BCT Editorial – 2/27/11

The editorial opines, “Increased domestic drilling, including offshore, isn’t the answer.  Neither is tapping into the country’s natural gas fields, which is a short- to medium-term solution at best.  Coal has many more costs, especially environmental, than it does benefits.  We can reduce, but not eliminate, our reliance on carbon-based energy through conservation and the development and expansion of renewable energy and other alternative fuel sources.”

This topic, like the Times smoke-in-the-wind “position” on debt and deficit spending, will give you whiplash if you’re paying attention.  You may recall in “Digging deep” the Times supported drilling for natural gas in the “Marcellus shale formations.”

Regarding the comment about coal, shouldn’t the Times call for a halt to U.S. coal exports?  After all, if coal is dangerous to the environment, why would we discourage our use of coal while exporting it so other countries can poison our air and hurt our economy via using cheaper energy than we?  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we exported 61 million tons of coal to at least 43 countries in 2010, a 47% increase over 2009.

To the broader topic of “development and expansion of renewable energy and other alternative fuel sources,” are there technologically and economically equivalent alternative sources of energy I haven’t heard of that can replace “carbon-based energy” (oil and gas also contain hydrogen) for fueling our vehicles, heating our homes, generating electricity, et cetera in the amounts needed?  Are they even on the near horizon?  If not, why should we not stick with the most economically efficient energy sources currently available until something better comes along?  If they exist, why didn’t the editorial tell us which of these alternatives the Times uses?  I didn’t forget about nuclear power, but a review of Times editorials shows it doesn’t like nuclear power plants either.  As I’ve noted before, you can identify leftist approved energy sources because they are not currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy.

Finally, did you note the editorial didn’t say anything about letting the marketplace address the issue?