Energy independence -- key to saving the US economy

By Joseph Pecar

Financial Bailout versus Foreign Oil Dependence — Which matters most?

Perhaps there is a valuable lesson from the coincidence that the 700 billion dollar expenditure for a supposedly "one-time" Wall Street bailout happens to be exactly the same astronomical figure as the "per-year" cost of importing oil — actions that each year transfer 700 billion US dollars to the coffers of a small group of authoritarian oil-producing nations, most of whom are unfriendly to the West?

What the coincidence calls attention to is the fact that while there are two equally perilous economical catastrophes to deal with — perhaps having fallen victim to some kind of new math — our Congressmen and Senators seem to only have eyes for one. How else can one explain why they view expending $700 billion "bailout" dollars, a crisis justifying around-the-clock, urgent and immediate Congressional sessions, while just a month ago, they shut off the lights in Congress and left town — ignoring the fact that our energy crisis might be "N-times" as costly?

Here, of course, "N" equals the number of years we are forced to buy foreign oil. It's an inarguable fact that the reason we are compelled to buy foreign oil is not because we lack proven US resources (see below). Rather it is solely because our liberal Democratic-controlled Congress cavalierly chooses to ban — as opposed to facilitating — domestic oil production and refinement.

There can be only two explanations for this. Either liberal Democrats, are 1) ignorant or unaware of the devastation continued massive importation of foreign oil will wreak on our economy, or 2) they recognize the peril but have utterly no concern for the harm such bans inflict on our economy — a position that can rightly only be labeled "anti-America."

Continued foreign oil dependence will destroy the US economy

The looming harm to our Country was made clear to all our legislators in recent congressional testimony, when energy-researcher Gal Luft noted that should oil reach $200 a barrel, OPEC could "potentially buy the Bank of America in one month, Apple Computer in a week and General Motors in just three days." A 20 percent share of every S&P; 500 company could be theirs in just 18 months. How can anyone be so callous as to permit such an obscene and completely avoidable ruination of the most powerful, the most productive and the freest nation the world has ever known?

To say, "America is addicted to oil" is as misleading a statement as saying "human beings are addicted to breathing air." The plain truth is that in terms of our current moving-vehicle technology, (trucks, airplanes, buses, earth movers, farm tractors, harvesting equipment, cranes, port loading and unloading equipment, etc., etc.), there are no near-term alternatives to gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or jet fuels — whether obtained directly — or derived from coal, shale, and other means.

Alternative energy development depends critically on a strong US economy

The need for and use of oil and gas in the near-term in no way implies we cannot be world leaders in developing alternative energy sources, and practical, efficient, non-polluting methods of generation for both stationary and vehicular use. But to accomplish this in a propitious and timely fashion, we must have a strong, robust and resilient economy — not one hampered by cripplingly foreign-oil costs.

So for liberal politicians to gratuitously call only for lofty, long-range energy projects that might reach fruition in 20 years, while ignoring the incredibly high-stakes risk of not ensuring access to our domestic oil in the interim, is the height of childish, uninformed, inexcusable irresponsibility which not only dooms our economy, but also undermines our nation's ability to protect us in an ever more dangerous world from Islamofacist terrorists and rogue nations that support them.

Recall that liberal politicians in arguing against accelerated domestic oil production often make the claim that such actions will have little effect on the "cost-per-gallon of gas" while not citing a scintilla of evidence that this is true. What is quite clear is there are really only two possibilities, either the cost-per-gallon will be reduced by increased American production — or not.

If the cost-per-gallon does decrease, that justifies increasing domestic production. If domestic production does not decrease the cost-per-gallon, then converting the United States from an importer of foreign oil to and exporter of US oil allows us not only to satisfy our own requirements — keeping American dollars in America — it also places us in a position to share in the revenues high worldwide prices make possible. Either way, increasing domestic oil production is guaranteed to be a win-win option.

Domestic oil production reduces Environmental hazards

Liberal politicians also like to give credence to environmentalist hues and cries that claim oil fuels pollute the environment. But once one agrees that a United States without access to oil-based fuels over the next twenty years would destroy the economy and is therefore untenable, it is clear that possibly deleterious environmental effects of "burning" oil-based fuels to power our vehicles — whether that oil is foreign or ours — are identical. However, there is a definite environmental advantage of employing US-based production and shipping of oil since in that case we can then better control those processes and consequently reduce the likelihood of oil-spills and other accidents.

While in this Country, transportation is often labeled as the prime contributor of greenhouse gases, most people are surprised to learn that even with today's 250 million vehicles (100 million trucks), livestock remains one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems — generating even more global warming gases than all our transportation vehicles combined.

More pointedly, Rod Hunter in a July 8, 2008 Wall Street Journal article observes that "In New York at the end of the 19th century, horses were the main form of transport — and a major source of pollution. As many as 200,000 horses each produced 15 to 35 pounds of manure per day. Manure piles along the roads and in stables produced vast numbers of flies, an important factor for infectious diseases such as typhoid fever. Horses became increasingly expensive, thanks to rising prices for hay, oats and the urban land required for stables." Thus, for the immediate future, it might do well to challenge gas and diesel powered vehicle naysayers, to instead of finding fault, to define a better alternative — one that does not kill the economy.

What about "worldwide energy shortage" alarmists?

There is mounting, proven evidence that the US — and indeed the world — has an abundance of energy to power future growth. Lawrence Solomon in his July 12, 2008 article in the Financial Post states, "Never before in human history has energy been accessible in greater abundance and in more regions, never before has mankind had more energy options and faced a brighter energy future. Take oil, the scarcest of the major energy commodities. In the Americas, proven oil reserves have increased from 170 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels over the last two decades, according to the 2008 Statistical World Review from British Petroleum. . . .

"But this is still not the end of it. Unconventional oil reserves are now in play. In 2005, the Rand Corporation estimated that the oil shale in America's Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias."

Beyond these citations, the U.S. Geological Survey just published its report on what is known as the Bakken Oil Formation (an area that stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan) that is now being hailed as the single largest oil find in US history.

A prιcis of things to come

Today's nearly total and absolute worldwide dependence on oil and other conventional fossils fuels will virtually vanish with the advent of fuel-cell, hydrogen, natural gas, battery powered and hybrid vehicles, and solar, wind, hydro/tidal, geothermal, nuclear and other alternative energy sources become available. At that point, perhaps in as few as twenty years, the need for and value of vast middle-eastern oil reserves will virtually vanish and the unparalleled wealth accumulation by middle-eastern countries will come to an abrupt end.

The crucial question is, will an inability in the interim to supply our oil needs domestically enable foreigners to buy up the bulk of America's industrial capability and virtually control the US economy? Can there be any higher priority for Congress and the Administration to address? Can there be any higher criteria guiding voters in November?

At the bottom line, there is no justifiable reason now, nor has there ever been, for Congress to ban or limit recovery and refinement of US domestic oil, and we must urgently get on with doing just that if we want to preserve the viability of the American economy and the American way of life that up to now is the envy of the world!

© Joseph Pecar