The editors of the Washington Post have been thinking about the fix we’re in:
In the short term, President Biden has little choice but to turn to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela for more heavy crude oil. The United States stopped importing Venezuelan oil in 2019 in response to widespread human rights abuses under President Nicolás Maduro. In wartime, Mr. Biden must make hard choices. If he can get some political concessions from the regime, it could be worth lifting the ban on U.S. purchases from Venezuela and adding the 600,000 additional barrels per day it might be capable of producing to the global supply. Mr. Biden has already sent envoys to Venezuela, and Mr. Maduro has freed two American prisoners.
I wonder if the editors have considered that none of those countries has joined the U. S., Europe, etc. in imposing economic sanctions on Russia. They are either, as is the case with Venezuela, allied with the Russians or trying to hedge their bets, avoiding taking sides. Not pumping more oil is a strategy for doing just that. Besides with the price of oil rising rapidly, they’re actually better off leaving the oil in the ground than selling it. Tomorrow’s oil is worth more than today’s. That’s why neither the Saudis nor the Emiratis are taking President Biden’s calls.
Higher gas prices typically cause Americans to drive and consume less. Mr. Biden should call on U.S. producers to step up. Analysts say there’s a potential for 760,000 more domestic barrels by the end of the year. Congress should also start considering gas vouchers for low-income families and waiving, at least temporarily, the Jones Act to make it easier to ship oil from Texas to Hawaii and the coasts. Every bit helps. If China buys some of the Russian oil, that would also free up supplies from elsewhere.
You will notice their mention of the Jones Act which I mentioned the other day. While I recognize that the reflex of the Biden Administration will be something along the lines of the “gas voucher for low-income families” the editors propose, that’s just about the opposite of what the administration should do. Subsidizing demand will push prices up even farther. What they should do is encourage more “low-income families” to use public transportation. Some of the ways of doing that is better security in the inner city neighborhoods in which they live and more frequent service.
In the medium term, we need more U.S. production of oil and natural gas, changes to U.S. refineries so they can handle more shale oil, and an ongoing push to be more energy-efficient.
I doubt they’ll do much on that until after the midterms. De-motivating their more progressive supporters is probably the last thing they want to do.
Conspicuous by its absence is any reflection on why we’re in the fix we’re in. It’s pretty obvious we’ve been pursuing some counter-productive policies. Recognizing what they were and why they were short-sighted would be a good way to avoid doing it again. Blaming it on Putin is pretty short-sighted, too. Maybe some bad assumptions were being made about the nature of the world we live in and how people behave.
