USA, USA, USA, USA. No, I didn’t just come from watching the US playing in World Cup. But after reading the glowing, cheerleading, overly enthusiastic, often nationalistic media accounts of the U.S. overtaking the Saudis in oil production, the win-lose aspects of the soccer chant somehow became embedded in my persona (like counting sheep or gas pumps at night when I don’t sleep). We beat the Saudis at their own game- — oil. We’re number one…Wow! Next, will we emulate the Saudis and place onerous and discriminatory restrictions on women driving and, unlike the Saudis, argue that it’s a conservation measure? Of course not! We don’t have to be number one in everything. But oil does make strange bedfellows, and equally strange behavior, as well as policies. Please substitute, couchfellows.
Unfortunately, most of the media stories avoid analysis of what the new oil prominence of the U.S. means to the nation and world. Yes, increased production likely means less dependence on the Middle East, particularly Saudi oil. Indeed, we now import about 33% of oil needs, the lowest percentage in years.
But oil independence remains a myth. Oil interests are pushing for reduction of regulations concerning exports of U.S. crude and have always exported considerable refined oil products allowed by the law. Their motives, despite frequent public comments to the contrary, are generally to sell to the price that is to the buyer who offers the most return. He, she or it frequently is a global purchaser. Independence is a slogan that often blurs motive and reflects good politics but bad substance and contrary to reality.
The U.S., as the most powerful Western nation, irrespective of any mathematical domestic surplus, will continue to extend its role as defender of the global supply chain from the Middle East or elsewhere. While we may be less dependent on foreign oil, U.S. leaders have in the past, and likely will in the future, use a combination of diplomacy and military threats and action to defend and sustain the flow of foreign oil to allies or assumed allies. In this context, the role we play in the world extends our dependency. Unfortunately, wars will be fought and U.S. soldiers will die because of this felt dependency.
Most of the USA, USA, USA chants in the media coverage of our new oil prowess, implicitly, neglects the difficult juxtaposition between increased oil production and supplies and higher gas prices. Less dependence hasn’t brought the reduction, or even stabilization, of gas prices promised by the oil industry. Gasoline in California is now generally well over $4 a gallon for regular, and in the nation it’s more than $3.60. Why? We have a surplus, don’t we? Oil companies want to export more, and soon it appears they will be able to. As Dr. Pangloss asked in Candide, is this the best of all possible worlds (let me add, for the U.S.)?
Clearly the cost of oil at the pump is not strongly linked, at the present time, to the amount of U.S. oil that shows up on EIA calculations and projections. Both price and supply are going up simultaneously. Yes, there is uncertainty, given events in the Middle East and yes, uneven growth around the world has increased demand in some areas and suppressed it in others…. The link between high prices and the Middle East is difficult to precisely measure. Consumer costs per gallon are likely affected more by investors, as well as speculation on Wall Street, than the actual numbers concerning increased production of U.S. oil.
So apart from prayer and penitence, what can we do to get a better deal for consumers, and to prevent gasoline from becoming a negative factor concerning U.S. GDP growth and the environment? How can we help assure that being number one means robust economic growth, more income in the wallets of Americans, particularly low-income Americans, increased security and fewer dirty emissions?
These are not easy questions, and they do not lend themselves to simple ideological responses. Clearly, as renewable fuels and vehicles come on line that meet the incomes and desires of most Americans, both will play a vital role in America’s future. But reliance on coal-fired utilities for power in some areas of the nation, battery costs, mileage limitations from single battery charges, and lack of infrastructure impede their ability to have a significant positive impact at the present. The market for renewable fuels and vehicles is relatively small and will remain so until technological advances catch up with potential demand.
Where is Diogenes when we need him? We have a path in front of us that would buy time toward a better American future, one that could offer competition to gasoline-competition that would be good for the economy, the consumer, and the environment. Increased availability of replacement fuels, particularly natural gas-based ethanol, combined with large-scale conversion of older cars to flex fuel vehicles and increased production of new flex fuel vehicles by Detroit, would give gasoline a run for the money, if gas-only stations become fuel stations and allow consumers choice. Less than one percent of all gas stations in the U.S. that are branded by the big oil companies offer E15 or E 85 (Renewable Fuels Association, July 2014).
I remain an optimist that more freedom will reign soon at the pump. The noted people’s philosopher, Charles M. Schulz, author of Peanuts, lessened my fears about the future when he said, “Stop worrying about the world ending today. It’s already tomorrow in Australia.” USA, USA, USA. Fuel choice, Fuel choice, Fuel choice!