The United States should strive for energy independence

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 22, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    @Midwest Mom:
    "and the proposed Keystone pipeline is mainly for exporting, although it is sold by certain politicos as a benefit to Americans."

    Because of fracking, the pipeline is probably no longer needed. But it was a mistake, at the time, not to want to build it.

    Exporting crude and refined products isn't such a bad thing. People will send us money for selling them the crude. If we didn't sell it, it would be sort of like having an oil embargo on the rest of the world. Politicians will make statements about bombing the US to go get "our" oil from them. People will start wars with us for "$20/ bbl oil" just like we did in Iraq.

    Of course, the thing is that everyone, everywhere is getting excited about fracking for oil. China will be self-sufficient, Australia will be self-sufficient, Argentina, etc. It is good, but it can also be massively bad.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 22, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    Suck it dry now, so in time of war we have none.

    As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as energy dependence, since it will be sold on the world market.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Nov. 22, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    I hope that we have learned the lesson of the Dust Bowl. Unregulated development might well lead to a similar ecosystem disaster if market driven greed is allowed to go unchecked. This may already be happening in the national gas industry with the "fracking" process. I see commercials on television everyday touting the safety of the procedure. But a good public relations campaign does not mean that the exraction process will not end up as an ecological disaster.

    But I agree with the central premise of the editorial. We must achieve energy independence, but without harm to the environment please.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    Patriots and his sky-falling-crowd lost because the basis of their arguments if mostly lies and fabrications. It is driven by hate based on who knows what. For example, the country we are most closely aligned in Latin American oil exploration is Brazil followed by Mexico - and evidently in Patriots world, Brazil and Mexico are run by a dictators. In Patriots world we gain more independence by importing oil from Canada, I am just not sure Canada is aware they are part of the US. Who knew? In Patriots world, gas is headed to $7 a gallon - not the $2.99 a gallon I bough on my drive to Florida for the long weekend. But hey, if the real answers don't match the narrative, make up your own seems to be the rule of the day.

    Another lie being told - Obama hates oil and is closing it down on Federal lands. The numbers don't lie. The last year of the Bush administration there were 566 million barrels produced. In the Romney quoted 2011 "down" year - 626 million barrels or our were produced from federal oil leases. Obama's worst year is better than most Bush years.

    Facts, not rhetoric.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 21, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    You know partiot give it a rest. Your ideas lost, they are old, hateful, non productive, and ignorant of reality.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 4:10 p.m.

    Sorry but our newly elected pres doesn't believe in energy independence. Not gonna happen. America will continue to buy inflated oil from South American dictators and our good Muslim brethren in the middle east ... also at inflated prices but who cares if gas prices go to $7 a gallon ... right? Oh and we will be shutting down our coal fired power plants too!! Remember that there is a war on coal. Yes energy independence - say good bye to that as well as all other forms of independence. The Obama motto is government DEPENDENCE!! Just remember in a year or two when energy prices are sky rocketing and Barack says its not his fault.. again. I guess dumb people will always believe.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:16 p.m.

    You wouldn't have to nationalize the oil industry like Iran and other nations did, by kicking out the foreign developers etc; you could simply place a well-computed export duty on oil drilled in the United States and its waters. This is wholly constutional and makes sense. Energy independence is within our grasp.

    Come on Congress! Do something for the American people; they will appreciate the novelty and it might catch on.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    Nov. 21, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    America can be energy self-sufficient. New technologies combined with American's vast resources of coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, untapped hydropower, and unconventional fuels like oil shale and oil sands can indeed make us independent of the whims of unstable socialist governments. That will eliminate the biggest part of our balance-of-trade deficit, lower the price of energy, and allow us to bring home more manufacturing jobs. America will once again be a nation of exporters with plenty of good jobs, allowing many of the 47% ers to cross-over to the tax-paying other side. A win-win for everyone.

  • Utah Dad Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    I'm surprised that this editorial made no mention of the most important way to achieve energy independence: to reduce energy consumption and energy waste through efficiency and conservation. It's completely win-win: lower energy costs for businesses and families, more money kept in consumers' pockets, less demand for environmentally damaging drilling and fracking, and reduced air pollution. Efficiency is an energy policy that Utah's conservative (same root as "conservation") lawmakers should be able to stand behind.

