Once while on a trip, the pilot came on the intercom to explain why, yet again, the flight would be delayed. He explained that safety was the airline’s principal concern. Of course, the clear suggestion of the message was that safety and timeliness were the only two choices, and safety won. When given that choice, no one disagreed. The problem was, of course, there was a third option - get there safely AND on time.
Listening to the current debate about energy triggers the same thought.
Somewhere along the Al Gore path to a cooler planet, there developed the ideas that “environmentally safe” and “increased domestic production” were mutually exclusive options. The green revolution hit, and everyone started doing their part to help save the planet. This is a good thing - like a plane reaching its destination safely.
Unfortunately, sometimes good goals can get used to cloak some really bad policies. For example, if a flight is only half full, an airline might decide that it would be “safer” to combine it with another half full flight to create a full flight. Or, if the flight crew is running late, an airline might decide it would be “safer” to hold the plane until the late crew arrives rather than bringing in a new flight crew. For expense focused airlines, the answer is always “safety” although it might just be expense. Who can argue? After all, no one can seriously question a safety issue, even when it makes no sense.
So along comes the green revolution, and no one could argue with saving the planet. As part of that green revolution, the decision is made to effectively stop finding new fuel supplies here in the United States - no more drilling; no more new nuclear plants; no more expanded coal production. If it involves fossil fuels, the answer is always no.
The green movement presupposed that America should never accept the environmental risks that its energy demands would require of other oil producing regions around the world. At the same time, the green movement chanted the “one world” mantra. Is it not at least slightly arrogant to think that a jaguar exposed to an oil spill in Venezuela is of lesser concern than a caribou in Alaska? More significantly, who can best address those concerns - America or a lesser developed country less focused on protecting the planet with fewer resources to do so?
The options that the unchecked green movement has left are limited: (a) rely on more foreign fuel supplies from increasingly unstable sources; (b) do without; (c) use food to make energy; or, (d) drive a wind-driven car.
Option (a) has not worked out so well. Having effectively shut down increased domestic production, the United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign fuel supplies. Prices have skyrocketed. Gas prices have soared past three dollars per gallon toward four dollars per gallon and the “rely on others” option has failed.
Option (b) became reality. Now, folks are forced to do without - not because gas is no longer available, but instead because they can not afford to buy it.
As options (a) and (b) failed, many politicians then jumped to their political comfort zone - more taxes (like a windfall profits tax). But, not even the bureaucrats could figure how raising taxes would lower the price of gas at the pump.
Then, came option (c), the really bright idea of using food (corn) to make fuel. The unintended consequence has been that, in addition to paying higher gas prices, the average American must now pay higher food prices as well.
While Washington D.C. insiders get driven around by full time staffers, average Americans now face unbearably high gas prices with the prospect of higher and higher food prices on the way.
But what choice is there - everyone agrees that saving the environment is a high priority. There is another possibility - protect the environment AND develop new sources of energy including available domestic resources.
Newt Gingrich summed it up well with his slogan – “DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS” at www.americansolutions.com. As he points out, three out of four Americans agree that with appropriate safeguards to protect the environment, the United States should permit drilling for oil off America’s coasts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. It is an option that no one wants to talk about unless they too have to face the gas pump personally and buy their own groceries.
Or, there is always option (d) - the wind driven car. With all the hot air blown on this issue in Washington, D.C., it might just work - there. Back here in Georgia, it might have to be Fred Flintstone’s car. Ouch!