Irwin Stelzer
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
ASK the wrong question, and you get the wrong answer. The question being asked by Hillary Clinton and John McCain - and that covers just about the entire political spectrum - is, “How can we lower petrol prices?”
Their answer: reduce the federal tax of about 18 cents per gallon. The reasons that is exactly the wrong policy are too many to list here. One is that oil producers, or oil companies, or service-station operators would raise prices by an equivalent amount. But give the pandering pols the benefit of the doubt, and assume that prices would go down. The right question is: “Is it a good idea to lower petrol prices?” The right answer is “no”.
Lower petrol prices would encourage Americans to drive more, use more petrol, emit more pollutants, and increase the demand for crude oil. So regimes hostile to America would sell more oil. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, whose government owns some 8,000 petrol stations in America, must be astonished to learn that leading American politicians are eager to increase his revenues. And the Saudi financiers of jihadists and Wahhabi mullahs who fuel antiAmericanism would be pleased to have a few extra hundred million. So would Vladimir Putin.
Better that, figure our politicians, than to take the political risk of increasing taxes on petrol, reducing demand and getting to the consumers’ wallets before Opec (the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and the unfriendlies do.
The wrong question - how do we lower prices - also creates pressure to stop the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Stop buying oil, critics tell George Bush, and demand pressures will ease. Better still, sell off some of the reserve, and increase crude supplies. Either might drive down prices and, unfortunately, increase imports - or have only the effect of reducing our ability to confront a supply cut-off.
The next wrong question is “How can we replace crude oil with renewable sources of energy?” Answer: subsidise construction of wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear plants, and production of corn. But neither wind turbines nor solar energy, on the cheeriest of assumptions, can make a significant dent in the demand for crude oil and its products. And they are expensive. As for nuclear, few of these costly plants will be built unless subsidies are offered to private-sector players, licensing proceedings are shortened, and an acceptable means of disposing of nuclear waste developed. None of these is likely.
Which leaves corn. Saddam Hussein famously operated a UN approved oil-for-food programme - Iraqi crude was allowed onto the market despite UN sanctions, with the proceeds supposed to be used to pay for food for starving Iraqis (and Black Label booze for Saddam & Sons). Now politicians around the world have decided to answer the question of how to develop substitutes for oil-based products with a food-for-oil programme. Farmers are being paid huge subsidies to grow corn to be converted into ethanol, a petrol substitute.
The answer produced by the wrong question has serious consequences. For one thing, the negative environmental impact of biofuels seems to outweigh any advantages. Among other things, subsidising biofuels increases the use of fertiliser, causing a run-off that pollutes streams and rivers; pays farmers to cut down forests to increase the planting of oil-substitutes; and induces farmers to convert acreage previously devoted to growing food to growing fuel. By constricting food supplies, ethanol madness has contributed to the rise in food prices that is afflicting mostly poor people around the world. In essence, rich countries are trying to find a way to fill their petrol tanks at the expense of empty stomachs in Africa, Mexico, and parts of Asia.
So what are the right questions? First, have any of the programmes proved counterproductive? Answer: yes, several have costs that exceed their benefits. The best example is the attempt to grow our way out of the energy problem. Admit we have erred, and wind down the subsidies.
Second, are there cost-effective ways of increasing the supply of crude oil? Probably. Studies that showed that the environmental cost of drilling in Alaska and offshore Florida and California exceeded any benefit from new discoveries are now out of date. The benefits were estimated when oil prices were less than half current levels. So the benefits of stepped up exploration have multiplied with the increased price of oil, while much has been learnt about reducing the environmental impact of such drilling.
Final sensible question: “Can anything be done to increase supplies of oil from the world’s important suppliers?” Answer: yes, if there is the will to act. The Saudi regime depends on the American military umbrella for its long-term survival, the Mexican government depends on remittances sent to poor Mexican families from the millions of its citizens working in America, and the Opec cartel exists only because the State Department prevents the antitrust authorities from breaking it up. A serious American administration would be capable of explaining to the Saudis, Mexicans and Opec that continuation of these indulgent policies is dependent on their willingness to allow western firms to develop new reserves and wring more oil from existing fields in their countries, and to remove cartel restrictions on current production.
