I suppose it is also Bush's fault that he did not force the French, Germans, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. to change their energy policies dramatically and quickly to avoid dependence on middle eastern oil.

The first sign of utter detachment from reality, or utter attachment to partisan tribal loyalty, in discussing the strategic position the U.S. is now in, is when the bloviating starts about greatly reducing the centrality of Persian Gulf oil to the global economy, and by extension the U.S. economy, in anything but the very long term. It may as well be proposed that Martians travel to earth to instruct us in how to build a really cool network of transportation canals.

Once that dog yaps, ignore everything that follows, as it likely will be just more pointless, yet excited, racket by the denizens of the kennel.

Yup.

I fail to see how the entire world's dependency on petrochemical energy is President Bush's fault, and exactly how Mr. Yglesias expects President Bush to change it.

Even if the US stopped importing oil, enough other people would continue to do so that the Islamic nutjobs would still be rolling in money.

Mr. Yglesias' criticism is worthless, save as an example of one who puts partisanship ahead of the good of the country.

I will not vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican, unless I think they will put the good of the country ahead of the interests of their party.

Didn't Bush put forward an energy bill in 2001 that was only passed in 2005? A bill with the stated purpose of reducing dependence on foreign oil? A bill that critics now complain will have no short-term benefit, ignoring the fact that had it been passed 4 years earlier, we wouldn't be worrying about short-term benefit?

"Should we make peace with the regime that committed at least one act of war against us, without ever making any kind of apology or retribution?"

I believe you mean 'restitution.'

Big difference!

Immediately after 9-11 it was apparent that it would be good to change our energy policies so as to make it harder for oil-rich radicals to hold the world economy hostage. The administration has done nothing to change things.

Oh, for Zod's sake.

Would somebody please enroll all these "alternate energy policy" types in a basic physics class, before they waste any more time with this claptrap?

It is very tiring to read articles that supposedly discuss energy policy written by people who obviously know little about markets in general and oil markets in particular. It is also become cliche that parochial Democrats are so obsessed with gaining back some power that national interest is subsumed under the overriding prerogative of elections.

Some Democrats, of course, truly believe that their politics are best for the nation. Alas, much (but not all; I second the nomination of Lieberman) of those politics mimic that of the Democrat who can reasonably be fingered for this whole mess: James Earl Carter, the man who convinced the mullahs that America was a pansy nation.

Is Yglesias advocating wholesale building of nuclear power plants in America? If so, then let's start.

And how, pray tell, would Matt Yglesias get Russia to stop helping Iran to build its nuke plants. Aand did Clinton do anything towards reproachment with the theocracy? Iran has been working towards nuclear weapons, er nuclear power, for far longer than Bush has been president.

Gimme an 'N'!
Gimme a 'U'!
Gimme a 'C'!
Gimme a 'U'!
Gimme an 'L'!
Gimme an 'A'!
Gimme an 'R'!

Or else admit you're not serious about either Persian Gulf stability or global warming, and go play with some soft toys.

Geoff is correct: President Bush did not wait for 9/11 to change energy policy. Throughout the Clinton Administration our energy policy was: "Buy more foreign oil". When Bush took office he inherited several critical problems, one of them was this terrible energy policy that was killing CA but threatened to kill the entire US economy.

He tried to affect change but hit the usual wall. The Democrats are against anything that the Republicans try to do, and will do anything – fair or unfair – to stop them. But they will not put a serious counter proposal on the table.

I agree with Stephen that if the Democrats would be willing to give up this childish refusal to allow anything good to happen during a Republican Administration and engage in a real debate to solve some of the problems that face this country, we would all benefit. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening. Their highest priority is to regain power; their second priority is to stop the GOP. Solving problems doesn't appear to be on their priority list at all.

The Democratic party has not been a great party since it became wed to the cause of slavery.

True, it has been better than it is today, but that's just because they've finally skidded down to the ninth layer of Hell.

