Posted on 05/16/2004 8:57:25 PM PDT by GailA
High-gas-price blues? Blame the greens
Posted: March 27, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
As gasoline prices continue to climb, finger pointing is becoming a national pastime. Led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, of all people, Senate Democrats say they are "outraged that the administration is not doing everything in its power to alleviate the strain on drivers, consumers and businesses."
This same Ted Kennedy, and Tom Daschle, have led Senate Democrats to block the administration's energy bill. They have done everything in their power to increase the strain on drivers, consumers and businesses by blocking every attempt to increase domestic oil production.
Americans have every right to be angry, as they watch the rising price of gasoline take a bigger bite out of their paychecks. But their anger should be directed toward the real cause of the unnecessary price increases: irresponsible reverence for the environment.
Anger should be focused on the League of Conservation Voters and the senator they have endorsed for president. Anger should be focused on the Sierra club, the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife and the horde of environmental organizations that go ballistic whenever anyone proposes to drill a new oil well or build a new refinery.
Had these organizations and their well-funded congressional puppets not blocked exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when it was first proposed, oil from that abundant supply would soon be coming on line to relieve supply pressure that forces prices upward.
But no. In every Congress for a decade, efforts to open ANWR have been met by massive, misleading anti-oil campaigns. The League of Conservation Voters claims that the oil there would last only six months. But the U.S. Energy Information Agency says that ANWR would increase domestic production by 20 percent.
Environmental organizations raise millions of dollars from mail campaigns that claim drilling in ANWR will destroy the last masterpiece of God's creation. The truth is that drilling in ANWR will affect only .1 percent – that's right, one-tenth of one percent – of the 19 million-acre refuge.
ANWR is the symbol for the greens' war on fossil fuel. Any use of fossil fuels is bad, according to the green gospel, and government should force society to turn to "alternative" fuels. This idiotic belief has resulted in regulations that add to the upward pressure on gas prices.
For example, fuel producers now have to formulate as many as 18 different blends to accommodate EPA requirements in different markets.
These same environmental organizations and Senate Democrats bashed the Bush administration unmercifully for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. John Kerry, in particular, wants the U.S. to submit to the Protocol, which would give a U.N. agency the power to not only regulate fossil fuel consumption in America, but to impose an arbitrary tax as well.
Anger about high gasoline prices should be directed at these green organizations and toward the congressmen who continue to do their bidding by blocking expansion of domestic oil production. Environmental organizations are quick to point a finger at the "big oil companies" for price gouging, and Senate Democrats take pleasure in blaming the Bush administration.
The Internet is full of schemes to force "big oil" to lower prices by boycotting selected suppliers.
The cause of escalating prices is simple: The demand for oil is outstripping supply. Far too much of our supply comes from foreign sources, over which the United States has little or no control.
The solution is equally simple: Increase domestic oil production. And the best place to start is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, followed by further exploration and production from federal lands and from domestic offshore reserves.
Increasing domestic oil production will not destroy the environment, as the green organizations contend. Modern technology offers increased production with hardly any adverse environmental impacts. Increased domestic production will not only reduce the price of gasoline, it will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs needed to further stimulate the American economy.
Americans should by now be weary of the environmentalists' claim that we can significantly reduce the demand for energy if we only "conserve." We have conserved by improving the efficiency of fuel use. But, there is a limit on the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Further calls for conservation measures to solve the energy problem are like suggesting fasting as a cure for starvation.
The solution to the energy problem lies in ignoring the environmental organizations and getting a handful of senators to do the same.
On the bright side, this boosts the resale value of my Honda Insight at the very time I'm thinking of selling it due to a move to Montana!
you read my mind. COULD the president order drilling as an executive order?
ethanol is a pretty inefficient fuel, unlike crude oil which is a distillable liquid, fairly easily broken down into its constituent fuels and other useful materials.
to make a liquid fuel from grain you must:
grow and harvest the grain.
truck the grain.
mash the grain.
mix up a mash slurry.
ferment it.
boil it.
condense it.
package it.
re-truck it to be mixed with gasoline.
each step requires burning a fossil fuel.
by the end of this production cycle, you burn more energy, 3 to 5 times, than the ethanol fuel itself contains. ethanol is purely a farm state/congressional taxpayer funded sham. it is a net loser from a conservation and pollution standpoint sine it requires so much more energy to make than it contains.
