The Wall Street Journal this weekend interviewed John Watson, Chevron's new CEO, who it described as a "rare breed these days: an unapologetic oil man." Watson predictably dismisses peak oil as irrelevant and hints that drilling restrictions will cause energy prices to go up. But the money quote, from the clearly unbiased interviewer was this:
"That pretty much sums up the broader choice America faces on energy policy. It can listen to the Washington siren song on alternative energy, pouring scarce dollars into green subsidies, driving up the cost of energy, and driving out U.S. manufacturing and jobs. Or it can embrace our own fossil fuel resources, which are cheap and plentiful. "'What I see are people who want affordable energy," says Mr. Watson. "They want strong environmental standards—they want a lot of things—but first and foremost they want affordable energy. And if you want affordable energy, you want oil, gas and coal.'"
Really? Maybe Watson and is interviewer missed this Bloomberg New Energy Finance study which reported that globally fossil fuel subsidies are twelve times those of renewable energy sources.
Congress should subpoena all of the oil and gas CEOs and ask them point blank, under threat of perjury just how much oil they think they could produce domestically per day (not "estimated reserves") if they had unfettered access to public lands and offshore sites, how that compares to current domestic and global production, what their timeframe is for bringing this oil on-line, and what is their evidence to this effect. In the meantime, we need a new political movement with one goal only: eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies. Maybe someone out there can think of a new catchphrase to this effect?