Economic incompetence and geopolitical naïvety never go out of fashion, it seems. In a Foreign Policy article this week, Jason Bordoff — Director of Columbia University’s Centre on Global Energy Policy and a former Obama administration official — resurrects a tired old argument long favoured by the 'progressive' energy policy elite: that the best way to ensure America’s energy security is to reduce its demand for oil.
Using the backdrop of escalating tensions between Israel and Iran and a short-lived spike in crude oil prices, Bordoff insists that since oil prices are set globally, domestic production offers little “independence” against global oil price shocks. His conclusion: we must “use less oil”, chiefly by subsidising electric vehicles, building charging infrastructure and pressing forward with efficiency and emission mandates.
Bordoff’s arguments sound awfully similar to the 'MEOW' (moral equivalent of war) speech by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 which called for policies to reduce dependence on oil imports. This was when the US was a net importer of oil and dependent on Middle East oil exports during a time of oil price shocks. President Carter’s approach -- which some would call 'pussy-footed', pun intended – to the 'energy crisis' is a well-worn one advanced for decades.
However, such a thesis is deeply flawed, both economically and philosophically. What Bordoff and his cohort overlook is that human flourishing arises not from technocratic control over consumption, but from the freedom to produce, innovate and engage in voluntary exchange. As Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek understood,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anyone who had anything to do with the incompetent Obama admin is the last person to take advice from. Sort of like taking advice on covid from Boris, Matt and their crew.
Anyone who still believes that battery powered cars – or any vehicle – are viable replacements for petrol and diesel can be struck off as a moron straight away. Meanwhile the burning ship carrying battery cars quietly slipped beneath the waves during a storm last Monday.
Electric bin-lorries can complete their round, but only if they don’t squash their load as they do now. Also, refrigerated lorries have a similar problem with refrigeration, fire engines need to drive machinery at their destination, like pumps for the hoses, and ambulances will spend a great deal of time charging their batteries, so extra ambulances will be needed. And farms will find tractors and combine harvesters will have similar problems. Will every farm need its own EV charging station?
But don’t knock the milk float, for those that have their milk delivered early in the morning. 🙂
As the sports fans around us may have heard, the FIA is talking about moving F1 engines back to normally aspirated V8 or V10 petrol engines. Nowadays, the fuel they burn is produced sustainably [let’s ignore the hudreds of tons of kit flown from venue to venue on cargo freighters…]. The electric drive train parts haven’t really moved forwards technically, they add a lot of weight and make the cars too big [= eat more fuel. less competitive racing]. Plus V8s and V10s produce a far better sound whch brings in more viewers [= more $$$]. What’s not to like!?
It might even annoy some of the virtue-signalling drivers so much that they retire [“Bye, Lulu..time to go.”]
Ever since advanced aerodynamics came to F1 making it harder to trail another car around a corner due to the lack of downforce it has been a boring parade with pitstops the most common way of overtaking. MotoGP has seen increasing tech and much less interesting racing as winglets and squat devices have come in. Moto2 produces better racing given it has not turned out as intended. It was ‘here is an engine to go in your chassis’ but the initial variety of makers has dwindled as Kalex have taken over making it virtually a one make class at least now using British Triumph engines. Moto3 is various badged KTMs vs Honda with a Chinese brand thrown in but the low power keeps them together to produce close finishes.
There’s a huge difference between using less oil and using oil more efficiently.
As it mentioned the 1970s problems, it’s worth noting that many things do use oil more efficiently since then. I’ve got old records of cars I’ve run over the years, and even though modern ones have put on a fair bit of weight, the fuel is used much more economically than it used to be in the early 1980s.
Consumers of oil and gas have huge incentives of seeking and implementing more efficient uses. Just look at the last 100 years of progress on that front. Little need to **make** people be more efficient–people just need the ability to do so.
It’s difficult to use oil more efficiently when there is none to use. In the same way, heat pumps aren’t very useful when there’s no power available.
America has vast resources, and is overall an exporter. Especially with fracking for gas. The last people to be in charge of energy solutions are the Liberal Progressives. We see the total disaster we have here in the UK with idiot leftists in charge like Miliband. We now have the highest electricity prices in the world as our UN and WEF lackeys pander to the global government scam called CLIMATE CHANGE, which isn’t and never has been about the climate.
Liberal progressive politicians are either too stupid to understand the economics, or much more likely, they do understand and they are gaslighting the public as a means to an end. That is economic collapse and total control.
Liberal progressives have an illiberal and regressive agenda, ignoring those that voted for them, and those that didn’t. Yes, economic collapse and total control is the goal.
One day, maybe, they will be voted out. But, with the apathy that I see around me, it’s going to be some time.
There are plenty of Liberal Progressives in the Conservative Environment Network.
https://www.cen.uk.com/parliamentary-caucus
They support the Climate Change, “Back to the Dark Ages” scam, of course.
https://www.cen.uk.com/climate
And, they’re pleading with Kemi not to, ‘write off’ Net Zero.
https://www.cen.uk.com/post/writing-off-net-zero-kemi-badenoch-mustn-t-fall-into-reform-s-trap
I expect most have graduated with an Arts or Humanities degree. They can talk the talk, even when their knowledge and experience is net zero.
I am well aware that the Conservatives stopped being conservative some time ago. It was infact a Conservative (Teresa May) who gave us the Net Zero Amendment in 2019. This was waved though with no discussion of cost/benefit, no debate and no vote. ——The entire Political Class are in on this eco socialist scam.