Unfortunately, the right questions are precisely the questions that politicians abhor. Asking them produces politically difficult answers. Wrong questions and silly answers might be one reason Goldman Sachs is talking about $200 oil. Remember: these are the guys who were laughed at when they predicted the oil price would hit $100.
Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute.
How the new breed of location based mobile services can find your nearest cashpoint, restaurant or wi-fi hotspot
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Are you California dreaming? Explore the wonders of the Golden State. Also enter our fantastic competition
See the best entries in this year's competition
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget


Overseas contacts and local business information
2006
£189,500
NW England
2008/08
£169,950
NW England
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
Circa £82,000 per annum
Birmingham Women's Hospital
Birmingham
To £28k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool/Teeside
£
Up to £66,000 per annum
Hertfordshire County Council
South East
To £38k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool
2 Bathrooms, Balcony and Garden
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Dining, Shopping & Riverside Pk
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
i think it would be best if for once americans paid the real price for oil,ie,$9 a gallon. i think that price would do a lot to reduce the size of their cars, reduce their petrol consumption. i dont see why we pay 3 times the price for the same petrol; did we not end up fighting a war for it.
adrian bourne, worcester, england uk
Good questions. Another solution. As petrol has increased from $1.50 to $3+, US consumption has fallen 2%. Price signal works. So incrementally add $1.20 to a gallon of petrol, then refund it to consumers - approx $600 a year. Better than giving the price increase to oil companies.
Hugo van Randwyck, London, UK
How do you give a true evaluation of Govt programmes when, by doing so, you reduce the prospects of your firm being appointed in the future?
It is a sad indictment of this country (and maybe yours too), that giving good advice is like turkeys voting for Christmas.
So it goes on: doesn't it?
Rhys Jaggar, Leeds, UK
If Mr Stelzer genuinely thinks that the reason OPEC still exists is simply because his all-mighty State Department is too indolent to break it up, I suggest he re-take Geopolitics 101; there is no national or international body which could destroy that organisation, short of military methods.
gavin corcoran, London,
How is it that neither China nor India appear to have any oil in all that land mass?
Robert D Marshall, London, UK
Japanese automakers are preparing a generation of fuel -cell
automobiles. The need is obvious: Japan has to import
petrol to power its vehicles. Indeed, the need to supply its military with petrol caused Japan to target the Dutch East Indies during World War II. China faces the same problem now.
Joe Roberts, Jackson, USA
Petrol isn't going away any time soon. Best near term option is to supplement it with hybrid technologies. Gasoline/electric plug in hybrids look promising. I, personally, drive a diesel/recycled cooking oil hybrid retrofitted onto a 1984 MB turbo diesel. Suits me, but not for everyone
William Floyd, Chester, SC, USA
Long term, there is not and will not be enough oil to continue using it as we do now.
Long term, nuclear (U and Th) and solar are possibly the only energy sources that can supply enough energy.
Higher oil prices will make nuclear and solar viable.
Short term, we're in trouble.
Mike, Sydney, Australia
As a start,we need a global policy of rationing for oil for vehicles, especially for private citizens.Supplies would last longer and give us valuable time to get a policy together.Less demand, less supply, cheaper prices, less land being used for bio-fuels. However,any policy will fail, oil is over.
Kieran O'Donnell, Cambridge,
We don't lower prices. They collapse. Its just a matter of muddling through till then. Dont any of you economics types have any faith in Mammon?
(Underpaid physicist for basic GCSE economics).
e skelton, cardiff, wales
Goldman Sachs were also talking about a 20-year bull market not so long ago. Attention seekers in my opinion.
