Residual Forces

This is an email sent out by 1st District Republican Candidate Brian Davis on the disaster that is the recent energy bill, and what he would do to actually help provide cheaper energy sources for you and your family.

January 9, 2008

Dear First District Republican:

The price of energy in today’s world is not measured in dollars alone, but the price of the economic and personal security of every American.  A key component of our economic and personal security is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to maintain as low a cost as possible for energy in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner.

If you’re like me, knowing that our economy is partly dependent on countries like Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia is troublesome.  Just imagine the potential disastrous consequences if several of these countries were to cut off our supply of oil.  Gas prices through the roof, airlines faced with shutdown, the trucking industry crippled, food prices soar, and the list goes on and on.

These reasons underline the need for our next Congressman to understand America’s energy crisis and have a vision to implement a meaningful change in our nation’s energy policy.  We need to move beyond slogans and examine real facts and numbers in a level-headed manner.

Milton Friedman, a renowned economist said once, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”  His quote couldn’t better summarize our federal government’s response to-date to our looming energy crisis.

Just a few weeks ago, on December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  One-hundred members of the U.S. House and 8 U.S. Senators voted against the bill, most of those opposed to the bill were Republicans, including Congressman Kline and Congresswoman Bachmann, both of Minnesota.

The main features of the recent federal energy bill are mandates that will increase costs for consumers and businesses, decrease auto safety, and, only marginally benefit the environment.  And the bottom line is that this bill does little to address the real problem facing America; our dependence on oil from hostile and unstable countries, where dictators rule.

In contrast, Congressman Walz and others claim this Act will reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump, but it does this mainly by mandating smaller, less-safe vehicles, not by increasing the supply of gasoline.   The bill essentially does nothing to increase the supply of oil and may end up costing consumers more, rather than less.

There have been numerous attempts at ‘mandating’ our way to energy independence over the past 35 years with little success.  Such efforts include increased mileage standards and mandating that a certain portion of our electricity be derived from alternative sources. Instead of government mandates, what we need is improved and continued energy efficiency and a clear pathway to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Similar to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, I oppose electric energy consumption mandates, unless in the context of allowing customers to shop for electricity.  I agree with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce that ‘outside a competitive market, a mandate is the most expensive and least reliable way to build Minnesota’s renewable industry.’  Congressman Walz is on the wrong side of this issue as far as Minnesota’s consumers are concerned.

If Congress wants an energy bill it should work to remove obstacles to domestic energy production by increasing supply, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf for oil exploration and recovery.

While our federal government sits on its hands, just 45 miles off the cost of Florida, Cuba is working with China developing oil fields.  This area along with areas in Alaska have an estimated 100 billion barrels of crude oil, or enough oil to provide all of our transportation needs for the United States at current levels of consumption for more than a decade.  The price of oil has risen from $25 a barrel to over $100 a barrel in the past 3 years, resulting in a yearly increase in the cost to the American consumer of $400 billion dollars, approximately half of our yearly trade deficit.

In November of 2007, the annual rate of inflation was up to nearly 10%.  As noted in the Washington Post “the cost of fuel, driven by rising crude oil prices, was the chief culprit. Energy costs increased 5.7 percent in November and have increased at a 33 percent annual rate in the past 3 months.”  The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, remarked that the likelihood of recession is clearly rising.  More recently, the Department of Labor has released data on the unemployment rate for December noting an increase from 4.7% to 5.0%.  The cost of energy and our economic well-being are closely related, but few politicians are talking about it because they have been part of the problem in the policies they’ve proposed and enacted.

A large portion of this flawed Energy Act is based on the premise that global warming is influenced substantially by human combustion of fossil fuels which in the U.S. provide 86% of all our energy needs.  While it is important to maintain high standards for air quality and to limit air pollution, there really is no consensus that global warming is man made.  Recently, a group of 100 climate scientists and others with related expertise sent a letter to the U.N. Secretary-General disputing this ‘consensus’ view and stated that the U.N.’s current approach is ‘likely to increase human suffering.‘

In considering our current state of affairs regarding national energy policy, I think back 30 years to the summer of 1977 when I had completed one year of studies in Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois and began working at a large engineering firm in downtown Chicago on nuclear power plant design.  This was a coveted summer job that helped pay for college.  I worked there for 5 summers and two semesters on a work-study program and full-time after receiving my degree.  Afterwards, I entered engineering graduate school in early 1983 and had decided that events occurring during the past half dozen years did not bode well for the near-term growth of the nuclear power industry, so I changed directions and entered the biomedical field.

I was working at this firm in 1979 when the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant occurred and saw first-hand the change in direction of the nuclear power industry brought about by government policy and media fiction.  Since that time there have been no fatalities in the general public in the U.S. associated with the operation of nuclear power plants, a source of energy that provides 20% of our nation’s electricity, 24% in Minnesota and nearly 80% of that in France.  It’s clear today that nuclear energy can play a key role in expanding electric power generation and reducing our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, a major fuel source for electricity generation.

The wealth of our nation and other free nations is due largely to the free enterprise system, not to a Congress inclined to micro-manage the economy and our nation’s energy production and consumption.  In my view, our government should be promoting policies which remove obstacles to increased production of the major sources of energy that fuel our economy: oil, natural gas, coal and uranium while maintaining anti-pollution laws.

Specifically, as your representative to the U.S. House of Representatives I will favor and advocate for:

• Continuing with the development of alternative energy supplies such as ethanol, wind power, solar energy and bio-diesel.  I remain optimistic that these sources of energy, which are becoming increasingly commonplace in Minnesota’s First District, will become even more competitive, particularly in the free market.  It is vitally important that we continue to diversify our energy sources for national security.

• Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration and recovery. Congressman Walz is against such efforts and is thus in favor of higher gasoline prices.

• Eliminating current automobile mileage standards and government-imposed production mandates.  The free market and the laws of supply and demand work much better than our government attempting to mandate conservation and setting quotas.

• Continuing with laws to safeguard our air from the known pollutants of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead and particulate matter.  Our nation’s energy policy and economic well-being should not be based on the deeply flawed theory that carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion will lead to catastrophic climate change.

• Providing a stable regulatory environment that permits the development of nuclear power, an underutilized clean and safe source of electric energy.

The politicians have failed to implement an energy strategy that protects America’s interests.  We need a change in Congress, and I’d be honored to receive your support, so that I can enact meaningful change for America.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and wish you a prosperous and healthy 2008!

Sincerely,

[signed]

Brian J. Davis, M.D., Ph.D.

P.S.  If you have questions on my energy positions or would like to discuss my thoughts, please call me at 507.285.5461 or email me at brian@briandavisforcongress.com