Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould energy independence be a high priority in the US?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 91% | 371 votes | Total: 407 votes | |
| No | 9% | 36 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesToday, the survival of Western Civilization depends on the production of energy. It's the universal source of food, shelter, clothing and the fulcrum upon which our nation's economy and security teeters.
The refusal to recognize our absolute dependency on energy is placing the nation in great peril. And time is running out. The politically correct practice of holding energy independence initiatives hostage to environmental sensitivities during a time of war is beyond insanity.
Energy, the nation's lifeline, is heavily dependent on fossil fuels from foreign suppliers. This dependency has enslaved our economy to the dictates of foreign countries and made our nation vulnerable to the goals of Islamic fascists.
When the US was the primary buyer of energy in the twentieth century, it controlled the marketplace. The rapid industrialization of Third World countries, especially China and India, changed the balance of power. The competition for oil has made the United States vulnerable to international blackmail. The cost of oil is already depreciating the value of our currency.
That the United States imports about 20% of it oil directly from the Middle East is both dangerous and moot. If the production flow from the Arabian Peninsula is severely interrupted, the competition for other sources will be intense. No industrialized country will have a safe harbor.
If the disruption is prolonged, the western democracies will suffer economic chaos.
The Islamic terrorists, those determined to destroy western civilization, understand this dependency. Although the pipelines remain vulnerable to clandestine attacks, the control of the oil reserves and pipelines by Islamic fundamentalist/fasci st caliphates is the greater danger.
Iran has already fallen under Islamic fundamentalist control and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. If the US military exits Iraq before stabilizing its government, the Islamic fundamentalists will gain control of Iraq's reserves and outputs.
Now, let's give Iran a nuclear weapon. They don't have to detonate it in Europe or the United States to destroy us.
Just threatening to annihilate Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait if they fail to curtail or cease their oil production could reduce the world oil output by about 50%. One bomb dropped on Saudi Arabia would send the western democracies into a decades' long economic tailspin.
With this very real possibility a few hours away, the Democratic controlled congress is screaming for the US to bequeath Iraq to Iran. They are even protesting the consideration of terminating Iran's nuclear threat with military force.
The failure to acknowledge, or comprehend, that US energy independence must take precedence over environmental concerns is a prescription for disaster.
Global warming and animal habitats are irrelevant when compared to the catastrophic consequences of US transportation at a standstill, the shutdown of commerce, cold homes and food shortages.
Learn more about this author, David Mclinn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Should blue-jean independence or banana independence be a high priority for the US? Should Kuwait's government support efforts toward food supply independence? Should Israel aim for raw diamond independence and should the rest of the world, in turn, cease buying diamonds cut in Tel Aviv? Should New Hampshire's government prioritize automobile independence, and Michigan's do the same for maple syrup? Should France pursue microprocessor independence? Should the taxpayers of the city of San Francisco subsidize programs to give the city apple and wine independence?
A sane man's gut tells him "no": San Franciscans would be poorer twice over if they attempted such a thing. They'd pay the expensive subsidy to those who'd produce apples and wine within city limits, and they'd, due to the market's distortion, be spending time and wasting space on vines and orchards instead of doing more profitable things. Moreover a sane man's instinct tells him that, even if the US can more cheaply make both cars and microprocessors than Mexico, it may make sense for Mexico to make some cars and the US to handle the microprocessors
An economic law, dating back in simplified form to early 19th Century thinkers Robert Torrens and David Ricardo, known as the law of comparative advantage codifies this idea, that trade, sometimes even trade opposite absolute advantage, can make all involved parties better off, that, for example, two men stranded on a desert island would be better served by a division of labor even if one is young and intelligent and better at all things than the old and stupid other. To use Ricardo's example: in England it is much more difficult to produce wine and only moderately more difficult to make cloth than in Portugal. It follows that the Portuguese ought not make all their own cloth, but rather produce wine in excess, sell it to Englishmen, and use the proceeds to buy some of their needed cloth. By this same principle, some oil-exporting countries import refined petroleum products! This seems obvious to us moderns, especially to those of us who know a little math when the optimization equations of test cases are set to paper, but it runs against a perhaps instinctual aversion to trade with foreigners that is well-documented in surveys wherein economists' views are contrasted with those of the general public.
It does not seem to be the case that the USA has comparative advantage in production of fuel with which cars may be powered or electricity may be generated, such fuel being the "energy" usually in question in a discussion of energy independence. It follows that a US government effort, through subsidy, tariff, and market restriction, to achieve such energy independence would make us all worse off. It is better to keep growing grain, making microprocessors and military hardware, and doing whatever else we have a comparative advantage in, letting the market decide the optimum balance of imports and exports, than for the government to artificially steer us toward zero imports.
The usual excuse given for this economic folly is that fuel ("energy") is somehow different because it is a necessity for the functioning of national defense and the rest of the economy. True, yes, but it is also true that the USA does not buy this necessity from a single source. Not even the OPEC cartel includes Canada, Norway, and Russia. Even so heinous an act as a war of aggression in Iraq did not provoke OPEC or the other oil exporters to cut us off. Importing fuel does not leave us beholden to anyone on matters of foreign or domestic policy. It does not render the USA a tributary state to the Saudi king or the ayatollahs of Iran.
Free trade is the policy of peace: no government wants to war with its people's suppliers or customers. Unless the USA intends to commit a terrible atrocity or go to war with the oil-exporting nations, there is no reason for the US government to support energy independence. We should leave this foolhardy slogan to the dunces and loonies.
Learn more about this author, Bennett Kalafut.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Energy Issues
- Do power strips help saving energy?
- Should government subsidize renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and ethanol?
- Is the ethanol boom about to bust?
- Does protecting the environment have to come at the expense of jobs?
- Which is more likely to produce clean alternative energy, the private sector or the government?
- Is solar energy a viable solution to reducing oil dependence?
