| SUBSCRIBE | | Why we charge |
|
|
|
Front Page
opinion guest_columns
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What If Reagan Had Held Tough on Fuel?
By Ned Farquhar
Of the Journal
The policy aide cast a quick glance around the Oval Office, drew a deep breath, and began his thoroughly rehearsed presentation. “Mr. President, Lee Iacocca is saying we should not pause or roll back fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. You know, he's brought Chrysler back from the brink of the abyss, and he seems to know what he's doing.”
It was a sunny, springtime day in the mid-1980s. The White House grounds were as beautiful as any place within a hundred miles. The birds sang raucously just outside the president's window. On a day like this one, who could remember winter, or even think about preparing for another one? On a day like this one, who would recall the two oil crises that had undercut the world economy in the 1970s?
The president, reputed not to care much about policy but in fact quite a hawk on the detail and direction of his administration, spoke slowly. “Weeeelll, he has, and he's quite a fella. But the Ford and GM guys are phoning every day, and I just get tired of talking to them. It seems like the United States has done pretty good at cutting back on oil consumption — down 17 percent in just a few years. Can't we just do a little something for Detroit?”
“That's correct, Mr. President, 17 percent.” The aide was duly impressed. The president didn't just know that the price of oil was down, he also grasped the reason it had dropped. American consumption, in the wake of two sharp oil shocks in the 1970s, had dropped very suddenly. Oil was plentiful and affordable again. “Of course, the problem is that consumption will rise again if we aren't careful. Imports have dropped back to the 30% range, but we need to maintain improved fuel economy if we want to push technology and prevent future increases in consumption, imports and prices.”
That kind of argument made the president fidget. He twisted in his chair. “If we need more oil, we can get it. Mexico has plenty. Canada has plenty. We can open up that reindeer ranch in northern Alaska, the Alaska refuge, whatever it's called. Secretary Watt says it's full of oil.”
“Yes, Mr. President. You're right, we need to encourage more oil production. But I am sure Secretary Watt has also told you that the United States, after a century of intensive oil and gas development, has already used up most of the oil it can realistically produce. We just don't have the resources to supply ourselves domestically. Even if the Arctic Refuge produces massive amounts of oil, it would be a relatively short-term, partial solution, and of course it would reduce options for the United States in future generations. What we really need to do is continue pushing for more efficient oil use, while we start implementing energy alternatives that will bring our petrodollars home.”
The policy aide, meeting with the president for the first time, sat back in his chair and waited for the president's response. He felt like he was lecturing the leader of the free world. He wondered if the best outcome would be for him to tender his resignation and find a place working at a conservative think tank.
The president looked out the window. It was often rumored that he'd rather be on his California ranch, but he took his job seriously.
“Weeelll, you know, I am fighting communism around the world, I have some thoughts about trying to bring the Soviet Union into the 20th century, and I know the deficit is growing but I really believe low taxes are good for our economy over the long run.” The president's brow was furrowed as he concentrated on the immensity of the energy issue facing the United States.
In fact, President Reagan looked like he was about to swallow a very large pill. Slowly, almost too softly to be heard, he started to speak. “I guess it's consistent for me to say let's leave those fuel economy rules alone. Government shouldn't change the rules all the time in the interest of one company or the other. And I see what you mean, even though I oppose regulation, we can't predict what's going to happen in world oil markets. The Saudis are our friends today, but look what happened to the poor shah of Iran, our long-time ally sitting on such huge oilfields. We'd be pretty stupid to stay dependent on oil.”
The policy aide, who had worked with several leading Republican legislators in the groundbreaking years of bipartisan energy and environment legislation of the early 1970s, stood to leave. “Thank you, Mr. President. I knew that coming to work for you I had found a place with a true conservative. What you are doing today is something that Americans will appreciate in 20 or 30 years. We'll never be hooked on oil again, and prices will stay below $25 a barrel for generations to come.”
“Weeeelll,” the president cracked his trademark grin and stood up. “I guess that's what being president is all about. We need to think about the future, national security, our economic foundation. That means maintaining a sensible energy policy.”
He stepped to the door and held it open for his staffer to leave. At the moment the aide crossed the threshold, he stopped, as though having an inspiration. “And you know, maybe you should figure out how to put those solar panels back on the roof. The ones I had removed after Jimmy Carter went back to Georgia.”
It was the aide's turn to grin. “You bet, Mr. President, and I'll be sure they're American-made.”
Ned Farquhar is a former senior policy adviser to Gov. Bill Richardson. The views expressed are his own. Email: inthewest@comcast.net.
Albuquerque Journal Subscriber Services
Submit a news tip | Place a classified ad | Advertise Online at ABQjournal | Advertise in Albuquerque Journal print products | Subscribe to newspaper
Save & Share
Tag this Page
| 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Send E-mail
Reprint story
