How many decades has
the legislature flared gas on building a gas pipeline in order to
channel pork to consultant friends or get kickbacks from the oiled?
This most recent flare up appears more of the same. The difference is
that with gas prices dropping due to fracking and plentiful national
supply the credibility of building a pipeline through Canada is
non-existent. The best policy would be for the state to withdraw from
the Alaska-Exxon LNG Canadian Jobs Bill directly.
Careful analysis of
a chess game situation indicates the correct way to respond to a
challenge from the opponent. Building a gas pipeline with state of
Alaska economic leadership requires careful economic analysis.
Building a pipeline in Alaska is requisite for any state
participation for a number of strong reasons. For one any pipeline in
Canada places the Alaska product at the mercy of the Queen's
minions-are Alaskan politicians so tame as to want to be subjects to
a foreign power and pay for it themselves?
For state
politicians to let Exxon and big oil make them a cat's paw with
promises so far that the state provides subsidies is awesomely
stupid. Consider empirical economic facts concerning Alaska and China
as the probable long-term export market with its world-leading
contribution to global warming from greenhouse gases-mainly coal
fired power plants that may be replaced quicker with natural gas
plants until hydrogen fuel cells, solar, wind and fusion power
sources arrive along with superconductors and additional new
technology. The state legislature should just focus on getting an
in-state pipeline from the slope to Cook Inlet built within three
years.
Though the state
cannot get anything done in three years-its a nice political dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment