeake Bay if the Clean Water Act has helped. Ask anyone who lives in Southern California (or even better, anyone who flew into LAX back in the day) if the Clean Air Act has helped. And big business already has a substantial place at the table for all things EPA. Those pointing to EPA as "part of the problem" are just looking to score political points, which is evidenced by the fact that they rarely tell you specifically which EPA rules or policies they think are standing in the way of private sector development.
The rest of his post seems dedicated to creating fictional boogeymen on the left who "fight every proposed energy development." News flash- someone fights every development everywhere. It just happens. It'll never be avoided, and I happen to think it's a good thing. Ultimately the process leads to the proper balancing of pros and cons far more often than not.
Look, if people want to open up more federally controlled areas for oil and gas development, that's fine. I'm not opposed, and I think the environmental costs are often exaggerated, although Deepwater Horizon certainly made me think twice about that position. But be honest about what you're doing. You're trying to create jobs and maybe get the federal government a little extra revenue (in the form or royalties) in exchange for compromising a little natural beauty and sanctity. That's fine. But You're not affecting the energy markets one bit. Anyone who tells you differently is wrong.
I've read a great deal about this issue when compared to the average joe but I'm still lost.