    Clean, renewable energy can also be produced domestically and is cost comparable with fossil fuels in many cases.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    Are you suggesting we "Nationalize" America's oil, and not sell it on the Global Market? (Liberal and blatantly Socialist I might add)

    Are you suggesting we develop more "Alternative, Green and Renewable Energy" sources? (Liberal)

    Are you suggesting we stop cow-towing and financially subsidizing big OIL and use those funds to invest and develop said new evergy independance? (again, Liberal)

    Are you suggesting we stop invading foregin countries to plunder their natural resources? (Liberal)

    Are you suggesting we do precisely what Pres. Obama has been persuing for the last 4 years and have been stone-walled and obstructed by Republicans daily so theie acheieve their #1 goal and hope "He Fails"?

    The election is hardly 2 weeks over, and it appears since their man in the ring didn't win, now the Deseret News is finally coming around to their senses?

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    Pragmatist4Life is absolutely right. The US actually produced more oil than it consumed last year. So why weren't we energy independent? Because the US government doesn't own BP, Exxon or any other big oil company. So that oil ended up in Canada, China, S America or wherever it will be sold for the most $$$. Barring a fixed energy source like hydroelectric, geothermal solar or wind, where the energy can't be transferred to another location or a government takeover of the oil industry(which would be real socialism, not the hyperbole we hear about socialism) we can't be energy independent. However, We really need to be looking more into natural gas as a bridge to true renewable energy. Most people have a gas line running to their house, for a few thousand $$$ you can fuel your car at home. It's much cleaner than petroleum. It's less corrosive to car engines and we have way more natural gas than oil in america, so it's cheaper.

  • @dollarsandtanks Prince George's County, MD
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    Critics don't say the US won't reach energy independence because of increasing demand, they say the US can't achieve energy independence because the market for energy is global. So even when the US becomes the top energy producer as predicted by the recent World Energy Outlook, it won't be completely shielded by fluctuations in energy prices because of how the commodities are traded. Leaders from both parties who talk about "energy independence" are misleading their audience.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    Let me see if I have this straight- we are the brokest nation in the history of the world. 16 trillion in debt and spending more than 1 trillion more than revenue every year. And we can't generate any revenue by leasing some Federal land for drilling in Utah? Forward to the abyss. btw- Ken Salazar should be ashamed to put on his cowboy hat or did the cowboy hat become the Sierra Clubs headwear of choice?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    No blood for oil.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    Congrats DNEWS for projecting a rational thought that you won't find I. The NYT or SLLIB

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    Energy independence for the US is a good idea. However, there are some things to keep in mind. First, it won't make petroleum any cheaper, or gasoline. It's still a world commodity. In fact the high price helps exploration. Also, it won't last. The resources aren't there to sustain that kind of production over the long term. And it has a cost beyond dollars. Drill baby cannot be practicial in a nimby or banana (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) world.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    Had Reagan not ended Carter's energy policy, the US would be much closer to energy independence. What a foolish move, for nothing more than party politics instead of what was practical.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    Almost by definition to be enrgy independent we have to be producing energy that can't be used anywhere else, or we have to nationalize the energy that can be sold on open markets. The alternative..always be the highest bidder.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    Yes, but let's do it safely, wisely and without destroying the priceless places in Utah.

    And let's be sure it includes a wide variety of renewable and sustainable energy sources. Let's be sure it includes research and development aimed at seeking newer and more efficient methods of providing renewables and sustainables.

    Let's not, above all, place all our eggs in the basket of coal, oil and natural gas.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Nov. 21, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    There's no guarantee that energy mined and produced in this country will stay in this country. We alrady produce enough oil, and the proposed Keystone pipeline is mainly for exporting, although it is sold by certain politicos as a benefit to Americans.

    If we truly want to be energy self-sufficient, we need to work towards all the clean energy options.

    For example: a river runs through our area. Years ago, a coop provided electricity on this river, via a small dam. The dam is still there, but it produces nothing because a large utility was able to finagle being the sole electric provider. Now our electricity comes from coal.

    Cleaner, self-sufficient energy comes from local solutions, not one-size fits all.