An issue for Romney to run on. We need an America first energy policy

One of my major concerns with Romney, then and now, is that he's running as generic campaign when it comes to messaging. Generic only wins on the presidential level when the other candidate blows it more than you did. Bush in 2000 got lucky that Gore was an arrogant jerk. In 04, Bush had a record, and John Kerry was frankly a traitor (when he accused American soldiers of being war criminals) when he got back from Nam. On paper, Bush probably would have lost that year against most opponents. Kerry was the least electable. Obama in 08 had not only the media in the tank for him, but had Bush fatigue and McCain as an opponent. 

You usually can't beat crap with generic. "The other guy sucks" will get you only so much of the vote. Romney's problem is that he isn't trusted (he should have coasted in the primary on paper), and really for good reason. He's not trusted.  Romney actually has good organization, and a good ground game. However, he needs to take risks with the message and go to specifics. Repealing Obamacare is one issue, and changing due to the economy is part of it as well. He needs to stop being generic and come forward with a plan. People don't have to like him, but one thing Romney can sell is competence.

"This is my plan. I fixed the Olympics. I fixed companies. I fixed Massachusetts. This is HOW I'm going to fix the economy."  How can we get America working again? Energy. Besides energy jobs themselves, they can reduce costs for energy for individuals and other companies.

I've seen Romney hint at this, but never fully got out into detail. One area that is booming is North Dakota with the energy jobs. REAL energy jobs, not snake oil green jobs. Solar can work in Arizona, but have of the time here the sun isn't even out. Wind is variable and even in windy areas, some of their biggest supporters want lots of windmills, but not on their property. 

There are three major problems, both from an economical and national security background with our energy policy.


1. A large amount of our oil imports are from counties that don't like us very much. Saudi Arabia. Venezuelan government. There are also a lot of unknowns with the unrest in the Middle East. Are the new bosses the same as the old bosses? Are they worse from an American standpoint? I don't know. We HAVE energy here. Oil. Shale. Natural Gas. Coal. Nuclear. Wood. The last thing from a national security standpoint, is to put it bluntly, have countries that don't like us have us by the nuts. Leverage is important, and another reason why we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling, nor continuing to borrow and spend like Obama and to a lesser extent, Bush (and nobody has come close to these two), have done. Don't let potential adversaries have leverage that can be used to control our decisions.

2. Exporting energy. Why are we exporting our energy that we need . I know about comparative advantage economics, but I'm speaking from a security standpoint. Exporting excess energy that we don't need is fine, but exporting what we need is crazy, "World price" or not.

3. Radical Greens and Government restrictions. I consider myself a conservationist. I am not an environmentalist. However, when government is in the way to the extent that it keeps people out of work outside of the snake oil of government's buddies that gets sweetheart deals, we have a problem. I have little time to be worried about global warming and carbon dioxide (which we breath out) when our economy is in the crapper. Global warming may be real and may be bad. Energy shortages and their economic and security effects ARE real and ARE bad.  ANWR needs to be the decision of Alaskans, not the San Francisco Bay Area.

While rich so called progressives in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Seattle, and the university towns aren't affected by this and can afford setbacks, most of the rest of the country is affected, and can't afford the energy price increases and setbacks easily. 

Here's some unforced errors caused by our government. From Reuters

-----------------

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Call it the Keystone of coal: a regulatory and public relations battle between environmentalists and U.S. coal miners akin to the one that has defined the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline.

Instead of blocking an import, however, this fight is over whether to allow a growing surplus of coal to be exported to Asia, a decision that would throw miners a lifeline by effectively offshoring carbon emissions and potentially give China access to cheaper coal.

Having long ago lost their bid to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels, environmental groups aim to close transport routes that bring those carbon fuels to market, pulling local and state politicians into the fight alongside regulators.

Mining interests won a battle last week when the Army Corps of Engineers called for a quick study of plans to open the first coal port on the west coast at Oregon's Port of Morrow on the Columbia River, a review that will weigh impacts of hauling coal, not burning it.

Coal port skeptics say the ruling is ripe for challenge in the courts and they foresee a drawn-out fight over the review.

"I'm afraid that by choosing to perform a less stringent analysis today, the Corps will ultimately create a longer delay," Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. Wyden, who is due to lead the Energy and Natural Resources Committee if Democrats hold the Senate, has said he supports a full review of the project and is reserving judgment until it is completed.

Delay is something miners can ill afford.

Alpha Natural Resources Inc, one of the country's largest coal producers, said last week it is cutting 1,200 jobs, roughly 9 percent of its workforce, as increased use of natural gas for power generation dents demand.

While coal foes in the Pacific Northwest can stymie the projects, the federal government will have the final say.

If President Barack Obama wins a second term, the issue will likely test his determination to curb the use of fossil fuels blamed for climate change, especially since his policies are partly behind miners' yearnings for Asian markets.

