Balanced approach to energy policy is needed

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 7:19 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    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?

  • mp558 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    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?

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Oct. 18, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 10:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultrabob403 Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    Fact: Government has little if any control over the giant corporations that control the world oil.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    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 needed it.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    Get back to us when 50% of our nation's energy come from sustainables then. Then we'll be balanced.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 17, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    "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.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    "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 risks.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 5:06 a.m.

    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.