(Don't smile too big if you're a partisan Republican, because that party isn't far behind and it's picking up speed. Don't smile at all if you're a Libertarian, because that party has been at the bottom waiting for them.)

Got a question: What is happening about drilling the shale oil reserves in the US and Canada? I'm doing this from memory, but seem to recall that the great cutoff is at $30/barrel. Since we are so far above that, it is now (quite) profitable to drill those deposits. Are our oil companies taking any action in this arena? Has Bush or Congress taken any action to make it easier for this to happen? All I hear about is ANWR, where the deposits are much smaller.

Obviously, I'm not expecting immediate results, but has there been any action? If anyone knows, I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

I wouldn't vote for Joe Lieberman for two reasons:

1. I am not a US citizen. :-)

2. While I wouldn't have problem with the man's foreign policy views (in fact, I like them), I think he is so much out of touch with his party, that he would have a hard time to fill the bureaucracy with likeminded people. I also happen to believe that his party would do everything to undermine him (as they try to force him out of the Senate.)
So in short, the problem is not the man but the party. And he is not nearly enough to counterbalance the rest.
However, had he switched party, ... then many people would treat him as somebody who would do anything to grab power. I don't think he has any chance to be President. His present party is dismal, trying to change that would ruin him, but he cannot leave them.

Vilmos

WHat's even more amusing is that the US imports barely any oil from Iran at all; it doesn't even make the top 15 import sources.

(#15 is Trinidad and Tobago at 70kbbl/day)

Iran, by all accounts, exports about 2.6mbbl/day of oil (out of 3.75mbbl/day production, though there's some discrepancy in the estimates, Iran not being transparent on such things).

It's remarkably hard to find out who's buying Iran's oil, but it sure doesn't seem to be the US, already. One presumes it's Asia and Europe, they being the big consumers otherwise.

Even if the US was to never buy a drop of MidEast oil again, that surely wouldn't stop the rest of the world, as everyone else has said.

Does Iglesias even think about this stuff before talking about it?

NukemHill:

If I recall there are a lot of problems with oil shale. For one thing the US deposits have a great deal of arsenic and other nasty elements. You can squeeze out the oil, but if the deposits of arsenic get into the ground water then it will poison the aquifer that supplies most of the water to the heartland of America.

Good points all, great deconstruction of Iglesias.

Various firms are working on shale in the US. Apparently a number of new technological developments are promising. One hurdle is the enviromental issues (not insignificant but not showstoppers....they do this in Canada on a major scale already).
Probably most important is the financing issue. Will oil stay up in price? Look at the chart....it was $10 in 1999, no?

Not saying its going back that low (any time soon) but the capital needed to make an economic shale extraction going is significant and no one wants to scale up just to see the price become uneconomic again.

Yglesias needs to take a course in "Oil 101". Oil is fungible. Simply refraining from purchasing oil from Iran would not reduce our dependence on Iranian oil...because the other folks we would buy oil from instead (say, Venezuela) would get it from Iran.

Here's a great explanation of how "oil is oil" from Arnold Kling:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012003A

Another fact to throw into the mix. Iran exports its crude oil but has to import all of its refined oil.

It has no refineries? Who is supplying its refined oil? It needs nuclear power for electricity? Why isn't it building refineries?

Great takedown of Yglesias.

I think some of the more moderate Dems recognize the problem of the win-at-any-cost mentality when applied to the domestic front, but not on the international front. I just read the Washington Monthly's profile of Kos & it pointed out that the problem with Markos' approach--constantly attacking in order to win--is that at some point, you actually have to govern.

The writer, though, just couldn't bring himself to apply the implications of this attitude to the international stage. If, for political gain, you oppose your opponent's domestic strategy even though it may be what's best for the country/state/whatever, that's stupid & petty and wrong, but it's also how politics is played.

But opposing a war strategy just becuase it's the other side making the decisions is evil (since it puts political victory over the lives at stake in war), suicidal and, frankly, murderous toward your fellow citizens.