Actually, I'd say it's not all the green's fault, it's also the car manufacturers who make gas guzzlers. Though, cars have become much more fuel efficient lately
Modern coal-fired power-plants are much cleaner than the smoke-belching plants of yesteryear. Still, there is even a better solution: nuclear power.
The US Navy has been operating nuclear power plants safely for many years now. There is no reason for us not to be producing cheap and abundant electricity using emissions-free and fossil-fuel-free nuclear energy. That would free up a lot of oil and natural gas, reduce our dependence on terrorist-supporting nations, reduce overall pollution (including the pet pollutant-of-the-day: greenhouse gases), and alleviate the power-deficit problems that are rapidly growing in this country.
Oh yeah, there is ONE reason for not producing nuclear power: the political activism of the Greens and other Leftists that want to see America re-join the ranks of third-world nations.
You obviously forgot the first rule of capitalism: the free market dictates what is produced and sold. Automobile manufacturers are simply producing vehicles that consumers are demanding.
Don't forget the security risks and plant incidents. They happen it just doesn't get front page news.
The even better alternative is to become less dependent to "grid" living. Become decentralized by using solar, wind, biomass and fuel cells. This eliminates a devastating attack to America environmentally and economically. How can you attack 200 million photovoltaic setups and wind turbines?
Plenty of ways to get a few more miles per gallon out of any vehicle: keep the tires inflated and engine tuned correctly.
Like modern coal plants, modern nuclear power plants can be made that produce far less waste, and the waste is less hazardous. They can also be made much more safe and more cost-effective. The problem is that all the plants operating today are of antiquated design and many, if not most, should be replaced. Once again, we can thank the Greens and the Leftists. They've made it impossible to get new plants built, even to replace existing aging ones. In fact, many of the "newer" plants operating today were practically outdated by the time they first came online, thanks to lawsuits and other obstructionist tactics by the Left.
The security issue is over-hyped by the media to further their Leftist anti-nuclear agenda. I'm not saying there is zero risk, but a nuclear plant is a fairly hard target to hit. Terrorists prefer soft targets. There are much easier ways to create havoc and destruction in this country. And newer nuclear plants could be made even more secure than existing plants that were designed when terrorism was not as great a risk-factor.
The even better alternative is to become less dependent to "grid" living. Become decentralized by using solar, wind, biomass and fuel cells.
While some improvement can be made in this area, for the most part, what you are proposing is a myth: more Leftist/Green propaganda. Large centralized power plants will alway be more efficient than small distributed power generators. And as for alternative energies, they are still not cost-effective (the main reason they are not being adopted) and have their own share of problems (including environmental problems).
For example, solar cells are extremely expensive and have a very low efficiency. If a homeowner installed solar cells on the roof to generate a reasonable amount of energy, it would take over 20 years just to break even on the initial investment (not including any major repairs or upgrades). That's a lot of money up front for a small return amortized over many years. Very few people can afford such an investment. Even then, it would only work for select homeowners: not every home has the right environmental conditions for it to be effective. And what about condos, townhouses, and apartments where the roof square footage per unit occupancy (and thus electric consumption) is very low?
Wind power is problematic because--contrary to the myths--there are very few places in this country where the right environmental conditions exist to make wind turbine power efficient and cost effective. They can't operate where the wind is too weak or where the wind is too strong. So you have to find a large, uninhabited area where the wind is the right speed--and remains within the required limits consistently though out most of the year. On top of that, the area needs to be relatively accessible for maintenance, etc. That is why there are only a handful of wind farms in the US. There are just three in the entire state of California: Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio. Oh yeah, remember all those environmentalists that are gaga over alternative energy? Well, some of them want to shut down the Altamont Pass wind farms: it appears that some birds are being killed by the turbine blades.
