Energy Production = Jobs

The U.S. economic recovery from the Great Recession is tepid at best. The nation’s economic growth for the first quarter was a paltry 2.2 percent, well below expectations. Foreclosures and the inability to get financing are dampening hopes for new housing starts. Gasoline prices are pinching family budgets. This month’s unemployment figures released yesterday, show virtually no change.

With more than 20 million Americans either seeking work, under-employed, or giving up entirely on finding a job, one would think that aiding the economy and putting workers back on a payroll would be Washington’s primary focus. Although the oil and natural gas industry holds great promise for creating well-paying jobs, the federal government seems intent upon preventing its growth and success.

The United States has huge deposits of oil and natural gas to be developed. A study by the analytical firm Wood MacKenzie calculates that just increasing access to currently underdeveloped regions could result in nearly 700,000 new jobs in the United States by 2030. Moreover, data show that the oil and gas industry provides some of the best-paying jobs in the country.

In his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama spoke of the need to increase domestic energy production, specifically mentioning increasing oil and natural gas production.  With a growing population that will need more energy, the oil and gas sector can be an engine of job creation that can help pull the economy out of the doldrums – as the President said.

Consider the scale of the oil and gas industry’s contribution to the national economy.  Just in 2010 the industry invested $266 billion in new projects and enhancements to refineries and other facilities.  It paid out $176 billion to 2.1 million U.S. employees and oil and gas leaseholders. Another $35 billion was returned as dividends to investors, which include many of the nation’s pension and retirement funds, and $31 billion was paid in government taxes, royalties and fees.  In total, that is equal to more than half of the Obama “stimulus” plan spending.

But it appears the Administration’s actions will not match its rhetoric. Despite the President’s call for an “all of the above” energy strategy, ten separate federal departments and agencies are considering regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the technology without which the sharp increases in domestic oil and natural production would not be possible. It is, in truth, more of a “none of the above” strategy.

Although the President recently signed an executive order creating a task force to coordinate these regulatory actions, the drive for more regulations seems unstoppable.  The American Petroleum Institute says that “adding potentially redundant federal regulation could stifle the kind of investment that has led to lower energy prices for consumers, more American jobs, and increased energy security.”

In my home state of Colorado, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prompted criticism over its proposal to scale back the amount of acreage available for oil shale and tar sands development. The boards of three counties have passed resolutions against the BLM’s plan, demanding more public input.  The Mesa County statement claims BLM has been hijacked “by a host of anti-oil shale pro-wilderness groups steering BLM’s every move.” Sound melodramatic?

Consider that the estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of oil in the Piceance Basin shale formation exceeds all of the known oil reserves of the entire world – yet is still largely off limits under current federal policy.

Even without it, Colorado’s promising Niobrara shale formation and other energy activity is helping to fill America’s energy needs and creating jobs. It’s estimated that the oil and gas industry already employs 50,000 Coloradans directly, and indirectly supports 190,000 more jobs. But the state’s energy potential could be cut short by piling on additional federal regulations, while walling off some of our most energy-rich lands.

If we really want to create jobs, shouldn’t we ramp up domestic energy production, rather than slow it down?

Fear and Loathing on the Way to Energy Independence

An ancient writer once said “where fear is present, wisdom cannot be.” That could well be said of the current hysteria about hydraulic fracturing, a proven technology to produce clean-burning natural gas and oil.

Simply explained, a mix of water (99.5%), sand, and chemicals is pumped under high pressure to create minute cracks in rock formations thousands of feet below the surface so oil and gas can be extracted – energy that cannot be obtained without this technology.

Wherever there are vast new oil and gas resources, there are concerted efforts—largely by outside groups—to frighten local communities against the technology.

The “fracking” debate ought to be about our energy future. U.S. shale gas resources are the second largest in the world, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  The U.S. has over 100 years’ supply of natural gas at today’s consumption rate, and we have seen a significant increase in America’s recoverable oil reserves, largely as a result of fracking, without which much of our own energy simply cannot be produced.

