Tom Friedman’s argument as to why the energy bill should be supported ....
The energy bill now being discussed in the Senate — which would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants — is already watered down just to get 53 or so Democratic votes. But at least it gets us started on ending our addiction to oil and mitigating climate change. Unfortunately, right now it is not clear that a single Republican senator will even vote for this watered-down bill.
That is pathetic. Rather than think seriously about our endless dependence on oil, the G.O.P. has focused its energies on making “climate change” a four-letter word and labeling any Democrat who supports legislation that would in any way raise energy prices to diminish our dependence on oil as a “carbon taxer.”
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats never effectively fought back. They should have said: “O.K., you Republicans don’t believe in global warming? Fine. Forget about global warming. That’s between you and your beach house. How about this? Do you believe in population growth? Do you believe in the American dream? Because, according to the U.N., the world’s population is going to grow from roughly 6.7 billion people today to about 9.2 billion by 2050. And in today’s integrated world, more and more of those 9.2 billion will aspire to, and be able to, live like Americans — with American-size cars, homes and Big Macs. In that world, demand for fossil fuels is going to go through the roof — and all the bad things that go with it.
“If we take that threat seriously now and pass an energy bill that begins to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from the people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry — one China is already leapfrogging us on — clean-tech. Nothing would improve our economic and national security more, yet Republicans won’t lift one finger to make it happen.
or not..........
The world will want to live like Americans who largely produced their wealth using fossil fuels. So when this happens it will drive up the price of fossil fuels. Therefore we should artificially raise the price of fossil fuels for ourselves so we’ll use less so the rest of the world gets cheaper oil? This just doesn’t make sense. Instead, why not let the market dictate the price. If it goes up as Friedman predicts that will be more than enough incentive for wind mills and solar panels. Besides weren’t we told there really wasn’t enough oil off shore to bother pumping? Who would have thought it could have gushed and gushed and gushed? In the 70s many learned experts told me we’d be all out by now.
What a red herring. All the possible sources of wind and solar power couldn’t make a teacup of a difference. How about nuclear power, Tom? Or were liberals such as yourself to busy making nuclear a four letter word? Just between you and your beach house, Tom, nuclear is the correct way to proceed as we continue to explore for more sources of oil, or shale, or coal.
Why can’t we use coal or shale, Tom? Because of globull warming, right?