Energy Expertise
Sarah Palin’s alleged area of expertise is energy policy, but every time she gets a specific question about energy policy she seems a bit . . . confusing. Ali Frick flags this puzzling disquisition on the desirability of banning U.S. oil exports:
As best I can tell what she’s saying here is that she understands this is a bad idea (”fungible commodity”) but supports doing it anyway. Maybe.
To reiterate a point I’ve made before, running an oil exporting region certainly does give you insight into one corner of the world of energy policy. But it’s a very different perspective from the one everyone else cares about. Most people are either interested in getting cheap energy or worried about the environmental impact of our sources of energy, or some combination of the two. But oil exporting areas — Saudi Arabia, Alaska, Venezuela, Norway, Iran, Russia, etc. — just want everyone to be as dependent on oil as possible and oil prices to be as high as possible. The kind of worries those folks have are interesting to ponder I suppose, but it’s really the total reverse of what everyone else is thinking about.
Just think about it this way: If someone showed up at the patent office tomorrow with a workable design for a magical car that runs on no fuel at all, the primary obligation of the Alaska delegation would be to make sure that car never came to market.
28 Responses to “Energy Expertise”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 19th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Yeah, but, what about a car that ran on crystal meth? Wasilla might be really capable in a meth-based auto world.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Different perspective, indeed. For instance, the fact that it costs me twice as much to fill my tank than it did when Palin was elected governor of Alaska means that I have basically foresworn dining out or attending concerts and sporting events. For her, it means she’s the “most popular” governor in the U.S. and has been chosen as the Republican nominee for vice-president.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Every oil producer in the world except for Saudi Arabia wants to sell every drop of oil they can possibly produce for the highest price they can possibly get. Here, “possibly” is not a caveat. If they could get prices that inspire every importing nation to launch alternative energy research subsidies of 90% their GDP, they would still charge those prices.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:26 am
“…oil exporting areas — Saudi Arabia, Alaska, Venezuela, Norway, Iran, Russia, etc. — just want everyone to be as dependent on oil as possible and oil prices to be as high as possible.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do oil producers really want prices “as high as possible”? I suppose that caveat “possible” might let you off the hook for such hyperbole. Would oil producers want oil at $1000 a barrel? How would that affect the economies of the nations buying their product? Rather adversly I imagine. Would Exxon prefer we all were paying $25.00 a gallon for gas? The inability to eat or pay our mortgage might dampen future desires to drive or fly anywhere. Maybe you could amend your statement in order that a more clear sense of logic was present.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:27 am
But surely, since she’s running for VP of the US and not just Alaska, Palin is putting her home state’s priorities aside in favor of those of the rest of the country. Right?
September 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Do oil producers really want prices “as high as possible”? I suppose that caveat “possible” might let you off the hook for such hyperbole.
Not only does the caveat “possible” let him off the hook as you say, it is both obviously true and, as far as I can tell, the most reasonable way of expressing that truth. It can only be read as hyperbole by assuming that by “possible” Matthew also means to include the improbable and obviously counterproductive. That is certainly a very literal way of reading that sentence but not a particularly sensible one. But I guess the question is how else would one express what oil exporting countries’ desires with respect to the price of oil. How would you express it more precisely?
September 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Steve Duncan is a boring pedant.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
If someone showed up at the patent office tomorrow with a workable design for a magical car that runs on no fuel at all, the primary obligation of the Alaska delegation would be to make sure that car never came to market.
Alaska gets a delegation to the patent office?
September 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hey, Matt, I keep waiting to ask this in an assignment desk thread, but perhaps, like Ezra, you’re not going to have time for those until after the election.
In any case, it would be interesting to explore the difference between (let’s call it) the Alaska model of energy resource management and, say, the Texas model with a view to how the one color Governor Palin’s understanding of energy policy.
Doubtless there is history here including the fact that Alaska’s reserves were discovered on public land, but it is curious to me that there has been little to no discussion of the public ownership of Alaskan oil.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
First, as a former Philosophy major, Matt should have recognized that Palin is such an expert on energy policy that she deals with energy questions exclusively through the process of Hegelian dialectic. So what looks to ordinary folks like contradictions in the same answer are just the thesis and antithesis,
Anyway, obviously oil producers want to maximize oil profits, which is indeed going to place a constraint on how high they will want to push oil prices since at some point a marginal increase in prices would cause enough of a marginal decrease in demand that it would lead to a marginal decrease in profits.
But I think that basic economic concept is adequately captured in ordinary terms by Matt’s statement “[producers] want everyone to be as dependent on oil as possible and oil prices to be as high as possible.” Of course he doesn’t explicitly note the there is ultimately a point at which these considerations have to be balanced, but he correctly identified the two major factors determining profitability (demand and price), and that was sufficient for the purposes of his post.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
For Pete’s sake, Matt! Show a little deference!
September 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“Sarah Palin’s alleged area of expertise is energy policy, but every time she gets a specific question about energy policy she seems a bit . . . confusing.”
No, she seems confused.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Another brain fart from Palin…she’s not sure what branch of the government the Vice president falls under.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Confusing to you, maybe, but are you the foremost energy expert in these here United States?
September 19th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I can imagine a President Palin declaring war on Antarctica while at the same time marrying all the penguins there.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra