Really bad ideas on energy

One thing that you can always count on about the US political process is that it will generate a few good ideas and a great many bad ones. Energy policy is a perennial source of the bad ones, and right now is no exception. Let's pick one from both the Democrats and the Republicans.

First, some of the Dems seem to think that the US should tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) because the current troubles in the Middle East are driving up gasoline prices here in the US. This is a ridiculously dumb idea.

The whole point of having an emergency reserve like the SPR is for ... uh, emergencies. An extra thirty-five cents per gallon at the pump is emphatically not an emergency. In fact, for anyone who cares about providing economic incentives for the development of renewable energy sources and new cars, high oil prices are actually a very important market signal. The US government absolutely should not blunt that signal by tapping the SPR.

Just as importantly, the SPR should be preserved for a true emergency, such as the kind of major oil disruption that could occur if Saudi Arabia experienced something like the conflict we're seeing in Libya. Given that there is a reasonable probability that we haven't seen the last of the revolutions in the Middle East, now is precisely the time when we should be extra careful with oil reserves.

Ok, what about the Republicans? Well, some of them seem to be seriously considering Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate. Even if we were to look past the raging hypocrisy that Mr. Gingrich displayed when he tried to impeach Clinton for having an affair even as he was having one himself -- and I can't imagine why we would look past it -- I'd still have a dim view of Gingrich's candidacy because of his ideas for energy policy.

Gingrich is the author of a 2008 book entitled, "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less." He is, in short, the "intellectual" force behind the chants of 'drill, baby, drill' that we heard in the 2008 campaign. The idea of America obtaining "energy independence" by replacing foreign oil imports with US oil production is profoundly unrealistic. At least within the foreseeable future, the US is completely incapable of self-sufficiency in oil.

Moreover, policies that try to rapidly expand US oil production are much more likely to do harm than good. Too much haste in developing offshore resources, for instance, could lead to another spill akin to the BP disaster in 2010. Even if we get lucky and avoid an accident, what exactly would the US gain by depleting its own geological reserves at a rate far faster than the rest of the world?

So here's my recommendation: let's bundle up Gingrich and the geniuses who want to tap the SPR, and see if we can trade them to Qadhafi for a little peace in the Middle East.

US: Obama's terrible decision on oil drilling

I must admit, I just don't see what public benefit the Obama administration believes it will generate by opening large portions of the US coastline to oil exploration.

The private benefits to oil companies, of course, could be huge. And perhaps that's the whole explanation behind the decision right there.

Yet when announcing the decision today, Obama made noises about this decision being a step towards American energy security, and part of a long-term energy strategy. So let's examine those claims.

First, this decision is supposed to be sensitive to environmental concerns. In theory, the Department of the Interior will regulate the oil exploration to protect the environment. But there is really no reason not to expect regulators to be captured by the oil industry in exactly the same way that regulators were captured by the financial industry in the years leading up to the 2008-09 financial crisis. Environmental watchdog groups are unlikely to be able to muster much resistance, precisely because any damage done to the environment will be dozens of miles off coast and therefore invisible to local residents.

Second, the decision supposedly helps America's energy security. But as Obama points out, the US has less than 2 percent of global reserves but consumes 20 percent of global production. Drilling now only means that America's dwindling reserves will be used faster.

Even worse, the decision does harm to America's energy security. It gives US industry a greater stake in oil, thereby perpetuating the cycle of political resistance to policies and technology that would shift America away from oil. It delays even further the day when the US car and truck fleet runs on electricity, natural gas, or a renewable biofuel.

Finally, despite being sold as a temporary stop-gap, exploratory drilling is unlikely to happen for at least five years and commercial production is even further away. So instead of providing a short-term, temporary supply of oil, Obama's decision instead sends a long-term signal to world markets that there is less incentive to invest in oil production in other parts of the world.

