“The final analysis is: Lots of jet fuel expended but not much accomplished in getting the public alarmed enough to make themselves energy poorer. The public is not listening for good reason. They have been hearing the same thing since 1988 (27 years) and the data does not support a present or future crisis.”

To be sure, if a politician is barking about global warming, he or she has little to say about the real issues that concern Americans, from economic progress to federal budget deficit reduction. But yelp they must; the science has been going away from climate alarmism, and the economy is getting no boost from government-enabled, inferior energies (quite the opposite).

In an effort to stir up support for an economy-shrinking treaty from the UN Conference of the Parties-21 (COP-21) meeting in Paris this December, President Obama went on a whirlwind one-week tour promoting the global warming scare with many speeches, photo-ops, and newspaper columns.…

As the long history of import regulation suggests (The U.S. was a net exporter until the post-World War II period), governmental concern over petroleum exports has been relatively infrequent.  Exports generally have been welcomed to market abundant domestic supply.

There have been exceptions, however.  In wartime, domestic supply has been licensed to guide its distribution in channels deemed proper by authorities; in peacetime, export control has been part of a wider regulatory purpose.

World War I

In World War I, the Lever Act gave Presidential authority to license exports pursuant to broad wartime powers over petroleum distribution. Licenses were required as part of the U.S. Fuel Administration’s inaugural planning effort with petroleum.

World War II

During World War II, export matters replaced prewar concerns about imports. The Lend-Lease program featured oil exports to the Allies at taxpayer-subsidized rates.…

“America deserves an international trade policy that is based on free-market mechanisms, not paying foreign companies to buy exports from large corporations with political connections. We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.”

– Christine Harbin Hanson (Americans for Prosperity), “Growing Coalition To Congress: End The Export-Import Bank,”  April 21, 2015.

“Enron was a political colossus with a unique range of rent-seeking and subsidy-receiving operations. Ken Lay’s announced visions for the company—to become the world’s first natural-gas major, then the world’s leading energy company, and, finally, the world’s leading company—relied on more than free-market entrepreneurship. They were premised on employing political means to catch up with, and outdistance, far larger and more-established corporations.

– Robert Bradley, “Enron: The Perils of Interventionism,” EconLib, September 3, 2012.

“Export-Import loans have been particularly controversial because of prior expropriations of U.S. oil company property by beneficiary governments. Mexico’s nationalization of U.S. oil properties in 1938 was followed by a loan of $30 million for roads in 1941, a $10 million refinery loan in 1943, and a $150 million loan for general development in 1950. A 1946 loan of $5.5 million to Bolivia for production, refining, and pipeline expenditure followed nationalization a decade before.”

The Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) was created by Executive Order 658l (February 2, 1934) to “facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of commodities between the United States and other nations or the agencies or nationals thereof.”  The bank could borrow, lend, guarantee debt, and “do a general banking business” with its $700 million budget. (See Appendix below for a description of the agency today.)…