Fuel cells are another Greenie pipe dream. Sounds great until you start to learn about them. First thing, most fuel cells being proposed are based on hydrogen because it is so clean and "green". What the proponents fail to mention is just where does that hydrogen come from? It's not like you can just pump it out of the ground. No, you must manufacture it by electrolysis of water. In other words, you must use electricity to break the chemical bonds of water in order to produce its raw components of hydrogen and oxygen. As as we all (should) know from physics, you are going to use more energy in producing the hydrogen than you will get back from it. So ask your Green friends this question: where are they going to get the electricity to produce the hydrogen (not to mention the energy used to compress and liquefy it, transport it, and store it)? While you're at it, ask them where the electricity will come from to power all the electric cars they are proposing we adopt?
I won't even bother addressing the extreme hazards and technical difficulties in handling, storing, and using liquid hydrogen.
Your arguments are based on current costs while discussing the future. Failing to note how the utilities industry over shadows alternative power. You need to look at it as how to make alternative power the norm. With that, you are aware that power consumption by consumers needs to be addressed. You said something of offense: "So ask your Green friends this question"
My response? I'll email Bush and some in the DOE right away!
If it isn't at $40/bbl, when will it be?
That hits the nail on the head. Refining capacity in the U.S. is way down.
Regards,
When discussing the application of technology to provide energy to consumers, economics defines feasibility. It makes no sense to propose fielding exotic alternative energy production systems if the cost per MW is outrageously high.
Hey I'm all for cheap, reliable and eco friendly energy, whatever flavor.
So am I. But most of the proposed alternatives are neither cost effective nor capable of significant production.
And, as I mentioned before, some have other environmental costs. Hydroelectric is condemned by the greens for interfering with fish life-cycles and altering the landscape of watersheds. Wind farms are now condemned for killing birds (not to mention the high-society liberals who don't want offshore wind farms spoiling their scenic views). Hydrogen fuel cells are based on a negative-sum energy equation. I haven't heard much about tidal generators lately, but I'm sure the ocean activists will successfully block those if they become popular ideas again. Solar boilers will, no doubt, be criticized for encroaching on the habitat of some desert tortoise or kangaroo rat. Etc.
Why centralize power...?
It's centralized because that was--and still is--the most efficient and cost-effective way of producing power. The idea of distributed generation is nice, but currently not practical on a large scale (nor will it be for many years to come).
You need to look at it as how to make alternative power the norm.
And how do you propose that? There are only two ways: free market pressure and competition (which almost always works) and government mandate (which rarely ever works). Even hybrid vehicles like the Insight and the Prius--with all their government tax credits and incentives--are produced at a loss by their respective manufacturers. They are manufactured for two reasons only: to satisfy governmental regulatory demands, and as public relations propaganda for their makers.
power consumption by consumers needs to be addressed
And how do you propose that? As civilization advances, demand for energy increases.
You said something of offense: "So ask your Green friends this question"
That was a rhetorical statement. It wasn't directed specifically at you.
I'll email Bush and some in the DOE right away!
I'm no supporter of Bush when it comes to his domestic spending policies. His crap about pouring billions of tax dollars into making a fuel cell automobile was nothing more than shameless pandering to the Left.
----
Don't get me wrong: I would love to see inexpensive, environmentally-friendly energy sources. However, at this time, the only viable technology is nuclear power. Perhaps new alternative energy sources will become more technologically *and* economically feasible in the future, but we aren't there yet, and I don't see it happening for a long time to come. There are still many hurdles imposed by physics that must be overcome.
"I'm sure it is economical in ANWR but in general, domestic oil production isn't. ANWR alone won't address the problems of supply/demand."
Domestic oil production *was* economical until congress passed laws that made it costly.
Get congress off the industry's back, and voila! It will be economical again.
Or, alternatively, we could try to figure out a way to use greens for fuel.
Actually, thousands of people have died in car wrecks that needn't have because of EPA efficiency/pollution standards that forced the manufacturers to create lighter vehicles.
So we have more efficient fuel-consuming autos at the cost of many lives? Worth it? I don't know, you ask them.
BUt the idea we don't have environmental standards is nonsense. Maybe you mean lack of uniform standards?
Do people really need so many gas guzzlers?
Is it really any of your business?
Lawerence Co and Robinson Ill area have IDLE oil wells, and undrilled areas to tap. These wells have been IDLE since the early 80's. We use to live in Lawrenceville, ILL not far from Vincennes, IN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.