By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, May 14, 2020
‘Oil is dead.” So goes the wishful thinking of the Left
in Canada. And not just in Canada.
Canada’s oil industry, like others around the world, has
taken a beating: Before the coronavirus epidemic, prices already were low and
declining, with U.S. shale producers fracking the world into oil abundance, sending
prices down from over $100 a barrel in 2014 to less than $30 a barrel just two
years later. The failure of the joint Saudi–Russian effort to cut production
sent prices down even more, and then came the coronavirus epidemic, which cut
demand off at the legs and sent oil prices all the way down to $0.00 and then
briefly into negative territory as oil traders looked to escape paying storage
costs for the unprofitable commodity.
In Alberta, the Canadian energy heartland, oil is the
economic lifeblood. But efforts led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of the
Liberal Party to provide emergency assistance to the oil industry — just as his
government is assisting many other industries — ran into resistance from the
Left. Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, engaged in textbook
question-begging, insists that oil is “condemned” and that the government
should not provide any assistance to firms “that will not be self-sufficient in
any time in the future.” Elizabeth May of the Green Party put it bluntly: “Oil
is dead.” She suggested funding a transition program for Alberta’s
energy-sector workers and then letting the oil business die of
not-quite-natural causes.
Unlike their Canadian colleagues, the leaders of the U.S.
oil industry aren’t really looking for help. They’ve been through a price crash
before — it was the stupendous output enabled by the shale revolution, not the
epidemic, that brought down oil prices to begin with — and they learned to
adjust. The big oil companies have diversified operations, and they do not live
or die by the daily price of crude.
“Any effort by government will come with a very high
price from the Democrats,” says Thomas Pyle of the American Energy Alliance.
“They’ll want to trade that for parts of the Green New Deal, which is a bad
deal for us.” Pyle says that some producers, especially smaller firms, might
benefit from the same sort of assistance offered to businesses in any other
industry, but that protectionist measures such as tariffs and subsidies are
help that’s not wanted. Any help that is offered, he argues, should be general
rather than industry-specific.
But the true believers of the Left have a very
industry-specific view of the oil business — they hate it and wish to see it
destroyed. It is not only Canadian progressives eager to see an entire industry
go under: The Obama administration took roughly the same view of coal, a
perennial bogeyman for the Left.
Conservatives have pointed to the suffering and economic
ruination of the coronavirus quarantine as a preview of the so-called Green New
Deal, which is less a legislative proposal than a slop bucket into which almost
any left-wing priority can be poured. It may be necessary, conservatives say,
for government simply to mandate that important economic activities come to a
halt, but this is what it looks like. The Left, in turn, insists that what is
good for a virus crisis in the here and now is good for a climate crisis at
some point in the future, and that with the right leadership — always
that — the command-and-control policies adopted as emergency measures during
the epidemic can be reconstituted as a worldwide decarbonization project. “Give
us the power of the Trump administration,” they say, “and we’ll do better with
it than Donald Trump did.” Conservatives hear Rahm Emanuel whispering about
never letting a good crisis go to waste.
The progressives are absolutely certain about the
mandate, as they tend to be, but remain a little fuzzy on the details even as
the new emergency-powers rhetoric sweeps the Democratic Party from the top to
the bottom. Arn Menconi, a Democrat running for state office in Colorado,
insists that the epidemic “has proved we can afford the Green New Deal.” The
“proof” includes unemployment expected to peak above 20 percent and an unprecedented
spike in federal debt, which might easily be taken for proof of the opposite.
Joe Biden is singing from the same hymnal as the Democratic Socialists of
America, with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee promising “an
FDR-size presidency,” as New York magazine put it, and endorsing
expensive proposals for “immense green enterprises.” Biden has hardly even
snorted in the direction of accounting for the costs of all that, probably
because his advisers have realized that he does not have to: This is to be a
moral crusade, pure and simple, begun in a fog of terror and anxiety.
