An Alternative Energy?

Please, don't be crude.

As insane as it might sound… oil must be some kind of alternative energy under the Obama Administration.  It’s strange to think this way considering we all use it.  Oil goes into our cars, planes, street, insecicides, liquefied petroleum gas, and plastics.  Not only do we use oil but the fact that we import so much of it provides countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran with income that they use to work against our interests.  With unemployment rising, President Obama is foolish to have Interior Secretary Ken Salazar postpone new leases for offshore drilling that were greenlighted under President Bush.

A recent study noted that were the U.S. to drill for more oil there would be several benefits:

• $8.2 trillion in additional GDP.
• $2.2 trillion in total new state and federal tax revenues.
• 1.2 million new jobs at high wages.
• $70 billion in added wages to the economy each year.

There are plenty of oil companies out there which would love to explore the possibilities of increasing their oil supply and they’d gladly employ Americans and pay taxes in order to do it.  Of course, a decrease in foreign oil imports would not only lower the price of oil but it would also reduce the income of OPEC countries and cause governmental reform to take place in those countries.  Currently, these countries use a large part of their oil income to keep their populations docile and cover-up their corruption by spending their money on social welfare programs.  Their economies are dependent upon oil revenues and as long as prices stay high their corrupt leaders can stay in power.

Countries like Brazil are spending huge sums of money to explore and drill for new oil.  If their leaders recognize that increased oil production is in their national interests why do the Democrats remain beholden to the idea that oil is bad?

It’s not as if, on a State and Federal level, the government does not depend upon gasoline sales to balance their budget.  Take a look at this chart to see just how much of the price of gas per gallon goes towards taxation:

The concern that some have regarding our usage of oil is not unjustified.  Oil is, after all, not being created anymore and it is best to conserve it as much as possible.  To this end, increased oil drilling in the U.S. can be a wonderful opportunity for some of those profits to be set aside to provide incentives for Americans and for oil companies, automobile manufacturers, and industrial plants to conserve.  Reduced oil consumption has already happened, in fact:

“World oil consumption is projected to fall by 1.2 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2009.”

Unfortunately, many are still enamored with the idea of cutting the oil spigot off immediately and pumping tens of billions of dollars into “solutions” that will not produce many results but will, instead, slow down the economy further.  The New York Times, always a supporter of odd ideas without an analysis of what they will do in the real world said:

Not surprisingly, given the state of the American economy, his speech dwelled less on the perils of climate change and more on the economic promises of clean energy. He spoke of the profit to be gained by American industries and workers if the United States took the lead in investing in manufacturing wind turbines, more efficient solar panels and next-generation batteries — reminding his audience that on these fronts China, Germany and Japan are doing better than we are.

Politically correct or not, this is how the U.S. gets its energy.

Again, these forms of energy are good but solar power is very expensive and only works when the sun is out, wind turbines require constant maintenance and do not function when there is no wind, and batteries are not only heavily energy intensive to make and recycle but do not hold enough power for constant usage.  One does not need to look very far to see an example of how wind power is not a successful strategy for constant power production:

A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

People and businesses can only depend upon an energy source that is “always on” and constant, such as hydro, nuclear, or carbon-based power.  Developing alternatives to carbon or nuclear-based power, something President Obama says he is for, is helpful if it is to augment current supplies but impossible if it is meant to replace them.

With no new refineries having been built in the U.S. for over 30 years and the Democrats having blocked every effort to secure new domestically produced sources of oil, it is rather simple to see how this country was held hostage by oil prices that reached almost $200.00 per barrel.

Having a supply of oil will not only create jobs, increase tax revenues, lower the price of oil, deprive hostile nations of our money, lower the trade deficit, improve the economy, but it will also give the U.S. a strategic advantage in being able to run our own affairs.  One such example of a nation being unable to have a secure energy supply is Germany during WWII.  During that time, Germany had only coal reserves and, as a result, this greatly hampered their ambitions.  In the case of the Nazis, this was a good thing for the rest of the world but for the U.S. the ending won’t be as positive.

Notice how the Democrats keep saying we need to reduce our oil consumption but yet, if this is really what they’d want they would do what is obvious: they would increase the taxes consumers and businesses pay per gallon.  Of course, if they put their money where their mouth was they would be thrown out of office because voters would get angry.  But raising taxes would be the surest, fastest, and best way to reduce consumption.  And yet they won’t do it, perhaps because something else is on their agenda.

You have to ask yourself… why do the Democrats not want all of the benefits listed above to be enjoyed by Americans?  Does that party have your best interests are heart or are they denying reality for political gain?  High oil prices in 2008 probably tiled the balance towards Barack Obama winning the presidency, but is that the way to run a nation?