In theory, Obama's move might be part of a larger strategy for getting a meaningful climate change law passed by Congress. Yet it's unclear the current Senate bill on climate counts as "meaningful", even if it does pass. And if this is a political overture from Obama to independents or Republicans, it seems like a terrible time for an attempt at bipartisanship: senior Republican Senators have already sworn to refuse cooperate with the Administration, and are already condemning today's decision.

So color me skeptical: it looks very much like energy strategy and environmental concerns are being thrown under the bus for short-term economic interests. Not that we should be surprised, of course.

Energy and climate security

The US Congress is currently considering multiple bills on climate change and energy security. In December, the world will meet in Copenhagen to consider a framework for a post-Kyoto agreement. Perhaps it is time we had a serious discussion about what these issues mean for US national security.

Environmentalists often point to climate change as the source for all manner of ills, including the destruction of Pacific Islands and low-lying coastal areas, massive immigration issues in South Asia, and perhaps even war. There may be a grain of truth to these claims, but they seem distant from the average American voter. Let's focus instead on three issues that are clear and present dangers from America's current energy and climate policies.

First, there is the full cost of America's oil dependence. As the global economy shows signs of recovery, the price of oil has quietly crept above $70 a barrel, a price far above the historic trend. Indeed, the recent collapse in investment in the oil sector means that oil prices could continue to rise. Follow the money: America is sending more than $500 billion a year overseas to oil-exporting countries. Most of those countries have autocratic political systems that are unprepared to handle that kind of financial influx. Oil money often turns into military spending and advanced weaponry, which in turn leads to civil and international war. Ironically, this costs America even more money in the long-run, as it spends billions on the military to try to maintain "stability" in oil-exporting regions.

Second, there is the full cost of doing nothing about climate change. The US Navy has hundreds of concrete piers around the world that are likely to be submerged by rising seawater, and the cost to replace them is estimated at $100 billion. Insurance companies will raise premiums for natural disasters. The government will spend millions developing early-warning systems and mitigation systems in light of more frequent hurricanes like Katrina and Gustav. These are just a few examples of the costs climate change will impose on the public. Whenever some pundit complains about the cost of environmental policies, remember the implicit price tag of doing nothing.

Third, there is the real but unquantifiable risk of catastrophic climate change. The single biggest risk is that the ocean currents will change, diverting the warm Gulf current from the North Atlantic and bringing a rapid ice age to Europe. If this sounds like the stuff of Hollywood, well, it is, but it is also a significant risk that has been highlighted by the UN International Panel on Climate Change. This risk is real, and it is a threat to the US military in two ways. First, chaos in Europe would threaten many of America's most important allies, not to mention the thousands of US troops posted in Germany and elsewhere. Second, this sort of disruption in Europe would destabilize the US-Russia relationship in ways that are impossible to predict.

You don't have to be a tree-hugger or a radical hawk to see energy and climate change as serious issues of US national security. It's time to see these issues as a statesman would: from a bipartisan, long-term perspective. Obama's move to increase the gas-mileage was a good first step, but more is needed. It will take decades to convert the capital stock of US power plants into cleaner, more efficient technology, even if the right policy incentives were put in place today. To make that happen, the US needs to see the issue not just as an environmental problem, but also a security imperative.

But have hope. Far-sighted politicians are starting to watch for the first moment when the words "carbon tax" become politically palatable. It will pay to be out front on this issue.

Remembrance Day / Veterans Day

At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month this year, I found myself in the DC Metro system. It wasn't a very memorial occasion, but I paused for two minutes of silence anyway. I tried to appreciate the vast contribution made by boys and men who have fought in the front lines of the wars in the last century.

I was ignored by all those around me. Veterans Day has little emotional meaning for most Americans, and Remembrance Day has almost as little impact for most Canadians.

It's understandable I suppose. It might all seem quite removed. Some people don't even like to honour the contributions of soldiers, as it seems like war-mongering to them. I respectfully disagree.

