Gas is Expensive Up Here

cross posted at Right Michigan

When Bartholomew Thomas "Bart" Stupak first went to Washington in 1993 as Michigan's newly elected representative from the 1st Congressional District, Bill Clinton was yet to be sworn in as President, Monica Lewinsky was still a teenager, Wayne Fontes was the revered mastermind behind the success of the 5-11 Detroit Lions, and gasoline was about a buck a gallon.

It was a different world then, what with the Lions being less than a year from making it in the playoffs, and Bill and Monica being perhaps three from making it in the Oval Office.

Oh, we also had oil flowing out of our ears.

Why are things so painful now?

Before and during the Scott Mitchell dynasty, there was, relatively speaking, a glut in world oil supplies. (The oil embargo years excluded.) Global economic growth had remained slow and steady while other countries around the world were tapping into previously undeveloped oil fields. Supply more than met demand, and oil and gasoline prices were stagnant. OPEC ministers spent many a day during the 90s lobbying both their own members and non-OPEC members to reduce production to stabilize world oil prices. Ah, those were the good old days when Arab leaders were the ones that had to travel the globe groveling.

The refining industry has changed a lot too. When oil was brought to market 20 years ago, refining was competitive and sometimes barely profitable. It was this financial reality that ultimately led Ultramar Diamond-Shamrock in 1999 to shutter its Alma refinery after trying unsuccessfully to sell it throughout much of the decade. At the time, the Alma facility was one of the only two remaining oil refineries located in Michigan. (In 1952 there were as many as 16 refineries here.)

Given oil supplies in the 1990s, decisions governing oil exploration, drilling and refining were virtually painless. In 1990, President George HW Bush even went so far as to issue an executive order that banned new offshore oil drilling, an order only recently lifted by President George W. Bush.

Bit by bit, piece by piece, the landscapes available to oil leasing, exploration and drilling became more limited. Offshore was out. Vast areas of land such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were deemed too fragile to sustain oil drilling and transport. Environmentalists also worked diligently to halt the usage of oil shale for the country's energy needs based on perceived environmental impact.

Fossil fuels, it was argued, were too toxic for a delicate planet bound to choke to death on its own pollution or die either from the rising or the cooling temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever the flavor of the month happened to be.

One way to clean the toxins from the air, according to environmentalists, was to mandate gasoline blends for different areas of the country and different times of the year. The Clean Air Act of 1990, signed into law by the Senior Bush but not fully enacted until a few years later, added additional refining, storage and transportation expense to the cost of gasoline.

Meanwhile, the world economy began to ramp up, partially fueled by cheap energy on its own accord, itself creating larger energy needs, these needs primarily met by oil and coal produced in areas of the world with much poorer environmental records. (Ever been to Kazakhstan?) As China began pulling 1,000,000 people per month out from under the weight of poverty, other third world countries such as India and Viet Nam began creating their own burgeoning economies. This type of growth, powerful enough to help stamp out poverty, carries a huge energy price tag--and the oil demand relative to its supply began to grow. Prices rose.

This is very simplistically where we are today, in a world and a country with expanding energy needs, and in a country that is divided over increased production of domestic fossil fuels. Yet, while the science of global warming and the environmental impact of carbon emissions have proven to be inconclusive, and as even more and more scientists come on line by publicly voicing their skepticism, Bart Stupak has not wavered.

Throughout the 90s and the 00s, Bart Stupak (the lawyer, not the scientist) reaffirmed time and again his belief in the global warming theory brought on by the usage of fossil fuels. He did it when gasoline was $1.00 per gallon, $2.00 per gallon, $3.00 per gallon, and he continues his quest today at $4.00 per gallon. Presumably he would do the same at $5.00, $6.00, $7.00 and $8.00.

His answers to historically high gasoline costs are myriad, ranging from punishing gougers at the pump (never mind that profit margins have remained relatively stagnant over that period of time,) to reduce speculation in the oil markets by punishing large users of energy for trying to lock in future guaranteed prices (remember, it is hard to have a seller if you don't have a buyer,) by threatening to sue OPEC (a silly voyage into international trade that will provide zero results,) by removing oil and gas subsidies for oil exploration, keeping offshore oil out of reach, keeping ANWR off limits, denying licensing or building of new refineries, and voting for the Kyoto Treaty.

In addition, he has jumped onto the ethanol bandwagon with both feet, firmly planting himself in the "no blood for oil" camp, presumably because starving third world children don't bleed when they die of starvation. Oops!

When bureaucrats today argue that tapping into our country's vast oil reserves is pointless because it will take up to ten years to retrieve black gold, understand that this is an exaggerated argument that misses much of the point. While it is true that offshore and ANWR drilling may take several years to produce fuel, this is not the case of all extraction currently being banned or held up in leased and explored areas in the continental US because of politicians, environmentalists and judges. Just such an occurrence in Crawford County took place earlier this month. Besides, wouldn't it have been neato to have people suggest more drilling a few years ago?

We don't typically elect visionaries to office, unfortunately, for usually we just elect lawyers--they talk so pretty and have nice suits. Bart Stupak typifies the progressive, environmentalist, lawyer-type walking the halls of government that is largely to blame.

When Bart Stupak first began fighting George Bush on his energy policies back in 2003, gasoline was running at approximately half of what it is today. Oddly, the evil oil barons, George Bush and Dick Cheney, did foresee the coming crisis and tried to initiate policies to increase our domestic oil supply. Bart Stupak (the lawyer, not the oilman, businessman or economist) would have none of it, and much of that oil could be coming on line today. Hmmm, maybe we did accidentally elect a couple of visionaries (at least on energy policy.)

Bart Stupak has spent many years fighting tooth and nail against substantive policies and initiatives that would have helped us at the gas pump today, while he embraced symbolic gestures that have done little more than help bury our economy knee-deep into the Arabian sands.

As Bart would say, it is the gougers, OPEC, speculators, polluters and evil oilmen that are to blame for all of this mess.

Meanwhile, gasoline just dropped to $3.99.9 in my small part of the 1st District. At least it ain't $4.00.