BCT Editorial – 1/22/06

This page was last updated on January 23, 2006.

Oil rush; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 22, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans are going to rue their collective decision to opt for cheap oil instead of pursuing energy conservation and alternative energy sources in the ‘80s and ‘90s.”

[RWC] It’s ridiculous to claim Americans haven’t employed energy conservation. Indeed, I feel it’s fair to assert most Americans employed conservation when it made economic sense. For example, it makes economic sense to invest $1 to save $2 of energy costs. What the editorial is talking about is uneconomic energy conservation. For example, no one in their right mind will spend $2 in investments and/or other expenses to save $1 of energy or to buy $1 of energy from alternative sources.

“Take a look around the world.

“If Iran gets hit with international sanctions, it could very well retaliate by cutting off its oil. While that would cripple its economy, it also would impact the world economy as well.

“Iraqi oil production is nowhere near what it was prior to its invasion and occupation by the Bush administration and still has a long way to go. Saudi Arabia could be ground zero when it comes to Muslim extremists gaining power, which would in turn threaten other oil-producing nations in the Gulf region.”

[RWC] The Bush administration isn’t occupying Iraq. The last I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation. For those who insist there’s an occupation, however, it would be a U.S. occupation because we’re all in this together.

“In Nigeria, the fifth biggest source of U.S. oil imports, militants are targeting oil installations. And down Venezuela way, President Hugo Chavez could shut off oil exports to the United States because, well, just because.

“In the midst of all this uncertainly, China and India are gobbling up energy at a pace that is putting enormous pressure on world markets where supply is definitely not keeping up with demand.

“The United States would have been in a better position to deal with these uncertainties if it had conserved and innovated in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Instead, it opted for cheap oil. The day of reckoning might be much sooner than many people expect.”

[RWC] Here are some observations.

First, you’ll note the editorial never once mentions increasing our supply of energy. Indeed, Times editorials tend to assert increasing oil production would be a fruitless effort.

Second, the editorial appears to promote the absurd idea that conservation can fuel the energy needs of a growing economy.

Third, the editorial appears to ignore the fact that the energy market is a worldwide market. That is, even if the U.S. could supply a growing economy’s energy needs via conservation, other countries would suck up that energy and we’d still be at square one.

Fourth, where are the examples of the Times using less energy? When the paper decided to publish seven days per week instead of six a few years ago, did that result in reduced energy consumption? What about switching from manual typewriters to electric typewriters to computers? While the Times appears enamored of hybrid vehicles, none of the paper’s cars I’ve seen in the area are hybrids.

Fifth, a lot of the roadblocks to increased domestic energy production from alternative sources are the result of folks on the same end of the economic, political, and social spectrum as the Times. Liberal groups not only oppose increased domestic oil and gas exploration and production, they also come up with reasons to oppose coal power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, et cetera.

Don’t get me wrong. I would dearly love for the U.S. to be energy self-sufficient. The problem is this. Any road to energy independence that ignores the worldwide energy market will kill the U.S. economy.