So long as there are dictators and greed, so long as their is nationalistic fervor, so long as their is religious hatred, there will be people who want to make war and do evil. There need to be good people there to stop them. I thank those who have done it in the past, making our future possible.

US: Give Obama a break

Senator Obama's victory as President-Elect this week was stirring, dramatic, and as a symbol of change in this country, long overdue. Naturally, he is getting all kinds of advice about what he should do now. I have a little piece of advice too.

Go on a vacation.

Obama has been campaigning almost continuously for two years straight. He's got to be exhausted.

Very soon, this man will have responsibility over the nuclear codes. He will have responsbility for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will have try to rescue the American economy from an incredible mess. He needs to craft smart policies on climate change, energy independence, health care, and social security. This is a man who needs to be well rested.

I'm not saying he needs to take as much vacation as the current President. But look, JFK took six weeks off after his campaign, and it was far shorter and less demanding than Obama's. A week in the sun wouldn't be too much to ask.

Give the man a break.

US: The Financial Crisis Is Not That Complicated

For the last month, the press has been raging about how insanely complex the current financial crisis is. So complicated that financial wizards are still reeling to understand what happened. So complex that even mighty titans of finance like Greenspan and Paulson don't know how to fix it.

At the risk of hubris, I disagree. The problem seems pretty simple, really.

Here's what happened. About a decade ago, the financial community dreamed up something called Credit Default Swaps (CDS). These financial tools are basically an insurance policy against something going bankrupt. The "something" could be anything, like a corporate bond or a sub-prime mortgage. So if I sell you a CDS, you pay me a certain amount of money each year, like an insurance premium, and if the mortgage goes bust, I give you a big payout. Just like having car insurance: your insurance company pays you if your car gets creamed.

Here's the catch: "insurance" is regulated. "Swaps" aren't. This means that the Wall St guys don't have to have financial reserves in case they actually have to make the CDS payouts to someone. That's like if I sold all my friends car insurance, took their premiums, and hoped that no one crashes their car. If a bunch of my clients do happen to have car crashes -- especially at the same time -- then everyone is screwed. I can't make the payments, and the car owners suddenly don't have insurance. That's what happened this fall, except that it was mortgages that crashed, not cars.

The heart of the problem is that regulators were convinced by financial lobbyists that they didn't have to regulate CDS because they were called "swaps" instead of "insurance." That's just idiotic. But there you have it: highly-paid Washington lobbyists influenced legislation for special interests, to the detriment of the Joe Taxpayer. Joe Taxpayer just got screwed.

Greenspan admits now that he thought banks would have the self-discipline to hold sufficient financial reserves to back the CDS's even in the absence of regulation. Even without the benefit of hindsight, that's a staggering assumption: it should not be surprising that banks wanted to trade these enormously profitable CDS's while they could, and knowing that if the system collapsed, the government would have to pick up the pieces. The financial system of the US really is too big to fail.

Admittedly, the solution to this problem is not simple. But I think it has to start with the recognition that this is a classic, recurring problem: the financial wizards on Wall St will always be one step ahead of the regulators, and they will always try to hire high-priced lobbyists to create loopholes in regulations. This isn't new: the Savings and Loans crisis in the 1980s was created in much the same way. It almost certainly won't be the last time.

So it seems to me that if we know this is a recurring problem in the financial industry, we ought to structure long-term solutions around that principle. It's true that the exact form and timing of these crises are unpredictable, but the fact that they will happen is entirely predictable. Instead of letting them take everyone by surprise and the cost being passed on to taxpayers, why not find ways to ensure that the fat cats on Wall St foot the bill when financial collapses occur?

The Canada-Obama Free Trade Agreement

Obama's campaign is being accused of soft-pedaling his policy concerns about NAFTA to a foreign government, namely Canada. A leaked memo from the Canadian consulate in Chicago appears to confirm it. It comes just days -- hours -- before the big showdown on March 4.

What a mess.

Despite Obama's strident denials, there probably is something to this story. Either he or his campaign thought it would be good idea to use some weasel words about his true intent on free trade.