The political opportunism here is impossible to miss.
Helen Mountford of the World Resources Institute told Bloomberg that the
current crisis presents “a great opportunity now to transition more quickly.”
The political strategy is to present the coronavirus epidemic and climate
change as a continuity of crisis. And so Mountford describes the possibility of
getting the economy up and running again without imposing a new political
discipline on it as “coming out of one health crisis and trying to boost the
economy by leading us into another health crisis in terms of air pollution and
climate change.” There is a kind of magical transference at work there: The
Left’s climate-change story has been around for a long time, and, despite
efforts to inflate global warming into the dispositive and final crisis of
capitalism, the world has stubbornly declined to treat it as an existential
threat and adopt the hysteria and obedience that the Left demands. This is true
not only of the purported cowboy capitalists of the United States or right-wing
populists. It is Justin Trudeau who is working to save Canada’s oil industry,
not some snowbound northern reincarnation of Clayton Williams. “If we are to
move forward in transforming our economy towards lower emissions and clean
processes, workers and innovators in Alberta and across the country in the
energy sector are going to be an essential part of that transition,” Trudeau
tells Global News.
Beating back Green New Deal shenanigans and affirming the
role of the oil-and-gas industry ought to be a political dunk for the Trump-era
Republican Party. Setting aside the complicating fact that U.S. energy
independence is really North American energy independence — Canada and
Mexico are our top two national suppliers of petroleum, which the United States
continues to import because many of our refineries still are optimized for
relatively high-sulfur imported oil rather than the “light sweet” stuff from Texas
— this is an opportunity so simple and clear that even Republican candidates
for public office should not be able to get it entirely wrong. It pits a
successful real-world industry creating and sustaining hundreds of thousands of
jobs — many of them in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania — with
real-world names and faces attached to them against a pet project of the Davos
set, one that has achieved quasi-religious status among affluent elites but
hardly registers at all in the polls: In the January Gallup survey of top
issues informing voters’ choices in the 2020 election, climate change was
second from last, ahead only of gay rights and far behind such concerns as the
budget deficit, taxes, and immigration. The question of energy vs. the Green New
Deal is a question of real things you can see vs. possible things someone might
imagine, your warm house vs. the warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness,
people you know vs. people you don’t.
“We think these decisions should be made on the basis of financial
accounting, not ideological,” says Frank Macchiarola of the American Petroleum
Institute. The oil industry has generally supported policies such as the CARES
Act and efforts to inject liquidity into the financial markets, but has
resisted industry-specific measures as being likely to distort markets and
impede long-term recovery. “We’re not advocating additional policy measures, or
any economic or financial relief, directly targeted toward the oil and gas
industry,” Macchiarola says. “We believe this is a challenge across the
economy.”
The current situation is painful, but the U.S. oil
industry believes that in the long term the numbers are on its side: With a
growing world population and a growing global middle class, energy consumption
is expected to increase by as much as 20 percent in the next 20 years — and
half of that energy will come from oil and gas. That matters for the cost of
filling up your F-150, but it also matters for the diplomatic, security, and
trade position of the United States. The day before yesterday, the big worry
was our “dependence on” or “addiction to” despised “foreign oil.” Technological
innovations have made the United States the biggest oil and gas producer
around, and our short-term problem right now is that we have more oil than
anybody wants and nowhere to put it. The problem of depletion has become the
problem of superabundance. That’s a better problem to have.
Canada is likely to end up doing something for its oil
producers. But the situation in Alberta is an excellent illustration of why you
do not want major industries to be dependent upon the whims of politics. Even
after the long-term decline in prices from the shale boom, the shock of the
Saudi–Russian price war, and the cratering demand from the coronavirus
shutdown, the major oil producers in the United States are, for the most part,
asking to be left alone, or for oil businesses to be treated like any other
businesses. There is value in that kind of resilience, which should be even
more obvious in uncertain times such as these.
No comments:
Post a Comment