Shame on the left for what it has become. (And as a Catholic who knows shame, I mean that in the fullness of its force.)

On the first day of the war, I wasted time arguing online with lefties who were opposed to "Bush's war."

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Democrats who actually understand that we are at war, and we did not start it.

I see no sign that the Democratic party will snap out of its insanity any time soon.

You're crazy if you think Bush has lifted a finger, much less the necessary nation, to do what needs to be done toward oil consumption. First, whoever thinks how much oil we literally import from Iran matters doesn't know what they're talking about.

I don't know about this guy's credibility and don't really care about non-proliferation treaties but a war on oil consumption should be a no-brainer, and its shameful to see such good sense being sacrificed to a partisan potshot like this.

We constitute one-quarter the world's oil consumption. Sure as hell we can make a difference in the prices and thus Iran's funding if we put our back into this.

We can reduce consumption, drastically. Back in the 80's we reduced our consumption by over 2 million barrels a day in less than four years. What happened? The price plunged to ten bucks. The Soviet Union, their drastic economic problems compounded with no more oil money, collapsed. The Iranians, faced with an inability to buy off their burgeoning population with oil money, made aesthetic reforms, bringing about their wannabe parliament. Jordan, cut off from Saudi oil money, made real reforms, building a real economy & a fairer government. I could go on.

With today's technology we can do much much better, were the members of this government to have any spine. Honestly, we're American. Given the motivation, we can do whatever we want to. After 9/11, all Bush had to do was announce a war on oil consumption, and we wouldn't be importing today.

This war is ultimately against medieval ideas, but that's an easy war to win, because our ideas are better than theirs. The only thing propping theirs up is a vast propaganda effort, spanning mosques, schools, governments, and the Arab media. Such an effort requires enormous sums of money to maintain, money that ultimately derives from our heavy oil consumption.

Honestly, I'm not saying democrats are better (they really aren't), but incompetence is incompetence is incompetence and nobody should be afraid of pointing it out due to fear of losing some partisan points. The energy bill is a joke. We are never going to solve our problems by increasing domestic production, and certainly the litany of subsidies and tax breaks it gave energy companies was worthless in the war on oil consumption.

Gas taxes, nuclear power, CAFE standards, these are the kinds of solutions we need, but the Republican party lacks a single politician brave enough to say as much, not to mention dare mention sacrifice to the American people. To quote Friedman, all they can dare the American people to do is accept another tax cut.

Amen on Lieberman, if only...

We've greatly reduced oil consumption in my household. We've gone back to frying everything in butter.

Yglesias is usually an honest guy, and someone I look to as part of the "reasonable left" along with Keving Drum.

Cut him a break.

We constitute one-quarter the world's oil consumption. Sure as hell we can make a difference in the prices and thus Iran's funding if we put our back into this.

Incorrect, the global market for oil is not a free market. OPEC is a cartel that sets oil prices by manipulating supply.

If the US stops buying oil, what happens is that the price drops initially, but then OPEC cuts everyone's quotas by 25% or so, and the price goes back to what it was, more or less.

As far as Iranian oil is concerned, we don't buy any from them directly. Iran is under embargo, and has been since the revolution- it's illegal for a US citizen or company to do business with them. That was the law Marc Rich- the most notiorious of President Clinton's 'midnight pardons'- violated.

What happened in 1998 (not the 80s) was a combination of incorrect forecasting of demand by OPEC and rampant quota-cheating, resulting in a glut of oil and a price collapse. They've learned their lesson, it's not going to happen again.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

...and I daresay there was a lot more to the collapse of the Soviet Union that cheap oil.

Gas taxes accomplish nothing but increasing government revenue and decreasing the amount of money in your pocket. CAFE standards result in smaller, lighter cars that are less survivable in accidents. I am unimpressed by either 'solution', and the government telling people they have to 'sacrifice' something is *not* a solution. I am an adult, I can make my own decisions about what I do or do not need, and I expect the government to treat me as such.

