“The time has come to end the long debate over national energy policy in the United States and to put ourselves solidly on the road to energy independence. … This bill is only the beginning.”

– President Gerald Ford, December 22, 1975, upon signing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 into law.

With oil shortages in the 1970s, exports of domestic oil became of acute political interest. Regulation was accomplished under two laws: the Export Administration Act of 1973 and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The rise of Alaskan North Slope Oil, in addition, inspired specific export regulation that not only reflected concerns about domestic supply but special privilege for United States shipping interests. [1]

Export Administration Act

With first sales of crude and product transactions in U.S. …

“I have observed natural resource hearings for four decades. Never has such a pervasive, activist, elitist, anti-civilization mentality so pervaded our society as that on display at this hearing.”

Earlier this week, a hearing was held by the Seattle Port Authority about the impending arrival of Shell Oil’s offshore drilling equipment, which needs a docking for its Arctic mission this season. The hearing room was packed past overflow for what turned out to be a five-hour debate.

The result will not stop Shell from arriving at Terminal 5, although four of the five commissioners asked for delays as supported by Seattle Mayor Ed Murray. A summary of the testimony from a pro-energy, pro-Alaska perspective follows.

Alaska Witnesses

Many testified. All but one (i.e. a Mat-su area environmentalist who criticized Alaska’s position on natural resource development) represented themselves professionally, presenting actual facts and history relating to the century-old relationship between Seattle and Alaska.…

[Editor Note: This excerpt from Dr. Cordato’s 1992 essay, “Excises, Social Costs, and the Myth of Efficient Taxation: The Case of Carbon Taxes,” (IRET Policy Bulletin), is a timeless, yet timely, refutation of the illusion of a science-based carbon tax (revenue-neutral or not). It is reprinted for the current debate with the permission of the author.]

“Politics have led to ‘calls for immediate action.’ The economics provide a pseudo-justification for such action by suggesting that if a social cost is generated, a tax is justified on economic efficiency grounds. This leads to contortions of the science such that only the scientific evidence and arguments that support the political ‘call for action’ enters into the analysis.”

A clear illustration of the myth of efficient taxation concerns recent interest in a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions.…

“We built the 1,700 mile Alaska-Canadian Highway (ALCAN highway) through some of the world’s most rugged terrain in less than a year. We built the Empire State Building in 410 days; the Pentagon, we built it in 16 months. Mr. President, there is NO reason that Keystone should have been studied for six years.”

Mr. President, today I stand in support of the Keystone Pipeline Project.

As an Alaskan, I feel it’s important to talk about this bill and the importance of American energy infrastructure. I live in a state with one of the world’s largest pipelines. In 1973, after bitter debate, similar to the debate about Keystone, Congress passed a bill that led to the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline system– what we in Alaska call TAPS.

It almost didn’t happen.…