OPINION: American Energy Policy – Déjà Vu All over Again

By Bruce L. Brager

The decline in oil prices is an interesting sensation. However, we are seeing the same mistakes in the current energy policy debate as in the debates three decades ago – the same mistakes, and the same shorted-sighted, politically motivated, arguments being thrown about. Damn the complex reality, full speed ahead.  Déjà vu all over again.

The best known examples of the energy debate today are the Keystone Pipeline and fracking. I love hearing all the conservatives, normally appalled at government “make work” programs, stressing the job creating aspects of the pipeline. They conveniently forget any potential environmental problems.  Opponents stress only the environmental issues, and the fact that some of the Canadian oil may be sent overseas – though this has always been uncertain – limiting the payoff for the risk. They conveniently forget the continuing national security need for energy sources as close to home as possible. They also forget the complexity of the oil trade; that Keystone oil may stay home as well as be sent abroad.

Fracking engenders continuing debate, but the opponents focus on its environmental problems.  Both sides calls for “yes or no,” spending far too little time on seeing what the problems are and how they might be fixed.  How can fracking be made safer?  Can any environmental danger from the Keystone pipeline be decreased?  This was done with the then – the controversial Alaska pipeline.  We stopped shouting and looked for a way to solve a problem.

Debating whether something should be done is the American way.  Looking for how something can best be done is also the American way.  Neglecting the how, in the search for simple answers, is part of the déjà vu I am feeling.

Thirty years ago, during the Arab oil boycotts, “experts” said it would take several decades for alternative fuels to meet a substantial part of American energy needs.  So I guess we don’t have to worry about fracking starting earth quakes and the Canadians can ship their own dirty oil through their own country?  Use of alternative is growing, however, though far slower than it should be growing.  Nuclear energy is staging a mild comeback – both mild and comeback are good in this case.

One problem in American energy policy has been in assuming that the private sector is always best at determining energy needs, rather than just usually best at meeting these needs.  This is the most familiar part of déjà vu all over again.  Oil prices have been cut in half recently. And we are already relaxing our energy development efforts.  We should be using some of the energy cost savings to speed up research into alternatives, into making fracking safer, into seeing if we can answer the arguments against the Keystone Pipeline.

Energy companies with an eye to the future, and to future long term profits, should be in the forefront of these efforts – not doing their best to sabotage the growing use of solar panels. And if they do not want to, perhaps because they don’t want it to affect their stock price tomorrow – legitimate, if short-sighted business decisions – let the government do it.  More efforts should be made to use the probably brief breathing spell to prepare for the inevitable, and probably short term, future. Basically, oil prices are going back up. The question is when.

Back in the day, American energy policy reminded me of a classic horror film.  It still does. The monster had ravaged the village but it was chased off.  Things were peaceful again.  But the monster had not been destroyed.  The monster was coming again.  The villagers had to listen to the voices saying to get ready.  We need President Obama, who tends to act well when he acts, to use his rhetorical skills to make the case that the energy monster still lives.  We need Congressional Republicans to lay off their social agenda, to lay off trying to make the President look bad, and at least consider long term energy development actions.

The energy monster is not dead.  It is just sleeping, and it is coming back.

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.

OPINION: Working Man’s Jeans

By Bruce L. Brager

I bought a new pair of work jeans a few months ago, the day before Cyber Monday, the day after Small Business Saturday, two days after Black Friday. In fact I have been wearing them for the past two hours, as I write this. I work at home and wear them, so it is appropriate to call them work clothes.

Judging by the inspection stickers, these pants seem to have been inspected 6 times:

• Proudly inspected by 11 (I would hate to have someone not proudly inspect something I use to cover my behind), and 13.
• Proudly inspected by 20 – twice.
• Inspecciondo por 23 and 74.

I hope all five (remember, 20 looked twice) did their jobs.

The only address listed on the pants label gives the address of the company, still in Michigan where the company was started in 1889. No “made in …” label, which it really should have. Three of my other products from this company fess up to their Latin American origin. Ideally, I prefer made in the USA, but this is not always possible with today’s production realities. Americans also have a certain interest, though we may not always realize it, in having good, or at least decent, jobs in Mexico and Latin America. Globalization is a reality of modern life; and people usually don’t emigrate if they have good jobs at home.

This company has not made the news, so I have to assume their Latin American employees are treated reasonably well.

Anyway, as I write this the jeans are sitting above a pair of Australian made shoes. All of them were purchased from small businesses, though not on Small Business Saturday.

I have bought four pairs of pants from this company, which I still have, so they seem to make a good product. My three shirts are holding out well also. Two past shirts lived satisfactory life times.  Basic realities of salesmanship are you sell what the product does for the customer, what needs it meets, product quality and price. People, even me, pay less attention to the deeper meaning of the purchase. My need was for clothing. I wanted good quality for a reasonable price.

The company originally made clothing for railroad workers, but apparently became popular in this country because “the boys in the hood” saw them being worn by crack dealers. These “small businessmen” have to keep warm at work, on the streets, and carry a lot of “work materials.” The company seems to be gaining popularity with “hipsters” – I think this means the same thing as it did circa 1960, fashionable, trendy, independent, counter-culture but not absurdly so, etc. “Hippy” has a somewhat different, and a less pompous, meaning. The clothing is still aimed at people who work with their hands – their carpenter pants tend to be worn by real carpenters -- rather than with computers, but I guess this is expanding to include artisans and related “new” professions. Today, though, even those who make artisanal food still use computers for something. Even independent carpenters will likely do book keeping and scheduling electronically. I suppose people who wear these pants identify with the various cultures who first wore them – though I hope not too many identify with crack dealers. It’s an image. It’s the same way country singers, particularly men, favor jeans when even those with less money than Garth Brooks can dress quite well. I don’t recall seeing a picture of Hank Williams in blue jeans. His generation of country singers dressed up.

Does “casual Friday” in Nashville mean three pieces suits?

Actually, people make too big a deal about how other people dress. One should be able to dress comfortably at work, so you can concentrate on the work. My old job, at a large DC international agency had it right. Wear what you want, unless you are meeting with clients. The desirability of showing respect for a client trumps comfort. As a freelance writer, in some ways I work for an idiot. But at least he is liberal on the dress code and lets me wear what I want.

My experience is that this company makes good clothing. The pants are quite comfortable. If my fashions show the desire to identify with previous wearers, I have to admit I prefer railroad workers and carpenters to drug dealers. I wish they were made in the United States, but will live with Latin America. At least I was able to buy them from a small local business.

The personal needs they meet are well made, comfortable, and not costing too much. No message, no political points. Can one ask for better results?

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.