The real damage from this episode is that it is driving both Democratic candidates further and further into the wrong policy position: protectionism. Obama is now publicly digging in his heals on free trade, insisting that he would renegotiate NAFTA and pull out if he wasn't satisfied. Still worse, Hillary Clinton is clutching to this controversy like a drowning swimmer, hoping that if she can prove that she is more anti-NAFTA than Obama is, it will win her Ohio.

The tragedy is that both of the candidates appear to know better. Hillary Clinton publicly supported NAFTA when it was passed, and she's smart enough to know that NAFTA has been good for the economy of all three countries involved. But now she says she was against it all along, and was just being loyal to her husband. (Clearly a guy who knows what loyalty is about.)

So the Democrats should feel ashamed of themselves, but the real buffon here is the Canadian government. By allowing that memo to get into the press, the Canadiang government has driven both Democrats into a more anti-NAFTA position, which won't be good for Canada if either of them is elected.

The fact that the Canadian embassy doesn't seem to get it is galling. They issued a statement that says: “The Canadian Embassy and our consulates general regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.”

Hey guys, I got a genius idea for you: stop trying to get private concessions out of Presidential candidates and then leaking them to the press!

US: Democrats at the Temple of Cowardice

It's hard to grasp how the US Senate, especially the Democrats, can be so weak, so cowardly, and so stupid.

Recently they approved Michael Mukasey as the new Attorney General, despite his unwillingness to answer a simple question about the legality of torture. Asked whether "waterboarding" is illegal, he refused to answer.As the International Herald Tribune put it so well: "It was not a difficult question. Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. It is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer 'yes.'" (IHT, Nov 11, 2007)

There really is a right and wrong answer on this one. America prides itself on its claims to freedom and liberty. It is also plainly failing to live up to its values on this issue.

My recent visit to three Arab countries reminded me that charges of hypocrisy are central to the low regard of America in the Arab world. No one admires it when Saudi Arabia locks up political dissidents, but the Saudi regime makes no pretensions to civil rights or democracy. When the US adopts similar practices, it is not just its actions but also its hypocrisy that tears into the American image.

It would be bad enough if this was just a matter of bad policy; it also seems like bad politics. The Financial Times reports that Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic senator whose support for Mr Mukasey was crucial, made clear that she had voted for him in part because "Mr Bush had threatened that if Mr Mukasey were rejected, he would not provide another nominee." (FT, Nov. 6) The fact that the Senate Democrats can be bullied around by Bush so easily -- still, after 7 years -- is appalling.

Democrats hope that if and when they seize the White House in 2008, all will be well in the world. Think again. Unless they learn to wield power responsibly, America's reputation will continue to suffer.

US: Monday morning quaterbacks

Better late than never, the saying goes. But as Alan Greenspan is proving this week, when it comes to the words of influential commentators, the difference between late and never seems awful small.

In Greenspan's new biography he finally airs some criticism of the Bush Administration. The New York Times reports it this way: "Though Mr. Greenspan does not admit he made a mistake, he shows remorse about how Republicans jumped on his endorsement of the 2001 tax cuts to push through unconditional cuts without any safeguards against surprises. He recounts how Mr. Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, begged him to hold off on an endorsement because of how it would be perceived. 'It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right,' he acknowledges glumly. He says Republican leaders in Congress made a grievous error in spending whatever it took to ensure a permanent Republican majority." (nytimes.com, 9/15/09)

I'm glad to see Greenspan is finally showing regret about that. The trouble is that it is precious too little, too late. Greenspan is a canny political operator, and couldn't possibly have been so naive as to fail to realize how his endorsement of Bush's tax plan was going to be taken. Greenspan had his chance to stand for fiscal discipline, and he blew it.

Greenspan seems to be following in the footsteps of Bob Woodward, another influential writer who could have shaped Washington opinion on the early Bush policies, but lacked the backbone. Pity.