Energy use reforms

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mortgage_fraud

With all these known cases of fraud from the subprime fiasco (and who knows how many other crooks got away clean?) as precedent for Western greed, don't you think that something fishy must be going on with $135 oil besides traditional supply and demand market forces?

Bush, McCain, and Obama have been discussing energy a lot recently, for obvious reasons. Bush and McCain want to lift the moratorium on offshore oil exploration and drilling. While this may help, energy experts think that it will add 18M barrels/year at most to our domestic production (a drop in the bucket, since the US consumes 20M barrels a day), and won't be fully developed for 2 decades. Though I guess every little bit helps, but it would be a shame if we spoil the Florida or Southern California coastlines with ugly rigs. And if America can reduce its oil usage by 10%, that's 700+M barrels of savings a year, much better than new drilling.

I just wish the next president can use incentives and fines to encourage changes in energy use habits. I would hope that the DOE could have an auditing wing, to have random inspections of businesses, vehicles, and homes, like the FDA and IRS do. Tax breaks and credits for motion-sensing lights, solar panels, efficient appliances, and other green practices, and penalties for excessive heating/cooling use, poorly maintained automobiles, leaving lights on when the building is empty, etc. Subsidized utilities and gasoline for the first X gallons/month (to help lower income people who can't avoid driving), but huge fees if you surpass your consumption quota, or if you drive wasteful vehicles. Maybe there could be exceptions if you live in remote areas or work a job that requires heavy driving.

So this could help both the rich and poor. The rich may live more wastefully, but they have the money to afford green tech improvements and earn credits. The poor can't, but they consume less and will get subsidies. So you can couple low energy prices with reduced usage. High prices do serve as an effective deterrent, but they mostly hurt the people who are most vulerable and least to blame for waste. I know this is invasive, but survival comes before personal freedoms (man, my rhetoric is starting to sound like War on Terror!). And then maybe we can slash useless NASA and military research projects, and use that money to improve public transit, the electricity grid, and rail freight networks. Also building a few more refineries and nuclear plants without red tape wouldn't hurt. If places like NY and CA have a problem with nuclear power, rural areas in the Midwest and South would gladly accept the risk for all the jobs and commerce that would come with the new plants.