One thing I'm really starting to like about DC is that there's always something going on. This morning, I made the tough choice to skip out on a sleeping-in opportunity and hit up an event on the State of the Union speech tonight at the American Enterprise Institute. It was interesting enough- besides the irresistible allure of a free breakfast (and, thanks to my sticky fingers and big pockets, some juice and soda for the next few days;)), I really did enjoy listening to the foreign policy half of the discussion. Panelists talked about the normal issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Iran, but also discussed the less popular problems with China and Russia (noting how unlikely it would be to hear more than a side mention of either in the speech). I read one of the article provided by the Russia expert, and I have to say, it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Putin. I guess I can identify with his feelings; I started to have my doubts the day last fall when I saw the headlines "Putin Dissolves Parliament" and "Russia Tests the 'Father of All Bombs'" on the same day.
(Random side note: So we own the MOAB (Mother of all Bombs, rumored to level 9 city blocks in a strike) and now the Russians own the father of all bombs. Am I the only one who wants to smash these two bombs together and see whether it's a girl explosion or a boy one?)
In other news, the summer internship search has begun here. I've got a few ideas in mind, from the long shot at the White House to a few Middle East-related NGOs to the safety option of congressional work- Sarah assures me they're an easy get, so I'll keep them in mind if other areas don't prove fruitful. I'm really trying to find a paid internship, but for some reason I can't seem to find a gullible group of government workers willing to pay a journalism major with three years of college education- more info on that story as it unfolds. Oh, and if you have any ideas for summer work/internships here, I'm always receptive to them.
The big news for me over the last week, though, was my experience last Wednesday meeting the Algerian ambassador. Apparently I've earned myself a reputation at the Institute as a fair photographer, so I was shanghaied into photog duty at the Institute-sponsored speech and luncheon on US-Algerian business affairs. Besides the delicious free lunch of Brazilian-style beef skewer with onions over rice pilaf, I enjoyed listening to him speak and even got in a question about media ethics during the Q and A session. Afterwards, I went up to talk to him about Al-Jazeera's depiction of terrorism and showing terrorist videos on the news- it was a pretty cool experience. I'll try to get some pictures from the event up when I get them from MEI; it's a pretty busy week because we're preparing for the annual conference there, focusing on Iran, which features a good free lunch and speakers such as the French ambassador and Seymour Hirsch of the New Yorker.
(Ancillary to random side note: Notice how Russia describes the bomb as "environmentally friendly." How bad are we as a nation that we can't even protect the earth with our thermobaric munitions while Russia drops bombs that probably disintegrate trash and reincarnate it as helpful, prelabeled recycling bins? It's really shameful when you think about it...)
In class news, it was a slow week. Class discussion focused mainly on campaigns and the economic crisis (because of this, I can finally explain the subprime mortgages- for all you NFL fans, it's exactly like how the Redskins built their team in the early part of this decade). Thursday's class featured a trip to the Holocaust Museum and a briefing on human rights at the State Department- all in all, not the most interesting day, but what can you do? I'll probably head back to the museum again to see the parts I missed. I thought the one in Berlin was a lot more interesting, though- more abstract and symbolic, less cold, hard facts. Two interesting things from there, though; I never knew the Martin Luther strongly advocated killing Jews and burning their synagogues to the ground, and the Catholic Church didn't decide the Jews weren't to blame for the killing Jesus until 1960- how sad is that? Also for classes, we had to write our first policy paper- I'll post that in the "comments" section below if you're interested in reading it.
In terms of what I have of a social life here, things are pretty boring. It mainly amounts to watching movies or stand-up on TV with friends. Once the weather gets nicer, I'm sure we'll be more apt to go out more.
I did go out this morning, though- I decided to hit up the Air and Space Museum while I wasn't too far after the morning seminars. I spent most of my time checking out the WWI and WWII sections, I'm always really interested in stuff from that era. The coolest thing in my mind, incidentally, was seing this full scale V-2 Rocket (is there a cooler weapon name than Vergeltungswaffe-2? It means "Vengeance Weapon"- Hitler may have been a horrible, horrible man, but he could sure as hell name his rockets). It was just cool looking at the massive rocket and thinking how it would have looked taking off- and how much I wouldn't want to be under it when it came down. Oh, and notice the small rocket next to it? That was the US version- we developed it 2 months after the war ended. Thank goodness we weren't closer to Germany- we'd have gotten a large dose of Vergeltung. And on the way back, I walked past David Gregory- the President isn't kidding when he calls him "Stretch," he's huge.(Subsequent retraction of ancillary side note: I've just noticed that Russian TV describes the bomb's effects as, "All that is alive merely evaporates." Ummm...that may be the most sinister (and, I might add, least environmentally friendly) way to describe a bomb's effect that I have ever heard. It really sounds like the bomb was designed by a Bond villain...and suddenly I'm reminded how many of Bond's archenemies were Russian...)
Finally, I couldn't finish this in good conscience without mentioning the election and my boy John McCain, whose chances are looking better and better each day. Besides picking up an endorsement from Rambo, he's got good support in Florida and a win there makes him the clear frontrunner on Super Tuesday. I would've liked Biden better; his Iraq plans beat everyone else out without a contest. But I've liked McCain a long time, so when Biden dropped out, I hopped back over to him, just in time to see him win New Hampshire and revive a campaign most thought was dead. For the Dems, I suppose I'd rather see Hillary than Obama, but neither one fills me with much enthusiasm. More on that as the Florida primary passes and Super Tuesday approaches.