Tough new Environmental Protection Agency limits on power plant emissions are often blamed, along with low natural gas prices, for the drop in domestic coal use, but burning the black rock in Asia will have the same impact on the atmosphere.

No matter who wins the election, the intensifying fight ahead over coal ports is raising Keystone-like questions about energy priorities in a time when traditional fuels are still abundant.

---------------

These regulations are hurting us here at home with the rising energy costs. That's why there's export pushes in the first place. However, China certainly understands leverage and doesn't have the same paranoia among its elites as the chattering classes here do with the cult of global warming.

------------

Analysts say Powder River Basin coal must cheaply reach Asia in the coming years to catch the strong demand in China, the world's No. 2 economy, and the rest of the region.

"The United States has no unique advantage in meeting the Asia coal hunger, and that demand will not exist forever," said Ailun Yang, a researcher with the World Resources Institute.

-------------------------

Of course not. They want to buy time before they get to their own resources. China likes having the leverage (like our debt), not getting leverage against them.

As much as I'd like to pin the blame of this all on Obama, I can't. It started with Nixon and the congress from 1970.

---------------

In a courtroom the fight could center on a reading of the National Environmental Policy Act from 1970, which requires federal agencies to study "all major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment."

Courts now expect climate-change consequences to be weighed under NEPA, so the question is how much Obama or his successor wants to consider the external costs associated with developing and burning coal, says Mark Squillace, who leads the natural resources law center at the University of Colorado.

------------------------

Laws are written too broadly and do not account for unintended consequences. Global Warming didn't become an issue at all until the 90's.  This law was back in the Nixon era. It did not consider the cult of global warming, but real pollution, but laws like that leave an opening.  

Government is in the way, again, of self-sufficiency. Government needs to stop costing jobs with regulations and get out of the way. 

Energy Policy needs to be America first

I agree with 70% of this article in New Geography, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite policy journals. I don't agree with it on nuclear policy, but I can see its argument. I still think we need to pursue nuclear energy as long as our reactors aren't on fault lines and subduction zones. We need an all the above energy policy.

From New Geography

The two largest crises today — the Japanese nuclear disaster and the widening unrest in the Middle East — prove it’s time to de-fetishize energy policy. These serious problems also demonstrate why we must expand the nation’s ample oil and gas supplies — urgently.

The worsening Japanese nuclear crisis means, for all intents and purposes, that atomic power is, if not dead, certainly on a respirator.

Some experts may still make the case that nuclear power remains relatively safe. Some green advocates still tout its virtues for emitting virtually no greenhouse gases.

But the strongest case against nuclear power is now rooted in grave public fears about radiation. Imagine trying to site or revamp a nuclear plant today anywhere remotely close to an earthquake fault or a major city.

Right now, I'm sure nuclear energy's popularity is dipping.

The other shoe dropping relates to the growing chaos in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Gulf. The price of oil is likely to continue climbing, unless the world economy slides back into recession — and perhaps even then. The governments that emerge from the current Mideast upheavals are likely to be far less pliable to Western interests than the authoritarian potentates that Washington long supported. Disruptions in supply, higher energy taxes and emergent environmental movements could constrain markets for months, even years, to come.

These realities upset all the “best” obsessions of our rival political classes. Much of the progressive community, for example, had embraced nuclear fuel as key to ultimately replacing fossil fuels as a source of electricity — including the long-awaited electric cars. Green advocates often overestimated the readiness of renewable fuels — still far more expensive than fossil fuels and highly dependent on subsidies.

Wind power, for example, produces, at best, some 2.3 percent of the nation’s electricity. But in addition to wiping out whole flocks of birds, it receives subsidies many times higher per megawatt hour than fossil fuels. In contrast, the dirtiest fuel, coal, still produces close to 50 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Meanwhile, solar panel production, touted as a wellspring of job creation, seems to be shifting inexorably to China. Algae-based biofuels and other types look promising — but could take decades to become practical.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, have espoused the nuclear option — in part, because the industry has powerful corporate backing, which is always an influential factor to Republicans. But even red-state denizens are probably looking at the scenes of Fukushima with understandable horror.

So if the “best” agendas of both parties are flawed, it may be time to look at the “good.” The pragmatic way out of this emerging energy mess means focusing on our increasingly abundant supplies of oil and gas.

“Peak oil” enthusiasts may not have noticed, but recent discoveries and improvements in technology have greatly expanded the scope of U.S. energy resources. New finds are occurring around the world, but some of the biggest are in the United States.

Shale oil deposits in the northern Great Plains, Texas, California and Colorado could yield more oil annually by 2015 than the Gulf of Mexico. Within 10 years, these finds have the potential to reduce U.S. oil imports by more than half.

Even more promising, from the environmental standpoint, are huge natural gas finds. Discoveries in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania could satisfy 100 years of use at current demand levels.

What is great about American energy? Jobs. Money not going to the Middle East. Control.

Producing domestic energy also creates the potential for hundreds of thousands of new U.S. jobs — everything from engineering to high-paying blue-collar work in the fields.

