This page was last updated on May 18, 2011.
Energy costs; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 18, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“In the stare-off over the nation’s energy policy, or the lack thereof, President Barack Obama blinked first.”
[RWC] As you read this editorial, keep in mind the Times is on record opposing all energy sources currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy.
“Last weekend, the president announced he was taking steps to speed up oil and natural gas drilling on public lands and offshore waters.”
[RWC] The editorial failed to note this is Mr. Obama’s second “bite of the apple” on this topic. Mr. Obama made a similar announcement last year just before the Deepwater Horizon accident then revoked it after the accident.
“The reason was basic politics: Rising energy costs, especially the price of gasoline, which is now more than $4 a gallon, have people upset, and they tend to take their anger out in the next election on the party in power.
“In making this announcement, Obama appeared to be doing something. Never mind that these changes won’t meet the nation’s short-term energy needs (or long-term ones, either); that prices are being driven by speculation and consumption; that Americans believe cheap energy is a constitutional right; that the GOP’s ‘drill baby, drill’ approach is smart politics but horrible energy and environmental policy.”
[RWC] The editorial appears to imply those of us who support development of oil and natural gas resources claim it will “meet the nation’s short-term energy needs (or long-term ones, either).” To the best of my knowledge, no credible person made that claim. This is a straw man; that is, the Times set up a false position to attack. This is a tactic people use when they know facts and logic are not on their side.
The editorial also appears to imply those of us who support “drill, baby, drill” believe that will solve our energy challenges. As I’ve written before, I think most of us believe we should exploit all economically and technically viable energy sources. This is not the position of the Times and most other leftists most of the time.
In the flip-flopping category, in May 2008 the Times asserted, “The United States does need to step up domestic production.”
“It’s the illusion that counts.
“But illusions are not an enegy [sic] policy.
[RWC] In case you’re not aware, “energy policy” is leftyspeak for policies that discourage production/use of conventional economically and technically viable energy sources (coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, oil) but subsidize energy sources (usually called “green”) not yet economically and/or technically viable.
“And while it’s easy to blame politicians, the fault lies with us because Americans are unwilling to make the changes in their lifestyles to meet this energy challenge.”
[RWC] To do its part, I wonder when we’ll see the Times go back to the days when boys and girls delivered the newspaper on foot or on a bicycle as I did.
“The present situation is nothing new. Prices of crude oil and gasoline have gone up and down many times.
“Each time they skyrocket, Americans get energy religion. We form car pools, use mass transit, buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive fewer miles. We swear that we’ve learned our lesson, that we’ve sobered up.
“And each time prices drop, we lose our faith in these measures and resort to our energy-guzzling old ways.
“The real costs are the ones that we as a [sic] individuals and a country are paying because we refuse to take the steps that are necessary to diffuse the situation.”
[RWC] This is correct, but “the steps that are necessary to diffuse the situation” aren’t the ones the Times is trying to sell.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.