Fracking has been used since the 1940s. Recent technical advances, along with the discovery of large deposits of natural gas and oil, like the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachians and the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, have made fracking more common. And that makes it the target of another negative campaign by alarmists who oppose all uses of energy.

Now a cadre of “environmental protection” organizations has been created for the purpose of turning public opinion against providers that use fracking to access previously unreachable oil and gas. As a result, there are new national debates about the practice, and the threat of EPA regulation.

Such drilling practices have always been regulated at the State level, so this would represent a major new expansion of federal power, part of the regulatory tirade of the current EPA leadership. Predictably, that possibility has led to angry congressional hearings, potential legislation, public hearings, and a rash of speeches and letters – mostly generated by these same environmental organizations.

These groups and their heavily-funded PR campaigns are creating fear in the minds of residents.  Gin up enough fear among local residents and, the crusaders hope, politicians will respond by blocking or limiting energy development. The result could be a morass of burdensome regulations that are not justified by reasonable concerns.

Exaggerated claims about fracking focus on the chemicals, and are sometimes outright falsehoods and distortions. For example, residents are told that fracking will cause the contamination of groundwater and poison drinking water. But even the EPA and the Groundwater Protection Council (composed of state regulators) have issued reports admitting that there is not a single documented example of groundwater contamination caused by fracking.

Where contamination of drinking water has been found, the source was not fracking, but corrosion of well pipes. Ironically, preventing such corrosion is the very purpose of the trace chemicals added to the water and sand – the chemicals opponents use to stir up public fear.

In the U.S., more than a million gas and oil wells have used the technique without negative impacts, and we all benefit from the energy they produce.  Gov. John Hickenlooper, who is proposing requirements on drilling operations in the name of transparency, has said that “hydraulic fracturing doesn’t connect to groundwater, [and] it’s almost inconceivable that groundwater will be contaminated.” Senator Mark Udall agrees that done properly, fracking poses no threat.

It is virtually impossible to eliminate all risk from all human activities, and there are risks involved in energy production, too. That’s why there are industry standards and reasonable governmental regulations on such activities.

The promise of energy self-sufficiency and reasonable energy prices can be delivered if the U.S. can produce more of its own resources. And the development of America’s oil and gas means more high-paying American jobs, more income to citizens who lease land for energy production, and more revenue to local and state governments.

Fear can sometimes be useful if it’s based on facts. But when it is driven by false agendas, as in this case, it can blind our vision on important issues like energy independence. In that case, it has no useful place in the debate.

Sacrificing For My Country

Most Americans are willing to sacrifice more than you might guess to help our country through this budget and debt crisis and to protect their grandchildren’s future.  Here are a few government “services” I am willing to give up for my country: 

