Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
Responding to Energy Myths

Submitted by ssbaker305@yahoo.com, Aug 27, 2008 15:29

Mr. Stossel's analysis is almost too simplistic to be believed. I'm sure others have asked this too, but is he on the American Petroleum Institute's payroll? Here, in case you missed it, are the top 10 reasons for energy independence. 1. Climate Change: Oil and Coal contribute to global warming and will only do so more as China, India etc. emulate American lifestyles. According to many scientists, We may already be past the temperature "tipping point." 2. Balance of Trade: We import 70% of our oil - $700 billion/year - often from countries that hate us, fund terrorists, and buy our businesses (Citigroup) and infrastructure (Chrysler Building). This is an unsustainable transfer of wealth which will only make America poorer, maybe forever. We are now paying foreign powers both what we earn personally AND what our companies earn, while they sit back and enjoy the results of their geological luck. Take a look at T. Boone Pickens' presentation for a more realistic assessment of what exporting our wealth will do to us in 10 years. Or, take a look at post-Columbus Spain, which thought having all the gold in the new world would keep them propoerous forever and allow them to import whatever skills and goods they needed. It didn't and they couldn't. 3. Green Jobs: Germany has created 250,000 new green jobs in its solar industry, which supplies 13% of its electric needs. We need to replace oil, coal and nuclear producing jobs with wind and solar installation and maintenance jobs. (It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and 2 years to build a solar thermal field). 4. National Security: We must not depend on foreign powers to supply us with vital energy, which is as critical to modern society as food and shelter. Even if we drill the arctic for oil (home to up to 25% of the world's reserves, according to US Geological Survey), we will have to defend those new wells not only from nature, but from Russia, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), and others with a claim to the high north, leading to unnecessary conflict with these countries. Clearly, ANWR has never been about the tiny bit of land off northern Alaska that would supply just 2 years of oil for America; it's been about opening up the entire Arctic to exploration. We cannot afford to defend such a large and inhospitable region. 5. The Oil Curse: Countries that depend on natural resources to make money, and not people, are the most corrupt, despotic, self-righteous and anti-human rights regimes on Earth. China does not seem to care where their oil comes from, encouraging rogue states like Sudan, Iran, Burma and Venezuela, where human rights barely exist. This is a naïve and ultimately counter-productive strategy for China but not one we should be encouraging again either (see: the downfall of the Shah of Iran). 6. Military Overreach: America cannot afford to defend oil fields. The Iraq war is, at least partly, a subsidy for Big Oil. Lives are being lost and resources are being spent ($12 Billion/month) so that - maybe, eventually - we can get more oil out of Iraq (estimated to be 2 or 3 largest holder of oil reserves). Meanwhile, Iraq does not even use $79 billion surplus to pay for its own infrastructure needs, while here in the U.S. our bridge collapse from lack of care (Minnesota) and our electrical grid blacks out. 7. Peak Oil: We are probably only seeing peak geopolitical oil, not peak geological oil, now, but it will only get more expensive to drill oil. Most estimates put peak oil within 10 years, and since global demand has exceeded earlier estimates, we may be even closer. The perversion of the OPEC dominated oil market means that they will drill LESS, not MORE, as the price goes up, since they literally collect more money than they know what to do with already, and they want to stretch out their supply. It's only when the price of oil goes DOWN that Opec members are tempted to cheat on their quotas because their disfunctional economies become desperate for cash. Right now, they want to sell oil only a trickle at a time. 8. Local Environmental Damage: If we drill everywhere, we will eventually have oil wells all over the west (instead of wind turbines), and even in the (newly melted) arctic. These high-risk drilling areas will be more likely to see oil spills, soot, and CO2 damage and the further eradication of local animal (Polar Bears) and plant life. Already, regional water tables are being polluted by accidents and poisoness chemicals involved in the drilling industry. 9. We eat too much oil: Oil goes into fertilizer, which goes into corn, which goes into EVERYTHING we eat, including meat. Omega 6 fatty acids (the bad kind) are higher in factory-fed beef. Omega 3 fatty acids (the good kind) are higher in grass-fed beef and almost as high as in fish. Oil-based Corn-fed meat is making us fat and raising the national health bill. Cattle, pigs, chickens live a cruel, short life in tight, economical confines because it is cheaper to make them do so than to let them live on the open range. Even an omnivore must realilze there is a difference for an animal to be raised humanely and then killed for food then one that is tortured its entire life and then killed. Each wind turbine could pay farmers $5,000-$10,000 annually and allow livestock to graze in their shade, making natural grass-fed meat economically viable again. This synergy could make us healthier AND wean us off imported oil. 10. Loss of American's position as "Innovation Leader:" The oil industry was born here over 100 years ago. It is time for America to lead the world into the renewable era.


Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment By Date

I normally enjoy John Stossel's commentaries and television appearances but the above article has one flawed assumption i.e. that there... [MORE]

Joseph A. Zupo 

Aug 28, 2008 02:28

No Mr. Stossel, your argument didn't anger people. Suggesting the belief that USA Energy Independence is idiocy angered people. I... [MORE]

keith 

Aug 27, 2008 17:30

Dear Mr. Stossel---Energy independence may indeed be an un-achieveable object, but if domestic production were to increase substantially it might... [MORE]

Don Carlson 

Aug 27, 2008 17:30

Mr. Stossel's analysis is almost too simplistic to be believed. I'm sure others have asked this too, but is he...

ssbaker305@yahoo.com 

Aug 27, 2008 15:29

John, your points about energy myths are too simple maybe even border line common sense. Too bad politicians can't grasp... [MORE]

Peter Chicarello 

Aug 27, 2008 10:00

If the ultimate goal for US Energy independence is merely that, then perhaps you are correct. However, the United States... [MORE]

Kelly Knight 

Aug 27, 2008 09:09

Comment on Responding to Energy Myths

    Before submitting your comment, please provide a valid email address to complete the verification process.