In closing, I'm looking forward to the State of the Union tonight, if only to watch Ted Kennedy's head slump as he nods off every five minutes like clockwork. Perhaps he could make it through better if he only drank some of this...
1 comment:
Memo: High Price of Oil
Issue: Crude oil prices have recently topped the $100/barrel mark for the first time in history. The number, while not significant in itself, draws the attention of the American public and creates greater unrest with the results of this rise in price; namely, gas prices.
Background: On January 2, 2008, crude oil prices crossed the $100/barrel mark, drawing a large amount of attention from the press and the public, even when the price dropped again; it currently hovers somewhere around $90/barrel. The years from 2004-2005 marked a major turning point in the oil market worldwide; locally, hurricanes Katrina and Rita wrecked a significant portion of American production capacity, while internationally, the North Sea had a very bad year and looks to be in a permanent decline. These were all combined with an increase in demand from the emerging markets in India and China whose growing middle classes increasingly use automotive transportation, a sharp decline in Iraqi production as a direct result of the invasion and the subsequent rebel activity, and an unwillingness by Saudi Arabia to increase supply as it had in the past (such as directly after the terrorist attacks of September 11) because of the great unpopularity such an action would earn it in the region. It seems likely that over the next year, prices will eclipse the $100/barrel price for a much more extended amount of time reaching a price around $115/barrel.
Options:
Price Inflation Cutoff
Politically, the first priority is to lower prices where they matter most to voters: at the gas pump. Most citizens couldn’t care less about the price of crude oil as long as they don’t find higher prices whenever they go to re-fill their gas tanks. Therefore, recommending and advocating for a price ceiling on the cost of gas to the Federal Reserve would likely earn great popularity among the American public, at least initially. Historically, though, when price ceilings have been effected, they have produced many undesirable effects as well- namely, long lines, rationing, and some gas stations not being able to keep up with supply or even going out of business. A shock like this could then produce more positive effects, most importantly, a greater consciousness among the American public for conserving gas and using it more effectively. As well, it would end any artificial price inflations among gas stations, and possibly create an environment in which gas stations have more incentive to compete for their customers. The ceiling would not be permanent, and could be effective in changing the nation’s gas consumption and pricing habits to the point where it would still be effective beyond its lifting.
The Re-Surge
One thing the nation needs to learn from the Iraq invasion of 2003 is that invading a country in hopes of securing an oil supply will produce the exact opposite of the desired result. Iraqi production has still not reached half of its peak prewar levels, with popular unrest a large culprit. However, the situation may still be salvageable. Last year’s “surge” proved greatly effective in reducing violence in Iraq, and a similar action could produce similar results in this situation. A course of action could be to recommend congress propose and approve a new “surge” in troop levels. Using a new batch of soldiers, US forces in Iraq could focus energy on security for installations vital to the oil supply, such as wells, pipelines, and refineries. This security would make them less vulnerable to attack and disruption, and would be instrumental in bringing to light the corruption that has swallowed so much of the oil industry’s production over the last several years. At the same time, a re-allocation of US funds to begin building toward the $35 billion estimate by the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity for full repair would increase the production with the goal of restoring prewar production levels.
Commitment to Change
Another option is to accept that the rise in oil prices is or is becoming a permanent fixture and look for options with which to reduce America’s dependence on it; namely, biofuels like ethanol. Work with the Secretary of Energy to redistribute funds in their budget to better pursue this course of action. By increasing corn production in the agricultural sector, less of the great burden of fueling America will fall on imported oil. In addition, extra funding should be visibly allocated towards research into more efficient production of these fuels. Reports have estimated that such production would be able to reach a realistic level around 900 thousand barrels per day. This would equal less than 5 percent of America’s daily oil consumption, but it would increase the nation’s production by 15 percent. As well, being less beholden to unstable governments in the Middle East such as that of Saudi Arabia has a positive political aspect, notably among the informed public that decries our reliance on a nation with such a deplorable record in human rights. Depending on which report is consulted, this action could have positive environmental benefits as well, something that could be used to put a more environmentally-friendly face on the actions of the administration.
Recommendation: By choosing to increase production of biofuels, this government would be taking steps toward a future where it finds itself less beholden to foreign interests and will be able to display itself as actively pursuing a solution to the seemingly-without-end rise in gas prices. Political and environmental benefits included, this option is far more advisable than a potentially economically disruptive price ceiling or a politically unpopular redeployment of troops. And research into other areas of biofuels such as cellulose and algae could produce even better results.
Traps: With the potential production reaching only 5 percent of America’s daily consumption, this action could be attacked as being far too small for the magnitude of the problem we face. Make sure to focus on the other number: it would increase America’s oil production by 15 percent at its peak, and breakthroughs in other areas could greatly increase that number. As well, some attack the idea that biofuels are more environmentally-friendly than normal gas as some reports say the carbon footprint produced in the production and transportation of ethanol is equal or comparable to that of petroleum. To combat this, focus on the reports that say it has up to a 25 percent less impact on the environment, and stress that any less damage done to the environment is a worthy goal. Finally, the current system of subsides would need to be reorganized, because the impact of using this much corn would have a great effect on food prices. Currently, it is much more advantageous for a farmer to grow corn than crops such as wheat or soy, raising food prices across the board. Quotas on how much can be given out in subsides for certain crops, corn especially, would have to be established until a better solution is found through research.
Post a Comment