• I would be willing to forgo the millions of dollars’ worth of nutrition programs the USDA provides so that public schools can offer a better selection of broccoli to my children.  It would be difficult for me, as a parent, to have to give some thought to what meals my children eat and whether they are becoming obese from too many soft drinks, but for the good of the nation, I’d be willing to parent my own children – at least until we get out of this economic mess.  
• I could learn to live without the EPA studies of the climate dangers caused by cow flatulence and maybe even that agency’s regulation of my own breathing.  Realizing that my breath and my love of beef may lead to yet another half-inch rise in the sea level over the next century, perhaps we could worry about this in another decade or two when the economic outlook is rosier.  
• If absolutely necessary, I could manage without the Department of Education funding thousands of school district administrators across the nation.  I know the importance of every district having coordinators for special education, autism, behavioral problems, social engineering, political correctness, and curriculum “updating,” but because of the temporary economic downturn, I would be willing to let teachers and parents decide on their own how to run schools and implement important social objectives for now. 
• I could try to go on without the Department of Energy giving massive grants to universities in every region to write research reports on the benefits of alternative energy and the dangers of fossil fuels.  Because there is no one left who does not already understand the evil of our modern consumptive life, maybe we could get by with our own efforts to modernize our lives, based on what is available, affordable, and desirable to us.  Perhaps we could rely, for now, on companies that provide energy, rather than bureaucrats and professors who study it.  
• I could run my farm, if necessary, without the Labor Department dictating details of the relationship between me and my workers.  Because the workers all know where there are better jobs that pay more, they are pretty good at negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions with me.  If I don’t pay enough, they tend to go away, even without the Labor Department telling me exactly what that wage level is.  Therefore, this is a “service” I could sacrifice for the good of my country.  
• I would be willing to give up the Interior Department’s work in managing endangered species for a while.  Because the department’s most routine activity in this regard is adding new species to the endangered list and then issuing “opinions” that warn people against activity in the regions where the species live, there is little activity that actually results in recovery of anything endangered.  Wildlife seems entirely unaware of all this activity, anyway; therefore, maybe we could all just stop killing endangered species for now and try to make such judgment calls without the aid of the Interior Department’s regulatory structure.  
• Finally, I could – if pushed – figure out how to pay for the things I buy without the benefit of the pennies and dollar bills that government continues to mint and print by the billions each year.  Recognizing that pennies cost more than 1.5 cents to produce and that dollar bills last a few months while dollar coins last for years, I know these are “services” that cost millions each year unnecessarily.  I guess I could take time to look at my change long enough to distinguish between a dollar and a quarter, if it would help the country out of this mess. 

I know there are many more examples, and I speak for millions of my countrymen in offering to live with less of such services.  After all, we Americans are public spirited, not selfish.

I Want You – To Do My Job!

Friday’s Denver post featured an AP story about the catastrophic Arizona wildfires, mentioning the usually-taboo topic of the destruction of endangered species and their habitat. A good friend sent an email pointing out that “It’s ironic that litigation over Mexican spotted owls was the primary reason that forest management was shut down in Arizona,” while the Post article says, “now crown fires in overgrown forests have become the greatest cause of unusual losses for the birds.”

Ironic, you say? Ironic?!

One of the oddities in Endangered Species Act enforcement is the unequal treatment of public and private landowners. Government official are fond of pointing out that the vast majority of habitat for most endangered species is on private land. That’s because they want to force private owners to manage private lands for the benefit of the species, while officials smugly ignore the government’s own role in the loss of vital habitat.

The Mexican spotted owl is the latest poster child, of many.  As the AP article pointed out, 73 nest areas were destroyed by the latest fire – that is more than half of all the known nesting areas in that entire national forest. This is not an isolated or coincidental occurrence, either. In Colorado, the 1996 Buffalo Creek fire and the 2002 Hayman fire destroyed more than half the known Mexican spotted owl habitat in that State. The same fate befell the unfortunate California spotted owl over the past few years – fifteen identified owl sites incinerated in two 2005 fires on the Eldorado National Forest, and twenty more in that State’s 2007 Moonlight Fire.

What is truly fascinating is the government’s continued use of the spotted owl as a favorite tool, not for recovery of the owls, but for stopping human activity – even activity that would improve the habitat!

When the Fish and Wildlife Service designated the official “critical habitat” for the Mexican spotted owl in 2004, it said “Forests used for roosting and nesting often contain mature or old-growth stands with complex structure. These forests are typically uneven-aged, multistoried, and have high canopy closure.” In other words, they need healthy forests with trees of varying ages, not single-age stands, and certainly not dead forests. The agency said the two primary threats to the continued existence of the species were “even-aged timber management,” and catastrophic wildfires. The Forest Service has done nothing about either problem since that document was written, so the problem is worse than ever.

The Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that the deaths of vast tracts of forest, caused by bark beetles, are at least partly responsible for the “alteration of habitat.” And the recovery plan called for action to head off that growing disaster: “Clearly, forest management that decreases forest density, primarily by thinning from below, will help to control populations of some of these organisms.”

So given these fairly obvious circumstances, what has the government done to thin the forests and restore healthy stands of multi-aged trees? Nothing. Instead, managers have steadily eroded the Forest Service’s budget for any and all timber activities, and spent billions on other “missions,” such as trails, campgrounds, research, studies, green job creation, climate change, and grant programs.

