BCT Editorial – 8/10/06

This page was last updated on August 13, 2006.

What if; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 10, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If the United States had an energy policy, the closing of the Alaskan pipeline would not have mattered.”

[RWC] The U.S. does have an energy policy. It’s called the free market, though the government encouraged by people like the editorial author has thrown up roadblocks. Alternative forms of energy are useful only when they are economically viable. We could drastically cut oil and gas consumption in a relatively short period of time. Doing so, however, would mean the energy cost borne by the U.S. economy would be much higher than that of the rest of the world. As a result, our economy would collapse because we would no longer be cost competitive with the rest of the world.

Lest we forget, the Times fully supports the decade plus ban on new production from domestic sources. Stopping new production is what the Times considers “an energy policy.” This “policy” guarantees a growing dependence on foreign oil as existing domestic production gradually drops.

Let’s also remember who represents the biggest impediment to a viable “energy policy.” It’s the Times’ pals on the left. Whether it’s coal, gas, hydroelectric, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, et cetera, liberals constantly come up with roadblocks. In the liberal world, only reduced consumption qualifies as an acceptable policy. As a note, don’t believe it when a liberal tells you he has an acceptable form of alternative energy. Whenever an “acceptable” alternative form of energy gets anywhere near becoming a reality, it suddenly moves to the unacceptable list. Remember how wind power was the darling? As soon as it became even semi-practical, wind power was deemed to be an eyesore and a bird killer and thus unacceptable.

And what about hydroelectric power? Though it is fairly cheap, its production has been decreasing for about 10 years. Why? We’re told it hurts some fish.

“As it is, BP’s replacement of 22 miles of line at Prudhoe Bay means about 2.6 percent of the nation’s daily supply, or 400,000 barrels a day. The shutoff drove up the price of a barrel of oil and gasoline futures.”

[RWC] The reduction is now “only” 200 MBPD (1.3%) after further inspection of the pipelines revealed some were safe for continued use.

“Do all the finger pointing you want, but what if our nation had pursued alternative energy sources, what if the federal government had imposed higher gas mileage standards on cars and trucks, what if we as a people had been more energy efficient, what if we had seen our addiction to imported oil as the national security issue it is.”

[RWC] We have been pursuing alternative energy sources. I guess the editorial author hasn’t been paying attention. The problem isn’t the pursuit of alternative sources; it’s making them economically viable. By economically viable I mean they must be cost competitive with petroleum.

Here’s something for those math wizards at the Times to consider. If our oil consumption had been lower, the impact of losing 400 MBPD would have had a larger impact, not a smaller impact. For example, if our consumption were half of what it is, the impact of the loss would have been double what it is.

When the editorial asks “what if we as a people had been more energy efficient?”, it ignores the fact that we are more energy efficient than we were 30 years ago.

Who hasn’t seen “our addiction to imported oil as the national security issue it is?”

“What if.”

[RWC] True. What if the Times and its fellow travelers understood a viable energy policy consists of economic conservation, increased oil production, and increased production from economic alternative sources, not just blind conservation?

Regarding conservation, I haven’t noticed any “hybrid” and/or “diesel” labels on the Times cars I see driving around the area. What if, indeed.