DEBATE ABOUT ENERGY -- M. Stefan Strozier

It is very interesting to watch the pundits, journalists, lobbyists and politicians debate what to do about the energy crises. These groups will have to compromise, because they have to take action to show they are working to solve the problem. They must show action because the problem is not going to disappear; in fact it is going to get worse, with gas rising to at least $5, and probably closer to $6 per gallon.

The compromise must include major offshore drilling, in the form of new oil platforms. It should also include drilling in ANWAR. The most important thing is to implement change that is meaningful, because this opportunity won’t come along again for decades. It any event, Americans won’t tolerate a weak fix. Nuclear energy must begin anew. The argument that these actions will take years to ‘bring about change at the pump’ is meaningless. Do people who make this point purpose doing nothing instead? Moving incrementally on alternative energy options is not going to solve our present problem, and it may not even solve the energy crisis in the near-future, or the regular future.

We must drain and use the entire strategic petroleum reserve. Right now, it is nothing more than a bombing target for the Chinese Air Force. Draining it will show the world a confidence of staggering proportion, with minimal change to our national security. I argue our security will be advanced; both tactically by saving the cost of maintaining an obvious target, and strategically, by having at least some effect on the price of gas, and by showing that we are going to absolve ourselves of being dependent on oil. Maintaining a strategic reserve is a clear indicator of dependence. Furthermore, it’s a lame attempt at showing a false strength, which is what dependence is. Saudi Arabia has a strategic reserve too, underground, and we are beholden to it.

We must also invest in other types of energy, wind, solar, geothermal, cars that run on hydrogen (like rocket engines, a technology we’ve had for decades), battery-powered cars, and anything related. And, we must invest in research and development, because there are very real and meaningful things coming out of R&D in the energy sector. The notion that the political Left is the “good guy” in this issue is not only misleading but wrong. In fact, in this issue, the Left is being highly misleading, and worse, where their arguments are leading are bad places, full of pain. The energy sector – the oil companies – are the good guys. It is their innovation that is going to save us. We must invest in that future. The only way we can do that is giving them more oil platforms. Increasing the amount of oil being produced creates nothing bad; it only changes who is controlling the wealth. I would rather that American companies control the wealth of the world – or, at least a substantial amount of that wealth. There is much more to oil companies and the energy sector of our economy than just “oil and profit”. Trash dumps, for example, fall in this category. There are smart ways to deal with trash, and we need to act on them now.

The Left is trying hard to make this issue an emotional one. Senator Obama won’t be a part of this consensus – that may be a good thing or a bad thing. Obama and McCain will lend partial voices. A refrain from those who favor only “green energy” – the Left – is that “this issue is incredibly complex.” In fact, the issue is very simple: gas prices are too high. What “makes it complex” is energy is an issue that is normally debated in Washington; but is now priority no. 1 among Americans. Most political issues are fought over and there is rarely any change in how they are dealt with, or impact people. But when any such issue – like energy – becomes a problem for Americans, then Washington gets very scared and confused, because now they must actually do something. And taking action means that there will be winners and losers. Incidentally, language is always very important. I hear – or read in newspapers – phrases like this all the time: ‘incredibly complex’, ‘totally wrong’. Similarly, I frequently read sentences that are constructed poorly. This Think Tank is ‘all about’ finding the how behind things. My examples indicate weak thinking and writing. Errors like these reveal much about the writer. Mainly, they demonstrate that the writer is involved in the issue, and is unable to separate him or herself from it. The issue is so important to them they are willing to change the actual meaning of words to fit their ‘incredible’ emotions about it. Rather than being the exception, this is the rule in writing, in 2008 America. When gas prices reach $5 a gallon, however, the emotions of Americans will trump those of the Left. Against this, no argument can stand, though right now the Left is the side purposing wild arguments, and using irrelevant language, like claiming oil companies don’t need any more leases and should use all the ones they have (they have done that), and they will be ‘drilling next to polar bears’, respectively.

We must take advantage of the cards on the table. We have been given a miracle chance to change our future, right now. If we mess up this one, not only will there not be another chance, but we will be in sad shape for decades, and ultimately may never recover the planet (for our own survival, as well as many other species, though the planet will live on with other species), and the human race will soon become extinct. Sadly, that’s the simple truth.