It is unclear how many spotted owls may actually have been killed by these giant wildfires – in fact the government has no idea how many there are, how many there ever were, or whether their population is increasing or decreasing. Nor is there any definition of what population would constitute recovery of this threatened species.

What is very clear is that the owls will continue to be used as an excuse to regulate and limit forest thinning, recreation, oil and gas exploration, and grazing. It is equally clear that any private landowner who purposely took action – or refused action – that resulted in the death and destruction of hundreds of spotted owls would be in deep trouble.

When I headed the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, I once thought the State should simply sue the federal government for failing to manage forests in a manner that would protect the habitat of the spotted owl (and numerous other endangered species). Such a lawsuit would certainly draw attention to the government’s own culpability in the species’ decline, and perhaps begin to apply the same standard to public land managers as to private.

Then-Attorney General Ken Salazar was reluctant to file that suit at the time, pointing out the difficulty in holding a government agency accountable for not taking some action. Maybe he was right. I am not a lawyer, but if you ask me – and any number of owls – lack of action is action.

Maybe Uncle Sam should point that finger at himself once in a while.

Change the Words, Not Your Mind

Government no longer “spends your money.”  It “invests in your future.” 

 If, despite that clear distinction, you still don’t feel good about multi-trillion-dollar deficits, it’s because you must understand one of the most important techniques in the art of debate – when you’re losing, change the terms.  Successful politicians must master that art if they want to push unpopular policies.  If “illegal alien” sounds bad, change the words to “undocumented workers.”  If “estate tax” sounds OK to people who have no “estate,” call it the “death tax” and it affects everyone who might eventually die.  A simple change in terms often changes the outcome of debates, legislative votes, and even elections.

Changing the words is a long and proud tradition in the world of conservation, too.  That’s how national forest timber management became “below-cost timber sales” and “logging old growth,” the result of which was an almost complete end to active forest management (and today’s dead and dying forests).  That’s also how vast tracts of public lands became “the last great places,” which must be protected from public use.  It is a technique both sides practice regularly, but that doesn’t make it any more honest or less cynical.

One of the great examples is being played out in today’s debate over global warming.  As average global temperatures leveled off in the past decade, “global warming” became “climate change,” since that includes both warming AND cooling.  As more recent scientific research makes the causes of climate changes less certain, an increasingly skeptical public has begun to shy away from “solutions” that seem harsh, expensive, or difficult.  Thus, Congress could not muster enough votes to pass the proposed cap-and-trade bill several years in a row, and the effort now appears dead.

Not to be deterred, however, advocates have resorted once again to the tried-and-true technique of changing the terms.  It has become unpopular in a time of spiking gas prices to propose the ban on drilling for oil and gas that many environmental activists actually want.  They recognize that an end to the use of fossil fuels to power our economy is simply not achievable in the foreseeable future.  That’s why they have tried for several years to convince the public that our use of natural resources to create prosperity is evil, and that our pursuit of the good life is destroying the planet.  But we all learned about carbon dioxide in school science classes, and we certainly do not intend to stop exhaling.  That is why it is now known as a “greenhouse gas” – because “emitting” any “gas” sounds like something we should stop doing.   It is a debate such advocates are losing in the court of public opinion, for several reasons:

•  There is a limit to how much Americans can pay for gas, heat, and electricity;
• Many people are no longer convinced of a direct link between their use of energy and any catastrophic change in the Earth’s climate;
• Revelations about fraudulent manipulation of scientific data has damaged the credibility of man-made global warming alarmists;
• The economic recession has “cooled” Americans’ willingness to raise taxes, hinder businesses, and slow job creation – for any reason.