A new gas-led energy boom would also spark increases in demand for manufactured goods like oil rig equipment, tractors, pipelines and refineries. And those are sectors that the United States still dominates.

Would we rather this economic growth take place in Iran, Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

The time has come for both political parties to give up their “best” energy options for the good. A green economy that produces millions of new jobs is a laudable goal. But the renewable sector cannot develop rapidly without massive expenditures of scarce public dollars. To fully develop these technologies, we need lots of money and time.

Republicans, too, need to give up their “bests” — including the notion that no policy is always the best, usually a convenient cover for the narrow interests of large energy corporations. Allowing private corporations to unilaterally determine our energy policy makes little sense. After all, most of our key competitors — China, Brazil and India — approach energy not as an ideological hobby horse but as a national priority.

I know that oil has a "world price" but this goes beyond economics. We need to look at reality and control what we can control here at home. Global warming may or may not be happening (Certainly not happening in Michigan last few years - and I've seen nothing like 1988 or even 1996 lately), and may not be a concern. There is no consensus there, and those who say there is forget science 101 about testing.

Reality however consists of rising gas prices, rising shipping costs and inflation, unrest in the Middle East, China and India industrializing, and more pain, partly directly caused by the government. We need an all of the above energy policy here, and it starts by taking advantage of our own resources.

The economic bright spot. North Dakota

We keep hearing about cool cities and Richard Florida's creative class stuff about the future of the economy. That thinking has been wrong, is wrong, and always will be wrong outside of the engineers and trustafarians. Engineers are important, but the latter are frankly worthless to society.

What's key is jobs, and if there is an economic recovery right now going on, it is in what is considered one of the most "uncoolest" places in the US. North Dakota. North Dakota. Home of extreme temperature ranges, farmland, ranches, little "diversity" (German, Scandinavian, or Sioux mostly), and energy. All things that the Barack Obama/Rahm Emmanuel snob class doesn't like.

From New Geography

Already fourth in oil production behind Texas, Alaska and California, the state is positioned to advance on its competitors. Drilling in both Alaska and the Gulf, for example, is currently being restrained by Washington-imposed regulations. And progressives in California—which sits on its own prodigious oil supplies—abhor drilling, promising green jobs while suffering double-digit unemployment, higher utility rates and the prospect of mind-numbing new regulations that are designed to combat global warming and are all but certain to depress future growth. In North Dakota, by contrast, even the state's Democrats—such as Sen. Kent Conrad and former Sen. Byron Dorgan—tend to be pro-oil. The industry services the old-fashioned liberal goal of making middle-class constituents wealthier.

Oil also is the principal reason North Dakota enjoys arguably the best fiscal situation in all the states. With a severance tax on locally produced oil, there's a growing state surplus. Recent estimates put an extra $1 billion in the state's coffers this year, and that's based on a now-low price of $70 a barrel.

North Dakota, however, is no one-note Prairie sheikdom. The state enjoys prodigious coal supplies and has—yes—even moved heavily into wind-generated electricity, now ranking ninth in the country. Thanks to global demand, North Dakota's crop sales are strong, but they are no longer the dominant economic driver—agriculture employs only 7.2% of the state's work force.

Perhaps more surprising, North Dakota is also attracting high-tech. For years many of the state's talented graduates left home, but that brain drain is beginning to reverse. This has been critical to the success of many companies, such as Great Plains Software, which was founded in the 1980s and sold to Microsoft in 2001 for $1.1 billion. The firm has well over 1,000 employees.

That is an actual diversified economy, in the real sense - not abandoning it's primary historical industry (Agriculture). The energy is also diverse - coal, oil, wind, and natural gas.

I've long said that we need an all the above (minus the tyrannical and economic treason of cap and trade and anti-automobile CAFE increases) energy policy to promote energy independence from the Middle East. That includes oil, gas, coal, nuclear(not in subduction zones), wind, solar, non-food ethanol (Don't use corn), bio-diesel, and hydroelectrical. The dumbest argument I've ever seen is by those opposed to opening up ANWR because "it would take 10 years." I don't give a damn if it takes 20 years. Do we want to have our oil at worst in reserves, or do we want the Saudis to have us by the balls? Let's not forget the rapidly industrializing China and India with 2+ Billion people going to increase their consumption of oil/gas.

The gas prices in 2008 were IMO the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to the collapse. It wasn't budgeted for. It wasn't planned. It increased shipping costs for everything causing inflation. Wages wern't increasing. Now we see gas prices creeping towards $4 again. If Obama wants a recovery, this isn't helping.

Hopefully, Obama and his EPA doesn't put the hammer down on North Dakota. More states need to learn from North Dakota and put jobs and America first, regardless of what Hollywood and the self proclaimed elite think. When Al Gore, Robert Redford, James Cameron, and RFK Jr give up their 20,000 sq ft homes, jets, hummer's, and their carbon footprints, I'll maybe start thinking about considering what they have to say when they run their mouths.