Because Bacon’s Rebellion focuses exclusively on state/local policy issues, I normally don’t comment on U.S. Senatorial campaigns, even those here in Virginia. But I’ll make an exception in this case because Republican Senatorial candidate Jim Gilmore has issued a proposal for a “U.S. Declaration of Independence from Foreign Oil,” which , if enacted, would have significant ramifications for energy production and the environment in Virginia.
Besides opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for oil development, Gilmore would encourage exploration and drilling on the U.S. continental shelf. Virginia, for one, is believed to have extensive reserves of natural gas off its coast — the exploitation of which is a highly charged political issue.
Gilmore wants to streamline regulations to allow construction of more oil refineries, and “eliminate counterproductive regulations that are raising our gas prices and damaging our economy.” Unfortunately, he does not specify what those counterproductive regulations are, so there is no way to tell whether his plan would affect the State Security Commission’s regulation of natural gas tariffs.
Finally, Gilmore says he would “pursue the added benefit of nuclear power,” which would help reduce dependence on foreign oil, but offer a cleaner power source for the environment. It’s not clear, however, how nuclear power would reduce the demand for foreign oil. Nuclear power is used to generate electricity. Only a tiny percentage of the electricity in the United States (and virtually none in Virginia) is generated by oil, so there is little to be displaced by nuclear power. We could reduce oil consumption if we converted combustion-powered automobiles to electric vehicles on a large scale, but Gilmore does not discuss that possibility.
Missing from Gilmore’s proposal: any mention of conservation or renewable energy. Gilmore’s proposal is the photographic negative of environmentalist energy policies, which emphasize conservation and renewables exclusively while restricting fossil fuels and nuclear power. I’m more humble: I don’t pretend to know which approach is the most economical. My approach would be to create an equal playing field for all energy strategies, including an adjustment for pollution and other externalities created by fossil fuels and nukes, and then letting the marketplace decide which is the most cost efficient.