Does this mean advocates of a cap-and-trade policy will give up the effort?  Of course not.  It means they will change the terms, and that effort is well underway now.  Witness the new desire on the part of state and federal administrations across the country to adopt policies that promote “clean energy.”  What exactly is “clean energy?”  At the risk of stating the obvious, it means energy that comes from sources other than oil, gas, coal, methane, biomass, biofuels, nuclear, shale, tar sands, hydropower, or any source that requires pipelines, power lines, or other infrastructure (can we use wind and solar power without power lines?).  In a nutshell, it means we should stop using so much energy.  It means the same thing all the previous debates meant, just with different words.

Expect to hear the term “clean energy” repeated across the political landscape non-stop for the next several years.  Experts know that repetition is the key to successfully changing the terms of a debate.  As Berkeley Professor George Lakoff advises liberals, “Repetition of such articulations is the key to redefining these words…” 

The Republican “Word Doctor” Frank Luntz explains the importance of repetition: “There’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”

That is why the debate of the next few years will be about “clean energy.”  It is a legitimate debate, so long as everyone knows exactly what it is really about.  Just remember, the story you are about to see is true; only the names have been changed to protect the political agenda.

A Bored Walk Down Perk Place

Members of the Washington, D.C. City Council and several activist groups continue their tired push for statehood, claiming the city’s residents are entitled to two U.S. Senators, and pretending the founders had no reason to put the Capitol in a district that was not part of any state.

This week the Council debated new welcome signs for roads entering the District from Maryland.  In addition to the traditional “Welcome to Washington, D.C.,” some members propose replacing “The Nation’s Capitol” with cutesy slogans like “Unrepresented in Congress for over 200 years” or “Enjoy your stay and join our fight for statehood.”  Last year D.C. began issuing license plates emblazoned with the motto “Taxation Without Representation” – as if Congress has never paid any attention whatsoever to the needs of Washington, D.C.

The latest publicity scheme calls for renaming a portion of Pennsylvania Avenue -  the Nation’s Main Street - to call attention to the statehood demand.  A website set up by council members to solicit public suggestions produced such uninspired gems as “Statehood for DC Avenue” and “DC Demands Full Democracy Avenue.”

 All of this noise about Congressional representation for D.C. ignores several important facts and principles.

First, Washington, D.C. is a city, not a state.  It has neighborhoods, not counties.  Its politics are monolithic and its people share the same interests – including an interest in subsidizing everything they do with tax money from the rest of the country.

Second, Washington enjoys greater representation in Congress and all federal agencies than any other part of the United States.  The D.C. metro area has about 5.4 million residents, including 4 U.S. Senators and 5 Congressmen who live in its suburbs – and the other 530 Members of Congress and over 3,000 presidential appointees who spend most of the year there.  Any idea that the needs of Washington, D.C. have no voice in government would be laughable, if it were funny.

Third, Washington, D.C. is actually closer to “representation without taxation” than the other way around.  Consider that Congress subsidizes D.C. government to the tune of ¾ of a billion dollars every year – in addition to the taxes paid by residents – and the D.C. delegate in Congress sits on the Appropriations Committee to see that the money gets earmarked to all her favorite projects.  Last year America’s taxpayers spent $768 million on D.C. projects such as a $35 million Tuition Assistance Grant program, new charter schools ($62 million), homeless shelters ($19 million); a local sewer project ($20 million), $100,000 each for the Whitman Walker Clinic and the Youth Power Center, and $50,000 to fund upgrades at a Washington hospital.  These annual subsidies, of course, tell only a fraction of the real story, especially considering the tens of billions spent to build the city itself – and it is not built with cheap materials.  What other city can afford to eschew concrete, building its sidewalks of brick and its curbs of granite?  Where else are daily commuter roads maintained by the National Park Service, or traffic enforcement provided by U.S. Capitol Police?  Washington is a beautiful city with parks, open spaces, fountains, plazas, circles, and magnificent architectural masterpieces – all built by the entire nation’s taxpayers.

Fourth, the founders understood exactly why the seat of government could not be part of any State, as it would provide an automatic advantage to residents of that State.  In the sectional disputes that characterize a giant country – disputes that are as common today as in 1790 when Washington was founded – the balance of power is delicate and it is important.  Diluting the representation of all the other states to give a single city even greater hold – over a country it already dominates – would be a colossal mistake.

