Re: "Together, these developments are conspiring to frame the discussion of
policy as an "either-or" proposition . . . ."Only on the
liberal side.Even Obama, a johnny-come-lately to the issue, recently
started touting his record on "balance," noting that there has been more
drilling and production during his administration than in others. But he fails
to mention that any increases -- mostly on non-federal lands -- come DESPITE,
not because of his efforts.Liberals continue to place a heavy,
corrupt thumb on the scale, blocking, protesting, and delaying every effort at
maintaining the necessary balance during our transition period, while promoting
risky, not-ready-for-prime-time projects of Obama contributors and cronies, and
blocking critical pipeline/infrastructure projects, and access to proven
resources offshore and on Western federal lands.Voters looking for
balance in our energy policy certainly won't find it among the liberal
crony capitalists and tree huggers of the Obama camp.
"But renewable energy carries its own cargo of environmental concerns, as
witnessed in Monticello, where there are worries over the visual impact of giant
wind turbines on the incomparable landscape."What I find ironic
is that you rarely hear about the "visual impact" of piles of coal and
dust in Price, which in my opinion aren't all that beatiful. Nor do you
hear about the visual impact of strip mines upon Wyoming's "incomprable
landscape." Do oil rigs beautify the land?We as a society have
to decide what our poison is going to be to power our lights and fuel our
transportation (including alternative-fuel vehicles): Ugly solar panels and
windmills that prodce clean, price stable energy -- or ugly, WATER-POLLUTING and
SMELLY fossil fuel facilities that produce CANCER-CAUSING and PRICE-VOLATILE
energy ($4 gas anyone?). People too quickly forget the recent
nuclear disasters at Fukushima and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that were
not only environmental disasters, but also economic disasters that in Japan has
rendered real estate as uninhabitable for time and eternity, and in the Gulf,
has devistated fishing and tourism. Renewable energy eliminates those disaster
I agree that as of right now we need a balanced approach to US energy, but to
compare environmental hazards of wind farms with fracking is laughable. Wind
farms produce a visual impediment to the landscape but that’s it.
Fracking makes land and water resources toxic and unusable. In the quest for
energy I will take wind farms in the scenery over toxic cancer causing water
caused by fracking any day. Yes at the moment we need oil and coal but we
should be doing everything we can to move away from these diminishing resources.
"The truth is that wind and solar are not viable without continuous taxpayer
subsidies. Furthermore, fossil fuels paid over $10 billion in taxes in 2009
while wind and solar are heavily subsidized. "The reality is
that the oil and gas industry is the most heavily subsidized energy source
ever.The amount of money that we spend militarily to insure that we
have access to cheaper middle east oil is exponentially more than what is thrown
at wind and solar.When the true cost of foreign oil is factored in,
wind and solar very viable options.
Re: "Fracking makes land and water resources toxic and unusable."Hmmmmm. People all across the US -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, West
Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New
Mexico, California, Arizona, and, of course, Utah -- will be greatly surprised
to hear that.We're already "fracking," in all those
states, many thousands of feet below their homes, schools, farms, ranches, and
businesses, with not a single incident proven to have fouled waters or lands. A
lot of ambulance chasers and tree huggers making wild accusations, to be sure,
but no proven claims.This sorely-needed "drill, baby, drill"
action somehow sneaked by Obama regulators, and has been an unmitigated American
success story -- cleanly and efficiently dropping natural gas prices to
unprecedented lows, and assuring a 150-year supply.It has been such
an unvarnished boon to the Nation -- probably the largest single factor keeping
us out of a depression -- it's no wonder liberals hate it.
Get back to us when 50% of our nation's energy come from sustainables then.
Then we'll be balanced.
A balanced approach is what we need. It is not what we'll have, until the
cost of fossil fuels forces us to. And that's going to hurt, because
we'll be trying to get a balanced energy policy in place way after we
Fact: Government has little if any control over the giant corporations that
control the world oil.
Mitt Romney wants to promote coal as a central part of his energy policy. He
talks about "clean coal" which is an oxymoron since coal is certainly
not clean and the by-products of burning it are toxic. Sulfer oxides combine
with water to create acid. Probably the only way coal can be used to create
energy in power plants is to have a very heavy investment in scrubber technology
to remove the pollutants before they get into the air. This is
expensive and the industry doesn't want either the regulations restricting
use or requiring adherence to clean air standards. It may be assumed that
Romney wants to eliminate these regulations and gut clean air standards so
profits remain high and coal company executives get what they want.Also, along with removing regulations necessary for maintaining clean air
quality, there is the request by management to eliminate safety standards as
much as possible so more coal can be mine with greater efficiency.Having coal as a central feature of American energy policy is a move to set us
back over 100 years in environmental and safety achievement. Better to have the
emphasis on a safer and cleaner resource.
I hope the conservatives don't actually think that the laws of physics will
be at all effected by the ardor of their dialog. If we keep warming the planet,
whatever the laws of physics dictate will be the result.
An excellent book is Thunder on the Mountain by Peter Galuszka.Did
you know that more than half the coal mined in this country is shipped to China,
India, and other developing nations? Did you know that many of our coal mines
are now owned by foreign companies and investors? Have you seen or heard
anything about a practice called "Mountaintop Removal?"And
if Mitt is elected, will we have more of those secret meetings with energy
company executives to set up our nation's energy policies?
Of the renewable forms of energy, only hydro-electric and geothermal are ready
for 'prime time'. Wind Power is close and solar has made progress and
continues to make progress.Its good that we pursue all forms,
because (probably) though trying, wind and solar will cross the line into being
for prime time in due time.
What a brave, brave editorial. So full of strong opinions -- sharp insights. It
reminds me of the generic cornflakes I had for breakfast, washed down by a glass
of lukwarm tap water.
Who will Mitt be meeting with in secret to form our energy policies if
we're unlucky enough to have him take the White House?
Actually if imported oil were taxed sufficient to pay the portion of the
military required to defend our oil interests, wind and solar power would
probably be quite competitive right now.