It's no great secret that I consider myself to be a center-right kind of guy. But frankly, people like James Inhofe make me ashamed to label myself as such. I try to base my opinions on facts and sound reason to the extent possible, but I don't think the good Senator from Oklahoma would know facts or reason if they stood and danced in front of him.
Here's the full article: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/inhofe-obama-oil-gas/2011/03/08/id/388782?s=al&promo_code=BD37-1
Inhofe claims that the administration has admitted, specifically Energy Secretary Steven Chu, that they wish to drive up gas prices to the level of Europe in order to make alternative fuels competitive. What planet did this man arrive from? I have very serious doubts that any administration figure would seriously assert the notion that gas prices should rise to the level of Europe (about 7-8 dollars per gallon). The Administration's credibility depends upon an economic recovery before 2012, and high gas prices would seriously damage that. Inhofe also asserts that the GOP will take the Senate in that year. That's optimistic at best, and it's important to remember that two years is a lifetime in politics. It is far too early to call the next election, when we barely have finished the 2010 elections.
More importantly than the political sniping (expected from any side, left or right), is the canard that he puts forth, that America can only be energy independent, not by using alternative energies but by drilling here, "developing our own resources here." Time to face facts here, Senator. We cannot drill our way out of this energy crisis, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. Our oil discoveries in the lower 48 states peaked in the fifties, and production reached a peak in the 1970's. America consumes much of the world's oil; there is no way that we can produce enough on our own to achieve self-sufficiency. But there are natural resources here to be developed, like wind and solar, which can be combined with energy efficiencies to decrease our reliance on oil overall, not just "foreign oil."
However, I despair that we will ever take these basic, common-sense measures when there is an entire class of people in politics devoted to the notion that any "green" initiatives are a socialist plot designed to strip us of our individual liberty. Nonsense. If you want to be patriotic and mouth platitudes about "ending our dependence on foreign oil," then get behind alternative energies and stop hindering them.
Here's the full article: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/inhofe-obama-oil-gas/2011/03/08/id/388782?s=al&promo_code=BD37-1
Inhofe claims that the administration has admitted, specifically Energy Secretary Steven Chu, that they wish to drive up gas prices to the level of Europe in order to make alternative fuels competitive. What planet did this man arrive from? I have very serious doubts that any administration figure would seriously assert the notion that gas prices should rise to the level of Europe (about 7-8 dollars per gallon). The Administration's credibility depends upon an economic recovery before 2012, and high gas prices would seriously damage that. Inhofe also asserts that the GOP will take the Senate in that year. That's optimistic at best, and it's important to remember that two years is a lifetime in politics. It is far too early to call the next election, when we barely have finished the 2010 elections.
More importantly than the political sniping (expected from any side, left or right), is the canard that he puts forth, that America can only be energy independent, not by using alternative energies but by drilling here, "developing our own resources here." Time to face facts here, Senator. We cannot drill our way out of this energy crisis, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. Our oil discoveries in the lower 48 states peaked in the fifties, and production reached a peak in the 1970's. America consumes much of the world's oil; there is no way that we can produce enough on our own to achieve self-sufficiency. But there are natural resources here to be developed, like wind and solar, which can be combined with energy efficiencies to decrease our reliance on oil overall, not just "foreign oil."
However, I despair that we will ever take these basic, common-sense measures when there is an entire class of people in politics devoted to the notion that any "green" initiatives are a socialist plot designed to strip us of our individual liberty. Nonsense. If you want to be patriotic and mouth platitudes about "ending our dependence on foreign oil," then get behind alternative energies and stop hindering them.
You are correct (to the best of my knowledge) that Chu would not make that comment as a rep of the current administration, however, he did make that comment before he became part of the administration. Inhofe clearly is altering the facts a bit, but here is a link to another article quoting Chu's statement. http://theswash.com/2011/03/02/barbour-obamas-policy-is-to-drive-up-energy-prices/
ReplyDeleteI also think you need to read the article you reference a bit closer. Inhofe does not claim that our oil alone will make us independant of foreign oil, but refers mostly to natural gas combined with other resources. With the discoveries like the gas fields in PA and NY that have everyone thinking they will soon be rich when they sell to a drilling company, it is clear that we do have more resources than previously thought and we should use them. If both sides would stop being stubborn and admit 'green' alone or 'petroleum' (gas, oil, coal) alone won't work, we would all be further ahead.
The conspiracy theorist that resides in me suspects big oil is largely to blame. When natural gas seemed to be making a bid for overtaking oil as the fuel of choice a few years back, the infrastructure became the issue - which sounded to me like big oil saying we have to convert our stations so you can buy from us instead of letting capitalism do what it does best, make a way for the guy with the best idea for the lowest cost.
On a slightly different note, if you take gaseous emissions etc from the warming debate and if you have ever been stuck in traffic in a major area like mine (DC), it would seem clear that the heat from all the car engines alone would have to make an impact on the environment.
However, if we were once in an ice age, we have clearly warmed to the level we are in now and would it not be logical that we are continuing this warming trend with only modest impact from man? Before the ice age, maybe all earth was a tropical jungle and this is just the gradual return to our natural state?
I read the article twice, and you may trust to my reading skills. I chose only to address the oil aspect of his claim, and, in fairness, I should have at least mentioned the other parts of his claim. I am troubled, however, that he is among those guilty of blocking all "green" energy initiatives on "principle," wrong-headed action that I believe is harmful in the short and long term.
ReplyDeleteThe earth was once in a very tropical state; during the late age of dinosaurs, for instance. The long history of the earth shows that there is no "natural state" of the earth, that there are times of great ice and great warmth as well. This is not to excuse us from our role. It is quite logical, and backed by good evidence, to think that, given carbon as a greenhouse gas, the hundred-plus years of spewing it into the atmosphere on an unprecedented basis would lead to warming. Nothing natural about that.