Are We Trying For Energy Independence or Electoral College Votes?

by D.T. Holt

It seems to me that the gap between the left and the right on energy in general and oil in particular is getting smaller everyday. There is a lot in John’s take on energy independence that I agree with. For example, I agree that the answer is comprehensive. There is no single answer – off shore oil drilling, electric cars, hydrogen cars etc – that solves the problem. The tendency of politicians on both sides of the aisle to oversimplify this issue is at least part of the reason that we have been talking for years about solving our energy problems and our “addiction to oil” without making serious moves towards actually doing it.

I disagree with John’s assertion that those who are opposed to offshore drilling don’t really WANT energy independence. I very much want energy independence however, what I don’t want is an empty solution which includes environmental risks, however minimal, while doing nothing to solve the problem. Most experts put the percentage of the world’s oil produced by the US at around 3%, while we consume around 25% of the oil used on the planet. Simple math tells us that it is impossible for us to survive on US oil alone without an immediate, drastic reduction in our consumption of oil and even that may not be enough.

Some would argue that increasing US oil production in the short term will give us the time to develop alternative fuels for the long term solution. This would be a fine argument if it were possible to make even a small dent in our usage of fuel from foreign countries by drilling more in the US. The fact is that our current infrastructure is not equipped to produce any more oil than we are already producing. According to a report by the US Energy Information Administration, increased access to offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil and natural gas prices or production before 2030 and even then would only represent a 7% increase over current production.

The simple truth about our dependence on foreign oil is that the only viable path to total or even partial independence is to end our usage of carbon based fuels. Obviously, this is not something that can happen over night and there is, in fact, no viable solution currently available. John assumes that liberals would be against the idea of fledgling alternative power companies striking it rich by developing new fuel technologies. On the contrary, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who would be opposed to the economic boost that growth in this vital area of development would bring. The potential for large profits and job growth may be one of the best incentives for development of alternative energy and the assumption that the left is opposed to the concept of profit is at best a gross oversimplification of an issue that is probably fodder for another debate.

So why do politicians in general and Republicans in particular continue to treat offshore drilling as a main component in our energy independent future? For the same reason that most politicians, Republican or Democrat, support anything, because they think it will help them win elections. It is a shell game that focuses the attention of the American public on an empty solution which is often far easier than actually trying to solve the problem

I’m guessing that my conservative co-blogger would call this viewpoint cynical and it probably is but, I still maintain that what John McCain WANTS is to be the next president of the United States and I don’t believe that his stance on offshore drilling is offered in the spirit of actually solving a problem. If it was, why wouldn’t he acknowledge that offshore drilling has no short term impact on the problem?

The fact is that the endeavor to solve our “addiction to oil” probably doesn’t play well on either side of the aisle. How many people would vote for a politician who said “While we do not currently have a viable solution to the problem of energy independence, it is of the utmost importance that we work towards finding one.” Voters generally want to hear promises and solutions, no matter how short sighted, instead of nuanced discussion of the problem. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to solve a problem of this nature without a frank discussion of its scope and complexity.

The other common argument for offshore drilling is that it offers short term relief in the much debated “price at the pump.” In his post, John asserts that oil prices “plummeted” this summer when the President called for more offshore drilling. According to the US Energy Information Administration website, the average price of gasoline was $3.65 per gallon the week of September 8, 2008, which is an increase of 90 cents over the price one year ago. While gas prices have fluctuated down from their mid-summer peak of around $4 per gallon, overall they are 32% higher than they were one year ago. The decrease of 35 to 40 cents per gallon over the past month or so can hardly be described as a plummet and its cause is more likely the result of decreased demand as the American people were forced to use less fuel in order to maintain their already overstressed budgets

John talks a lot in his posting about which side in the argument actually wants energy independence and which side is merely posturing for more sinister political gain. I don’t believe that either side is serious about energy independence and the posturing, oversimplification and emphasis on misleading the public with non-solutions will only continue to exacerbate the problem and do nothing to solve it. Until the American people and the politicians who represent them truly treat energy independence as an actual crisis, we will continue to look to the Middle East to feed our addiction to carbon based fuels.

