HOW HE SEES IT High gas prices fuel bad policy ideas

By JAMES P. PINKERTON
LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY
Are you paying too much for gasoline?
Sure you are, says Uncle Sam -- and so the government wants to help you. Of course, energy policy is like everything else: Americans will have to plow through the bad ideas to get to the good ideas.
So let's start with bad. The first instinct of most politicians, of course, is to demagogue the issue, whatever it is. And so Democratic legislators in California demand an investigation of alleged supply manipulations by the oil companies. Nevermind, of course, that the biggest fix of all has been California's effort to block all new drilling and refinery facilities for the past four decades -- even as the Golden State has led the way toward the glamorization of the gas-guzzling lifestyle, including, most spectacularly, the tank-like Hummer.
And last Tuesday, 10 Democratic governors -- including Iowa's Tom Vilsack, who is auditioning to be John Kerry's running mate -- also called for an investigation into the oil business. But what's to investigate? Somewhere in the fuel chain, somebody might be doing a little gassy-panky, but there's no domestic Oil Trust to be busted. It's the world market, not American corporate conspirators, which has driven the price of oil to record highs.
Second on the bad-idea roster is tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Also on Tuesday, Senate Democrats, including New York's Chuck Schumer, offered a resolution calling upon the Energy Department to release 1 million barrels a day for up to 60 days from the SPR.
Now let's get a grip on reality here: The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day, or 1.2 billion barrels every two months. Does anyone really think eye-dropping 5 percent more oil into the system will have any notable effect on gas prices?
Emergencies
Besides, the whole point of the SPR is for emergencies, not motoring convenience. In fact, the SPR contains just 660 million barrels -- which is to say that in its entirety, in the wake of a crisis, it would supply oil for only a month. If the SPR is to serve its purpose, it should be conserved for an emergency, not depleted.
The third bad idea was put forth by Democratic presidential nominee Kerry. He suggests "jawboning" Saudi Arabia and the other oil-exporting countries. This talk-plan might work for a time, but given the situation in Iraq, and the war on terrorism, do we really want to be making side deals with Arab oilocracies? Suppose the Saudis say "yes" and increase production, thereby decreasing prices. What will they ask for in return? Will they demand a relaxation of American pressure in regard to their foreign aid to Islamic outfits, many of them sponsors of terrorism?
New York Gov. George Pataki describes the $30 billion annually sent to the Middle East for oil as a "terror tax" -- that is, our money supporting their terrorists. Haven't we been down this bloody road before, making secret compacts with the people who produced Osama bin Laden and financed Al-Qaida?
Moreover, is it smart to grow more dependent on foreign oil? Today, the United States imports some 55 percent of its petroleum; if current trends continue, that percentage will rise to two-thirds by 2025.
Good idea
So finally, by process of elimination, we come to a good idea, tucked away like Hope in Pandora's Box. Last week, as part of a larger tax bill package, the Senate approved some $14 billion in tax incentives for domestic energy production, including, crucially, production tax credits for alternative-energy production -- wind, solar, biodiesel. Critics denounced the overall bill as pork, and of course it has its share of piggery. But the bill -- which is still far from enactment into law -- is at least a beginning toward a better energy future for the United States.
Indeed, the incentives for new kinds of home-grown energy might provoke a serious debate about the future of American society. Do we want to increase U.S. energy independence? Or are we settling instead for demagoguery, even as we continue paying the overseas terror tax?
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service