Jonathan Sparke, Cotignac, France
0 will happen until oil becomes to expensive, then the economics will be in place. until the economics are in place companies will focus on new technology and finally the politicians will become involved.
its called STEP progress which history has told us this is how it always happens.
michael mckeary, paisley, scotland
You're assuming that OPEC is falling over itself with excess capacity.
Capacity takes years to build up.
In strategic terms what is the benefit to them of exploiting these resources now?
So they can have more Dollars?!
It's at the point where the more dollars they collect the less they're worth.
Chris, London, UK
Tthe hydrogen economy would be a boon for poverty-stricken countries in sub-saharan Africa who have lots of sunshine but little else. Large solar-power arrays could provide the electricity to produce hydrogen, oxygen and other products from seawater (pumped in from he coastal states).
David Thomas, Oceanside, California USA
best solution to the 'problem' is even higher oil price. Did you notice any significant drop in traffic (air, car) recently? if not there you have the answer. There is no 'need' to live tens of miles from your workplace, have second homes hundreds of miles from your home, fly constantly to business meetings or holidays halfway around the world.
Heinz Geyer, London, UK
Do you think Western oil companies would be able to replicate the success of Texas and the North Sea in OPEC countries?
Since the North Sea is down 2/3 from is 1999 peak, and Texas is producing about half what it was at maximum.
Mexico peaked in 2004 and production is declining substantially.
Steve, UK,
Hydrogen will never compete with battery electric vehicles on efficiency, running cost and simplicity. Hydrogen is flavour of the month as its easiest to make it from fossil fuels.
Battery electric vehicles means no big oil, no OPEC, no noise. Charge it from the sun on your roof
Steve, UK,
Nicely written article but flawed to he core. Why? Ethanol is the solution. Not with corn but with sugar cane!Don''t deprive the chickens of their feed to get fuel! Plant sugar cane and do as Brazil is doing!! Produce it here for ethanol in FL, CA or Hawaii. We can do it! Stop whining!
J. Carvalho, Waverly, TN , USA
Even harder is to suggest that perhaps the US could manage with the average of developed country oil consumption per head, after excluding the US? There is no reason why the US should use so much of the world's oil and they know it.
Colin, shrewsbury,
These things have a way of working themselves out. I predict that $200 oil will come, but it's wake will be a disaster for the oil producing countries as the market will provide an answer in some alternative technology. I can hardly wait until the greedy opec countries go back to the sand.
BundyGil, Bundaberg, Australia
Brilliant article, I thought. It would be good to hear such a balanced set of opinions from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic once in a while.
J.P, Bangkok,
Bring it on: the sooner we get off oil economy the better. Whatever happened to the hydrogen economy?
Tom MacFarlane, Thornton, UK
Fantastic article. Our main hope is the development of new technology. Hydrogen cars represent the best chance of replacing oil and to stop the subsequent financing of our enemies. The energy to produce hydrogen is most likely to come from nuclear power, not mentioned in this article.
David Lea-Smith, Edinburgh, U.K.
The idea that consumers are better off if they politicians steal their money, as opposed to buying something they actually want like gasoline, is ludicrous. Better yet America can up its own oil production but the Greens won't like that. Tough.
J. Peron, Phoenix, US
THere is only one way to solve these kinds of problems. It wouldbe having a world stratergy on energy production and also on energy usuage. Nuclear seems like the only viable option which if engineered could use little material for maximum gain. THen all trasnport has to become electric.
amit hindocha, leicetser, uk
It is not hard to forecast such a hit for energy prices (commodities are following the same trend as well). Demand is hugely increasing as a consequence of the spreading of economic growth, whilst energy supply is rather rigid as oil reserves are on the right side of the Gauss curve. Wait and see
giandomenico piluso, Milan, Italy
When, many years ago, I mentioned the Severn Barrage proposal to an American businessman he said that the project would happen in the United States. It's a crucial difference.
fred keeling, almunecar, spain
history and ambition make a mockery of reason
glenn schaefer, holbrook, USA