__________________________________________________________________

Be sure to tune in next week when I'll kick off another "Subject To Debate" and in the mean time, let's have some more comments from our readers. This blog isn't just about the opinions of one liberal and one conservative, it's about dialogue.

Do you really want independence?

In 1969, America’s oil production alone was enough to meet our demands, but increasing reliance on foreign imports means we now ship in 18 million barrels a day to go with the almost 10 million barrels produced domestically.
The U.S. demand for fuel and electricity is growing and simply pumping more oil is not the answer. Nor is simply putting solar panels on houses and erecting wind turbines.
So what will it take for America to become energy independent? That answer is straightforward.
By loosening the handcuffs and providing financial incentives, the federal government should encourage companies to drill for more oil in the United States, to build more nuclear power plants, to create more electric vehicles, and to develop more wind and solar power options.
OK then, end of debate, end of blog entry, turn out the lights, see you next week, everyone goes home happy... but...wait. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the debate.
Because while both sides in Washington want energy independence, only some WANT energy independence.These people are willing to accept a minimal risk of an oil spill if it means billions of dollars aren’t sent to countries (or Blue States) that hate America. And they are willing to have innovative entrepreneurs strike it rich with fledgling alternative power companies if it contributes to such independence.
And, yes, automakers and oil companies with their millions of employees and their dependants could make large fortunes.
Now, others want energy independence, but what they really WANT is to make sure evil corporations (booo, hissss, Remember Lehman Brothers! cue menacing music) don’t make “too much” money and nuclear power becomes as extinct as the dodo.
They want elderly grandmothers not to go broke paying for heat during a Vermont winter. But they WANT a 100-percent guarantee of pristine Alaskan wilderness that the average person can’t afford to visit.
And most of all they WANT the federal government as overlord (Hoorah for the savior!!!).
And, as such, they are willing to allow stalemates in Congress or allow bills to pass that only affect small aspects of this vast problem.
First, domestic oil production. As supply rises, demand falls and thus so do prices as companies try to get their goods off the shelves (or out of oil tanks). Sooooo, get more supply.
Those who WANT energy independence see that, those who want energy independence say the oil companies (boo) will just keep the gas prices high regardless of how much more is pumped. But oil prices began dropping this summer as soon as President Bush started calling for more offshore drilling and it kept falling as Republicans in Congress took up the call. If prices plummet just by talking about getting more, think about what will happen once the oil starts actually flowing.
As for nuclear energy, space for this blog entry is short, so let me just point out the French get 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power and they don’t seem to be glowing in the dark.
Now, conservatives have been lukewarm when it comes to wind and solar energy. Part of it is they are caught up in the “if one side is for something then the other must naturally be against it” that pervades Washington. But the other problem is these alternatives are talked about on Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill as the only alternatives.
And both those situations simply need to change.
Augment all this with clean-air burning coal and realistic expectations for conservation and the country will not only be energy independent but also have millions of more jobs created.But, unfortunately corporations (more boos, more hisses, Enron!!) could make “too much” money and have “too much” control. And that’s a chance some don’t WANT to take.

In a world without unicorns and mermaids

By John Bertosa

Someone who shows a woman can be successful and independent without being pro-choice and demanding government support?

Moose hunter?

Knowingly chose to have a baby with Down's syndrome instead of an abortion?And had another child shipped out to Iraq on 9/11?

Was a state basketball star nicknamed "The Baracuda"?

Eloped to save money on a wedding? And who married a snowmobile champion/union worker nicknamed The First Dude?

Has more government executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined?

Runner-up in a state beauty contest?

I love Sarah Palin!

But the best part about her is Palin not only represents conservative ideals but she also articulates them in a way that smashes the arch-stereotypes the Left has crafted for conservatives. Angry? Stuffy? Out of touch? A woman subserviant to a man? Not Palin.

Now, the day after her acceptance speech, a co-worker knowing my leanings gave me a very interesting task. "Palin's speech - describe it in one word." My immediate answer completely caught her off-guard.

Clintonesque.

