U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe: Undermining U.S. Security
I really can’t understand why more people, regardless of their political leanings, aren’t calling for the resignation of U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Haven’t his antics gone far past the point of our normal political theater? Inhofe is in office because of huge campaign contributions from the oil companies, and he’s trying to shut down the US military’s interest in alternative fuels. He wants Congress to enact legislation that would make it impossible for the US military to purchase alternative fuels if they cost a penny more than gasoline and diesel.
While I’m not a huge fan of war as a tool to resolve international differences, let me point out that our military:
• Wants to keep as many of their people out of harm’s way as possible, and that means decommitting to oil as its sole fuel. Guarding oil supply lines is, statistically, the single most lethal duty that our combat forces face.
• Looks to the future. While it’s true that gasoline and diesel are the least expensive fuels today, that calculus is extremely unlikely to hold into the future. While we car-drivers may look at the price of fuel over the course of the few years we may own our cars, our nation’s military contemplates the prospects of protecting America over a period of many decades.
Jim: To wrap this up in a few words, you’re in one of the clearest and ugliest conflict of interest positions I’ve come across in my 30+ years in business. You’re being paid by the oil companies to forward their interests in a way that is actively undermining our nation’s security. That’s not consistent with your oath of office. Some people have referred to it as treason; I’ll skip the histrionics, but close with the obvious: you need to go.
The oil industry’s concern is the day when alternative energy sources can compete out fossil fuels on price, quality and availability.
As long as the options have been expensive and raised the price of oil products, all was well.
If the Oil Companies were smart (which they are not) they would be leading alternative energy development – which would make them “Energy Companies” that had a future other than oil and gas.
Inhofe is an embarrassment and a fool. Oklahoma uses computer and storm modeling to warn its residents of tornado’s, yet he criticizes the same models for planetary predictions.
Strong word at the end there. In the more general sense, we see a trend in congress of wanting line item control over any government agency’s specific purview. EPA has been in the cross-hairs for quite some time. H&HS suffers its share of such review. Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is getting assaulted. The military is an interesting target due to the command and control going up through to the executive branch. This is not a specific program for which congressional approval of a budget extension is required. I’m unclear on how far he’d legally get.
I think it is a very dangerous trend to let the slap shot waves of politics override any particular rule making that is, by its nature, intended to take the long view so as not to throw everything away every election cycle.
You’re right about the strong word; I’ve softened it.
Inohofe is a dinosaur.
He’s becoming more irrelevant by the day, as more and more flat-Earthers are dying off and more informed young people are replacing them.
At this point, the oil industry must recognize that bolstering a zealous madman like Inohofe simply makes them look ridiculous. It used to be that they were concerned about people shifting to more efficient transportation, and politicians passing CAFE standards and regulations… But they’ve lost the battle on regulations and CAFE standards, and with the growth of India and China they no longer need to be concerned with efficient vehicles… So their benefit from owning a stooge senator is lessened, while the damage that Inohofe’s idiocy is doing to their reputation is not lessened.
Eventually the oil company will back a primary challenger against Inohofe and he will go away. Until then, he’s probably doing more for green energy than any of us, just by being a complete clown.
Perhaps the Senator’s efforts would be better directed at forcing the EPA and DoEnergy to open up more areas to exploration, forcing the NLRB to de-certify certain unions whose wages help to keep the price of gasoline high, and enacting federal regulations that make it easier for oil companies to build and operate gasoline refineries here in the US. While he’s at it, maybe a law that keeps US-produced crude and gasoline products IN THE US would be in order. We’d be looking at $1.00/gallon gas again.
Why would we want $1/gal gas again?? We’d be far better off letting it slowly climb to $5 or 6/gal thru taxes that could be used for infrastructure repairs and more investments in clean energy.
When I look around at all the people who mindlessly use fossil fuel for work and pleasure, it seems the only way to change their ways is to make it too expensive.
Concentrating on controlling others through taxation will only build resistance to what you want. It is also taking the easy way out. Effort needs to be put into solutions that are economical. Just crippling the economy by heavily taxing behavior you don’t like will not lead to an expedient solution that you will like. Spend more time and effort on finding solutions and less on controlling the actions of others and you will be more successful in the long run.
To answer your question: we would want $1/gal gas because it would stimulate the economy and help solve the job shortage. The cost of all physical goods (ones that require shipment to get to a customer) would go down.
Taxing behaviors you don’t like with the intent to use the proceeds to come up with a solution to what you consider to be the root problem is a poorly conceived course of action. First of all I’ll address the most obvious problem: there is no guarantee that the money raised from taxing will be allocated to solving the problem. In fact, if you increase the taxes, you create a perverse incentive because you add a revenue stream to the government that exists because of the problem. The government will loose the income from taxes if the problem is solved. This sets up a situation where money get redirected to things that are not related to the problem and also the allocation of money to things that aren’t going to work (Solyndra for example).
The second and more damaging result of this unwise taxation is that your plan is to essentially cripple the economy until someone else comes up with a solution to the problem. That is just plain irresponsible. You are making the problems the country faces worse while you feel justified because you have created an incentive for someone else to come along and solve the problem. You are making yourself part of the problem, not the solution. That is not helpful and we don’t need it.
Find a way to be part of the solution. It starts with talking about what we (including you) should do and spending less time talking about what others should or shouldn’t do. Framing oil companies as the enemy is an unfortunate choice. A better choice would be to find a way to engage them in a creative solution – remember, they have money that could make things happen. They are incentivised by the ability to make profits and they already are accustomed to long-term thinking and business cases that take years to pay off. If you find a creative way of engaging them (and their money) you will be multiplying your impact through the conviction, effort and money of others. That would be true leadership that could transform the whole dynamic here and lead to a solution everyone would like.
If you find the idea of engaging the oil companies repulsive then you are guilty of simplifying the root cause of the problem to the belief that the oil companies are inherently evil. It is convenient and strangely satisfying to have someone to blame but it isn’t helpful in solving the problem. While I’m sure you can come up with examples of bad things done by oil companies, that simply isn’t the point. This is a difficult problem to solve. The more people you can engage in finding the solution, the faster a solution will be found.
It is my understanding that the military wants to use solar because it is quiet, which saves lives, and because it does not require convoys through IED territory, which saves lives.
Questioning their judgment on this is poor policy.
I do not know when the consequences will show up for this politician, but they will show up.
Treason no, shameless conduct, absolutely. Unfortunately we have created this “Parliament of Whores” (to use a PJ O’Rourke title!). We are to blame. We must remove big money and conflicts of interest. I live in the State south of OK and the same garbage occurs every day. The EPA is nothing more than a convenient whipping boy for most of these “messengers” who we put in office. If they did their job, the EPA could be halved in size. As a side note, I am a strong believer
in the concept that most existing businesses (BAU) serve as a barrier to new business models and often greater efficiency. (Hence the term disruptive tech)
This is especially manifest as we attempt to decarbonize our economy.
I would like to know how he would react if somebody passed a bill on his security detail. Maybe that he couldn´t buy unleaded fuel for his car, because the gas station near his house was managed by a foreign company. If he had to drive to Maryland for his gasoline because of security reasons?
I am sure he hasn´t been patrolling a gasoline supply truck in Irak, or losing a son doing it. Maybe he would have another point of view.
I agree with all the wording.
Chevron and some others are doing solar….
Maybe Inhof buys gasoline from Lukoil… and likes getting campaign money from the Russians. I doubt the Russians will sell us and our military oil and gas at a low price in the future as world supplies run out.
Then Russia will have fossil fuels to make medicines, fertilizer, plastics… and we can import those products from Russia. But we’ll be out of money…..
I agree with all the wording.
This is an interesting resource on this Senator:
http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe
Yes, that’s good. Thanks. That book on climate change: http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up sounds good as well.
It’s really hard to believe that we’re living in a world that is so actively running towards its own destruction. I had such a happy childhood! 🙂
Craig, I still watch very old cartoons to remember such days. Your interview with Gates was great, how about Buffett? Is he as genuine ?or positive? The light in Bill Gates seems to encourage me.
Greg Chick
Though it appears that the goal of some of our leaders is to squelch renewable energy I think most people are missing the bigger point which is: This nation and the world is in trouble financially. That said, personally, I think the political extremes on both sides of climate change have done more harm than good; remove Gore and Inhofe and we might find a middle ground that works together and really accomplishes something that works.
6$ gasoline? – how long do you want this nation to remain in this financial cesspool? Get real. I see the push for natural gas by Buffet as nothing more than more dollars in his pocket; natural gas is only 50% cleaner than coal. Why would we settle for 50% when there are better alternatives? However there needs to be a common sense process to get us to where we need to be and that is using what we have as stepping stones in a common sense manner to reach our goal.
The way I see it is to use what we have here at home while developing better alternatives, cut out the foreign dependence,and work in a manner that doesn’t add to the financial woes of the country by adding burden to the taxpayers.
You can’t have good without evil; there are opposites in everything; I see Inhofe as Gores’ opposite; you make up your mind as to which is good or bad.
The science and geology say Gores correct.
Inhofe probably has the same outlook on the laws of physics that he has for Federal Air Regulations. Last year he landed on a closed runway (easily identified from the air by the big white “X” put on each end) and came so close to workmen that the propellers on his light twin airplane blew debris that caused minor injuries.
He was never prosecuted, when such actions for non-privileged fliers usually lead to severe penalties. His disregard for anything that is not profitable or convenient for him shows his character, which is not that of a caring steward of his constituents’ best interests.