Posted on 01/21/2006 5:29:17 AM PST by kellynla
Each day’s headlines underscore a central reality of our time: The United States has no choice but to make real progress on energy security — specifically by reducing the exclusive reliance of America’s transportation sector on gasoline and diesel fuels, most of which are derived from oil imported from overseas. Consider a sampler of recent developments in nations from which we obtain such oil:
Saudi Arabia: Sunday’s Los Angeles Times gave prominent treatment to expressions of growing frustration by U.S. officials about the lack of Saudi cooperation in countering terrorism. The bottom line is that, while the Saudis may be trying to crack down on terrorist operations within the Kingdom, they continue to support the Islamofascists, the terror they wield as a weapon elsewhere around the world and the large and growing global infrastructure that enables them to be so dangerous. We are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront. This is an intolerable — and unsustainable — situation.
Russia: Vladimir Putin’s increasingly authoritarian regime has demonstrated anew the Kremlin’s traditional willingness to use energy exports as an instrument of economic and political warfare. While the immediate target of the most recent such warfare was Ukraine, every other nation — including the United States — that contemplates reliance on Russian natural gas and oil supplies is on notice: Russia cannot be viewed as reliable source.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Humph. The time has come to develop the petroleum reserves of the United States, instead of being lazy and buying oil from our enemies.
Ethanol and methanol require more energy input than is derived: to grow, fertilize, harvest, and distill, you put more in than you get out.
Utilization of coal resources where we can (electricity generation) to free Natural Gas supplies for use as a heating fuel or (liquified) as a motor fuel, drilling for our own oil here at home, and conservation are the three things which will work in the short term, as will simply driving less.
More nuclear power plants, and alternative energy programs which show a thermodynamic profit (yield more energy than they consume) are a long term goal.
Again, conservation is a key, but that does not mean blanket mandates which will end up getting people killed in areas of the nation which have more extreme climates.
Frankly, I'd love to see some form of energy conservation tax credit for upgrading older homes, replacing less efficient furnaces, insulation, replacing windows, etc. This might work in concert with renaissance zones to renew some urban areas so people did not have to commute so far to work.
E-commuting, where appropriate, could save a grundle of fuel as well.
Hybrids use more resources overall, you just don't see them as you fill your tank up.
And that nuclear solutions were not even mentioned is telling of a fruity, nonsensical, feel-good agenda. Pure politics, and not one helpful suggestion.
"The time has come to develop the petroleum reserves of the United States, instead of being lazy and buying oil from our enemies."
I have no problem using up our enemies' resources before we use up ours. That doesn't mean we can't also start building nuclear/electrical/desalination plants on our coasts and continuing to develop alternate fuels.
Wouldnt it be great if we had energy reserves on this side of the Pond? Say oil fields off Florida and California or resources we could tap in Alaska.Wouldnt that be great? Oh?? We have them but Politicians wont let us use them. I see the problem. We need some new politicians.
Sorry, but the purpose of a tax system should properly be to raise revenue, not behavior modification.
"First off, this guy hasn't said where this supply of electricity is coming from. Maybe he has a couple of current bushes he can plug into."
Personally, I like the concept of nuclear/electrical/desalination; you kill two birds with on stone. I know it won't happen immediately but there time like the present to start.
I agree with you, "Utilization of coal resources where we can (electricity generation) to free Natural Gas supplies for use as a heating fuel or (liquified) as a motor fuel, drilling for our own oil here at home, and conservation are the three things which will work in the short term, as will simply driving less."
We've cut our driving in half.
Tell that to the a$$holes who tax my cigarettes....
A little editing,
Personally, I like the concept of nuclear/electrical/desalination; you kill two birds with one stone. I know it won't happen immediately but there's no time like the present to start.
There, that's better. LOL
We have plenty of oil in the U.S. - it's just cheaper to buy foreign. If the government were to cut off purchases from the Middle East, the oil companies would quickly find it was profitable to drill here, if not prevented by environmentalist nonsense.
In other words, if we think energy self-sufficiency is important for our security, we can have it.
LOL - no, I don't either, except that our dependence on them gives them influence they shouldn't have, in my opinion.
When the oli industry can get the specialized labor, fuel, materials and supplies it needs to operate, not to mention the armadas of vehicles used at 1980 prices, maybe it will be willing to sell its products at 1980 prices, too.
Why do you think that there has been (up until a couple of years ago) relatively little growth in the domestic oil industry, even though demand has not dwindled?
What most do not realize is how cheaply they have been getting energy.
There is a lot more to 'production' than the $12/bbl of lift costs, too. You have to find the prospect, do seismic work, drill, and complete the well before you get any oil.
Funny, but people living in $140,000 houses and driving $40,000 pickups to work just don't want to work for $10.00 an hour in a dangerous profession, and we pay for fuel just like everyone else.
"except that our dependence on them gives them influence they shouldn't have, in my opinion."
oh, I couldn't agree with you more...that's why I agree with Gaffney that we shoud be developing alternate sources of fuel and energy like nukes etc.
I agree with alternate energy sources to an extent ... but unless it's market-driven, there won't be any worthwhile outcome, just a bunch of money handed to legislators' buddies.
well when we strike Iran and oil prices shoot up; then folks will be "market-driven!" LOL
I hope they get my new Wal-mart (1 mile away) open before that happens!
I think Mr. Miyagi had it right:
Ex on, ex off.
I think you're lacking a perspective of who Frank Gaffney is. He's not a moonbat by any stretch. He's very much for Drilling in Anwr, exploiting our coal resources and everything else we can do to ween ourselves of oil imports. Not to mention killing every jihadi we can elsewhere so they don't come here.
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.