I always grudgingly admired how he could rip apart the opposition and it was never described as angry (at least until he referred to "that woman"). Who else not only could say "It's the economy, stupid" but make it a tag line and not seem condescending or insulting? Who else? Palin, that's who.

I became giddy as she plunged the knife into the opposition with a mischievious smile and a homespun vocal pattern. She was talking like a regular person! She wasn't acting like she was addressing a jury, an Ivy League classroom or a political crowd.

And it was ingenious to use so much sarcasm and mockery! When criticizing,those are the best tools to use, especially when you have the smile and delivery of Palin. Direct criticism comes off as strident, confrontational and mean. It makes an unbiased listener uncomfortable and turns them off. Mockery and sarcasm make an unbiased listener feel like they are in on the joke and not part of one. That was a key to President Clinton's delivery and Palin's.

Didn't address the issues enough? Palin tackled the only one that had been talked about for the previous five days and she tackled it in depth. That issue? Sarah Palin. You want other issues, go to McCain.com or Obama.com. They're all spelled out there. Or tune into the Sunday morning talk shows. You still got problems, take it up with Obama. He declined the 10 town hall meetings with McCain to discuss 10 different issues leading up to the official debates.

Now, some bemoan the "us versus them" aspects to her speech, well I say it's about time!

McCain had reached out on numerous occasions, from immigration reform to senate battles over judicial nominees. He also spoke out against conservatives' attacks against Sen. John Kerry in 2004. And what did he get for this effort to take the discussion to a higher level? Last month Kerry called him "pathetic." and President Jimmy Carter accused McCain of "milking" his time as a POW.

His treatment shows if the Left is offering praise then that means either the conservative is behind in the polls, is criticizing another conservative or is retired/dead. So I cheered when this pit bull with lipstick didn't seek a pat on the head from liberals going to the polls to vote for Obama.

In a perfect world where everyone respects each other's opinions and unicorns frolic with mermaids, I would boo Sarah Palin. But the unicorns and mermaids were eaten long ago by dinosaurs and I've already outlined the "respect" liberals have shown for McCain.

So, it's not a perfect world, and I'm glad Palin is on my side on it.

Check back next week where America's solution to the budding energy crisis will be A Subject to Debate.

Thoughts On Sarah Palin In General and Her Acceptance Speech In Particular

by D.T. Holt

Looking at it from a strictly political point of view, the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is a brilliant move by John McCain. She is an anti-abortion, pro-gun, devoutly Christian, conservative, which is everything the Republican nominee needs to shore up his support with a conservative base whose response to him has been tepid at best. Even the single minded focus of the media on her perceived lack of experience has helped the cause by giving John McCain the opportunity to continue developing the perception that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President.

It is, however, difficult for me to believe that Sarah Palin, an unknown entity to not only the electorate but, until recently, to John McCain, was chosen because she was believed to be the best person for the job. I’m not referring to her relative lack of experience because I would argue that all four candidates that make up the two major party tickets lack experience as President of The United States. I am merely suggesting that it appears to me that the McCain camp based their pick entirely on what they think will help them win the election without any regard for whether she is the right choice to be Vice President of the United States.

In her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Palin encompassed much of what is wrong with what passes for political discourse in this country. Although she used the first part of the speech to talk about her background, her family and her support of John McCain, it was the next part that I had a problem with. Her snide, sarcastic, over simplified characterization and mockery of the Obama/Biden campaign’s stances on the issues was not only mean spirited, it made no useful addition to the national conversation that a presidential campaign should strive to encompass. She made little or no effort to offer alternatives or even to make measured, fact based criticisms. Instead she chose the “us versus them” approach that pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned into an art form and more respected, supposed mainstream journalists have chosen to celebrate and cover as if the candidates were two trash talking NASCAR rivals.

It is absolutely true that both parties are guilty of this type of incendiary rhetoric. Sarah Palin’s speech was merely a recent and extreme example. The speeches at the recent Democratic convention at times veered into this same, angry territory but, at other times they made the effort to respect the distinction between criticism and mockery. Both sides owe it to the American people to remember this distinction and move beyond attacks and verbal jabs into an actual debate. The stakes are too high and the issues too important for them to do otherwise.