The left-driven Democrat party will, early next week, ‘push’ through a bill (one of the few of this pathetic “majority” party). This bill should be exposed for what it is- not an “Energy Bill” but an “Energy Wish List”. Despite the laws of thermodynamics, the far left still believes that you can insert the words “alternative” and “clean” next to the word “energy” and- “POOF!”, we will have what we need, the world will be clean, and everyone will be happy!

The first thing one should note about the energy bill is that it has little to do with actually achieving realistic energy creation on a massive scale. More accurately, their proposal sounds like a pie in the sky approach to a massive problem.

The first part of the bill worth noting is the CAFE standards. The left keeps insisting that higher mileage automobiles will help make us energy independent. Aside from the numerous holes one could poke in that theory, the most important point one could make is that even by achieving these standards, we do nothing, nothing, to make this Country “independent”. All this will do is kick the can down the road.

Energy Independence means you produce your own, not that you use less of what is provided by others.

Considering the “visions” of the far left, the cynical side of me says these higher CAFE standards are more likely intended to punish auto manufacturers by making their product cost far more than it does now; and in turn, this will promote a fertile ground for mass transit bills on a federal scale.

With raising the CAFE standards, what the left does is create the illusion of “saving” energy, while in fact, it will do next to nothing to help us achieve that elusive word, “independence”. To extend this point out, imagine what happens in say, 25 years from now. The left will want cars to achieve 70mpg??? Is that possible? No, it is not. Not unless you want 0-60 in just under 4 miles, eliminate hills, and don’t ever intend on having a car as large as a Yugo, let alone, carry a passenger.

The “energy” bill proposes support for ‘alternative’ fuels. Essentially, what the left envisions is an energy source that has nearly zero impact on the planet. The closest thing we have to that on a massive and practical scale is nuclear, but we all know that is not anywhere on the horizon while leftist environmentalists are around to throw their tantrums.

So that leaves us with ethanol, biofuel, solar, and wind. Clean, “renewable” (this is a misleading term in this case), and earth friendly, right?

The last time we thought we had a clean, renewable, and earth friendly source of energy, we built a several hundred dams. The wonderful clean renewable hydroelectric source had an unforeseen effect on nature, most notably fish runs, but also on downstream wildlife that relied on flooding, erosion, and sedimentary factors. What are the potential effects of wind and bio energy?

Biofuel/ethanol seems harmless enough, right? Food into fuel! But wait… we already are hearing the cries of others on the left, about how absurd it is to make food into fuel when much of the world starves. And imagine the need for fertilization, in a world that gets its energy from say, corn. Isn’t fertilizer one of the killers of the streams, rivers, and oceanic continental shelf life?

So this somewhat lofty idea, supported by the left, is also threatened, by others on the left. So much for ‘harmless’ energy.

Strike ONE.

“What about wind and solar power!”

Wind and solar power seems harmless enough. Nice and squeaky clean, quiet, “renewable” (there’s that misleading word again!). But, wait… they have tried for over 6 years to get a wind farm off of Nantucket amidst the screams of rich ninnies and leftist groups (including Ted Kennedy) that the turbines will ruin the “view” of the ocean. That is right, the “view” is more important than energy independence. “I am all for energy independence, but not in my backyard” seems to be the mantra with both wind and solar, which would have similar footprint issues.

Even beyond those issues of “aesthetics”, honestly, you have an unknown effect on the environment when you start talking about carpeting the desert with solar panels or poking thousands to tens of thousands of turbine towers into the ocean. You think the ‘wildlife freaks’ are out of their minds about foresting? Just wait until you start creating false reefs with thousands of ocean bound wind turbines; or California Condor populations (and other birds) are threatened with an increase of 100 fold of wind turbines in that State. Imagine the hooplah about desert life being disturbed by hundreds of thousands or even millions of Solar panels. The desert is like the arctic… it takes years and years to adjust, show the problem, and then recovery takes even longer.

Do you think we can gain large amounts of energy resources there without an enormous fight from the left???

So, Strike TWO.

This bill clearly does not address increasing funding or putting effort into developing cleaner coal based energy, a resource our Country has a bounty of. Nor does it address trying to continue down a path towards drilling in ANWAR.

Again, like the “view” in Nantucket, independence on foreign oil is related to something like preserving caribou in a place no men ever even trod. And of course, again, the Democrats put their ideological objections to Nuclear in front of freedom from foreign energy dependence.

The long and short of it is, there really is NO energy source on this planet that will have zero effect on our environment. This is something that far lefties do not realize. They think you can take grease from a restaurant deep fryer and save the planet by turning it into fuel for one truck. Some of these same people think “Why don’t we have more electric cars? I mean, electricity comes from the wall socket. It is clean.”

Back to the laws of thermodynamics… trying to get something for nothing… “ain’t gonna work”.

The “Energy Bill” is nothing more than a proposal of pipe dreams, which do not move us closer to energy independence.

Strike THREE.

How sad is it that this Country would be held hostage between radical Islam controlling a large part of the world’s oil resources, and radical American leftists controlling the ability for America to become energy independent. I mean, which side is worse? One side is the enemy; the other side is supposed to be on OUR side. Yet they (the left) can’t see past a harbor seal or a bird, when it comes to saving a Country from evil from without. Incredibly sad and shortsighted.

What this Country needs is a comprehensive energy policy and mandate, much like we had in the Cold War with the “Space Race”. Kennedy had the insight to know that beating Russia to the moon held the promise of defeating them militarily concerning the missile race. THIS Country now needs to recognize that a race for Nuclear Fusion is at our feet, as a challenge. If we can race to the moon in 10 years, we can perfect Nuclear energies to the point where they are nearly harmless to the environment or the safety of mankind.

 

It is time for the President to make such a speech, and mandate, for the development of THIS nations resources, in spite of the left. It is time for a Nuclear program on a par with the Moon Program of the 60’s. It is time for leadership.

 

It is time that we realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy. Not yet, as long as our source of energy is generated on this planet. And until this Country realizes that NEW energy is the only path to independence, we will be slaves both to the environmentalist left, and the radical Middle East.

Energy production and independence needs to become a “top five” issue for the Republican party. As long as we are slaves to oil from the Middle East, we are not free.

The left needs to realize that until we find such a source, their objections to the fuels that are available to us have to stop standing in the way of achieving our goals.

Otherwise, THEY are the enemy of this Country.