It doesn't matter if we cut our oil consumption - especially by another technology - others will want that technology (for free) and if you think they're upset w/US now, wait until their only source of income shrivels up.

The magic kingdom has already said that massive transfers of wealth will be needed. they exist because of the kuffir - oh, that'll make em happy.

To take off from William's point, I think Republicans serious about energy willfully miss a chance with regards to ANWR. If they'd agree to increase CAFE standards, or the equivalent, to save as much oil through conservation as ANWR will create through production, they'd provide political cover for a few moderate Dems to switch over and it'd pass easily. Not a lot of compromise going on these days, though.

Rosignol, the price of oil plunged to the 10-20$ range in 1985 in response to successful US conservation efforts. It stayed in that range for the next five years, the same period during which the afore mentioned events happened. Saying gas taxes don't have an effect is bull. Europe taxes its gas and consumes less than half the amount of oil per-capita than we do. And if the politicians are really smart, they'll return all the money anyway, making it purely punitive & not actually inflicting any economic damage, but that's nitpicking. The concept is proven.

Europe also has less car accidents, same with Japan, both of them feature smaller cars... both of them consume much less...

Again, whether or not we buy oil from Iran is non-consequential. It all feeds into the same market, and so long as our consumption keeps the price up, they profit.

And if reduce our consumption enough, it's perfectly plausible that in 30 years we could stop importing oil altogether, ridding ourselves of the OPEC scourge (besides, they don't have the discipline nor the market share to dictate prices to that extent).

Don't tell me we can't, don't tell me we shouldn't, and don't put your supposed adult independence in front of our nation's welfare, especially when it comes to such a heavily gov. subsidized market as oil consumption anyway (who built the roads...?)

Sandy, Oil has proven itself a scourge of a resource, breeding corruption and dictatorships wherever it is abundant, I don't think they'll miss it.

Curious, good thinking, probably all that's feasible though they should go all the way.

--Europe taxes its gas--

Isn't Britain's split 75/25 w/75 to NHS?

William - they can't compete against US, they can't compete against China or India. They have nothing else to offer the world so they can feed their people.

The only way that would work is if the world turns their back on them and tell them, you want to establish the Caliphate, now's your chance. Make it work absolutely no immigration to the world and build a high wall so they won't be contaminated by the world any more.

it won't work, babies and puppies will die and the UN will perpetuate another job for itself because it's for the children. And into my pocketbook their entire body goes.

I don't mind bringing them or Venezuela down, but it'll also mess w/Canada and Mexico. We have enough agitation on our borders, take away a major source of their income, too, and look out.

The world is mad at US now, when we become self-sufficient they're really going to be pissy. All that dislocation of the environazis who make their living bashing US. What will the world do for sport when we take our ball and go home?

So we shouldn't become energy self-sufficient because out of charity...?

First, most of our oil money goes to building their mosques, funding their militaries, building their palaces (they just finished a 3$ billion thing in the UAE which is bigger than some towns and gold-plated), and keeping dicatorships in place. Effectively, most of the money goes to either maintaing the system that keeps the oil flowing (stability), and coincidentally the same one that produces extremists & terrorists (Islamism, oppression).

It's no coincidence that the oil-producing states' economies have nothing else to offer. You should read friedman to really learn about it, but because they get so much money from oil, there's no incentive to build real economies for their people, to give them real educations (not the religious it's America's fault, you don't have to work cause the gov. will employ you anyway), or to develop real infrastructure. Take away the oil, they're much better off. Just look at Dubai or Jordan, both economies formerly dependent on oil revenues, that, when denied them, built real economies that are now much more successful.

Anyway, realistically there's no way the world's going to stop consuming oil for a while, and do we really put the welfare of the Middle East, or more accurately the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Iran, & those other OPEC staes over our own welfare?