Oil and gas in the capitals

	Vol. 228 No. 8
JOHN McCAUGHEY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, WASHINGTON

Déjà vu all over again. It is a depressing realization that in three decades or more, Capitol Hill politicians have barely come up with a new idea on energy policy. The same old notions keep circulating in newly rewritten bills that barely differ from the failed ones of decades ago.

Meanwhile, President Bush enters his final 18 months as president with little legacy (certainly not a positive one), and dangerously close to isolation and losing control over the Republican party. Bush’s one-time boast that he had political capital, and intended to use it, is history. Like all political careers, his is ending in failure. His mojo is gone.

For energy, this means that no heavy legislative lifting will occur for the rest of the Bush term.

Congress consistently misses energy efficiency bill deadlines (some, more than a decade old); bipartisanship is out, and old scores are being settled with a blood-sport vengeance that would terrify the Godfather; Republicans comprehend increasingly that they will lose the White House in 2008.

The energy legislation on the Hill is either inane or farcical: let’s legislate energy independence for the US (the most persistent and foolish chimera of all); let’s make biodiesel fuel from used cooking oil at local restaurants; let’s sharply increase CAFE standards (politicians love this one because it shows up on the sticker price at the car dealership and few people realize that it is a tax); let’s increase the cost of gasoline; let’s echo Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon and slap price controls onto gasoline (never mind the shortages, rationing and long lines that this causes); let’s beat up on Big Oil price gouging (even if the gouging is non-existent); let’s broaden the tax laws to mandate energy conservation (central planning and social engineering don’t work, pals-ask the Russians. Market forces propel energy efficiency improvements.); let’s force utilities to produce 15 to 20% of their power from wind or solar (can’t be done at any affordable price. let’s greatly expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (regardless of cost); let’s sue OPEC under US anti-trust laws (that’s an amusing idea); or how about carbon sequestration?

And that’s just skimming the surface.

None of these bad and unworkable ideas in hundreds of bills will work, and they will only hurt consumers-although Congress, while wringing its hands, will see to it that the thousands of earmarks (translation: vote buying) amendments (32,684 this year alone) involved will survive. They’ll probably also legislate a cure for cancer, which would be a popular move. Pork is the only language that Congress speaks.

It is a mercy of Providence for the American consumer that the politicians are so inept and quarrelsome that ideas will come to nothing and that gridlock has set in on Capitol Hill. In this regard, the Democrats-despite controlling both legislative chambers-have shown themselves to be as hopeless as the Republicans at pushing through bills-despite the fact that no less than ten committees are busy writing the omnibus energy independence package that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) plans soon to bring to the House floor.

For all the Hill gridlock, though, some issues are stirring beneath the surface:

Increased CAFE standards are probably going nowhere, because both Democrat and Republican politicians from Michigan will water them down. Leading the charge will be Rep. John Dingell, at 81 well-stricken years, but with a mind as sharp as ever. His famous “Dingellgram” requests for information still strike terror into the heart of corporate America. The Michigan Democrat has long supported Detroit automakers (translation: jobs and votes in his district) and is now chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, where all energy legislation in the House begins.

Dingell is opposed by Pelosi and by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey. Dingell can be relied on to out-maneuver them both. But the rift between Dingell and Pelosi/Markey demonstrates how the Democrats are split on energy issues.

Peak oil. A minority issue for some years, this topic is beginning to have legs. Clearly, global oil and gas supplies are finite and must someday run out. But which day? Some say as early as 2012. There then arises the question of mitigation, but how to mitigate, at what price and who pays? The sense that one gets in Washington is that peak-oil advocates are beginning to get more traction. Even the Big Oil crowd like Exxon-Mobil, which has traditionally scoffed at the theory, is beginning to move away a bit from its criticisms. Of course, politicians will do nothing until disaster strikes (if it does), and then they will pass loony remedial measures that will only make things worse. Mercifully, none of this concerns the president. He’ll be long gone by then.

Climate change battle lines are more aggressively drawn in Congress, on almost religious lines. Climate changers insist that the sky is falling. A small bunch of skeptics insist that nothing much is happening and that if there is a slight temperature increase it is part of nature and, therefore, there is not much that humankind can do about it-so why wreck the economy by trying? Like schismatic differences in religion, logic has nothing to do with it.

Ethanol has been a pet project of Bush. All fuels are subsidized, of course, but ethanol is subsidized to a lunatic level to benefit mostly big agri-business. The new debate that is slowly emerging in Washington is the food-versus-fuel one. Should all that land be taken up making corn for ethanol when cows and pigs go hungry and we pay much more for food? Already, poorer Mexicans can no longer afford tortillas, their staple diet.

It is difficult to argue with the anti-ethanol crowd that it is too expensive, difficult to transport, way over-subsidized and has only three-quarters of the energy content of gasoline. As always in Washington, the Law of Unintended Consequences and Political Posturing rules.

Teddy Roosevelt had a word for it in the 1912 presidential campaign, which he lost: “The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.”

Plus ça change...