Finally, residents of the District have a much simpler choice.  If the issue is really about a vote in Congress as they claim, the easy fix is to give the non-federal part of the city back to Maryland (from which it was originally carved out).  That would almost certainly gain one additional congressional district for Maryland.  The Virginia portion of the original 10 square-mile tract was given back to that state more than 100 years ago, and that solution would still work today.  But if you suspect another agenda is at work, you’re right.  What is really at stake is nothing more than a partisan attempt to stack more Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate, which would be the result of statehood (for D.C. and also for Puerto Rico, another perennial proposal).  Like FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court 75 years ago, it is an attempt to thwart the will of the people and the spirit of the Constitution.

The United States already include several historical quirks.  For instance, Rhode Island is essentially a county, separated from Massachusetts Bay Colony because of religious differences between Roger Williams and the Puritans.  And West Virginia was separated from Virginia in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution during the Civil War because of strong Union sentiments there.  But no such national catastrophe plagues modern-day residents of the nation’s capitol.

In fact, D.C. residents have no desire to give up the many perks of living in Washington, from the right to in-state tuition at colleges in every state to the heavily subsidized subway system.  If they seek a more appropriate name for Pennsylvania Avenue, they ought to consider calling it Perk Place.  Then residents can pass GO, collect $200, and ponder the benefits of living in a world-class city built by the hard work and tax money of the entire rest of the country.

Lies, Damned Lies and Campaign Ads

There is nothing new about nasty campaign ads, but people across America express increasing disgust with negative tactics that often leave voters with no good choices.  Tired of voting for the “lesser of two evils,” voters would rather feel proud to support public officials they like.  Sadly, after year-long campaigns that saturate radio and TV with negative messages about candidates, many voters tell pollsters they simply hold their nose and cast a vote they are not proud of, because the alternative was worse.

I am a product of the political system that uses negative ads “because they work.”  My 2004 campaign for Congress in Colorado’s 3^rd District was the top targeted House race in America that year, with over $8 million spent by candidates, parties, and especially outside interest groups – nearly all of it on negative messages.  My campaign was both victim and perpetrator of the nasty, negative, and misleading ads that form most modern campaigns.  More than one voter threatened me, “If I hear one more of those stupid commercials, I’m voting for no one!”  Every candidate hears similar frustrations.

Voters who make that threat rarely mean it.  Although they know many of these ads are over-the-top, the negative images clearly have an effect, as any pollster will attest.  Candidates not only monitor their popularity ratings, but also their “negatives” – the number of people who will not vote for them because of some negative perception, often created by ads financed by their opponent, or by outside interest groups.  Yet these frustrated voters may be onto something more substantive than they realize – an actual solution to the problem.

Thousands of private organizations print ballots for officers that include “none of the above,” but very few governments do so (among States, only Nevada).  Robert’s Rules of Order require that these votes be counted to determine the total number of votes cast, to ensure the winner received a majority of the eligible votes.  But if “none of the above” wins, there is no generally accepted procedure.  In Nevada, the next closest vote-getter is declared the winner.  But what if such a result actually required a new election?

Think about this: if both political parties knew their candidates might be so damaged by nasty ads that neither could win, they might be more hesitant to sink to such depths.  A sort-of “mutual assured destruction” system might emerge, in which neither side wanted to be first to “go negative” with their campaign messages, knowing the other side would respond in-kind and thus dangerously lower public opinion of both candidates.  Both parties seek to nominate their best, and would be loath to see them destroyed, lest they have no better choice on deck.

“None of the above” could be more than just a wasted symbolic vote.  Since our government derives its power “from the consent of the governed,” it would be an actual refusal by voters to be governed by either candidate.  Numerous other writers – from the Wall Street Journal to Ralph Nader – have advocated a “none of the above” choice, but it has generally been amusingly viewed as a solution without a problem.  But for those who think negative advertising has diminished our democratic process, perhaps there really is a serious reason to consider that option.