About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

A Climate Change We All Can't Believe In

 

Here's a "burning" question Americans should be asking themselves: "How has climate change affected me?"  Am I choking? Boiling? Freezing? Sneezing? Sweating? Gasping? Coughing? Aching? Allergic? Paranoid? Fearful? Anything at all?

So why even consider it? Who amongst ourselves is actually aware of anything strange about the climate?

 

Does your air smell funny...or seem any different? Have you noticed anyone in public wheezing for their lives? Does anything-- anything at all-- seem altered about the weather? Is our children's growth being stunted; or our pets dying prematurely...or are our houses being flooded by rising sea levels?

 

Today climate change is being blamed for everything from drought in California to late delivery of the mail. But seriously, if we weren't constantly exposed to the ominous drumbeat of global warming, we wouldn't give climate change so much as a sniff-- or a wink.

Dangerous powerful storms, drought, melting glaciers, dying polar bears, calamitous tornadoes, apocalyptic hurricanes, tsunamies in the Far East, and anything hinting of catastrophe--all have been ascribed to the fallacy of climate change.

 

About the only things that have been left out are volcanic eruptions, and plagues of locusts.

 

Meanwhile back in Washington, the Obama administration is taking a new tack concerning the so called danger from climate change. It's now being melded into America's "newly revamped" policy of our national security.

 

Yes folks you heard correctly; climate change poses a threat to our national security. Oh my golly!

 

And how's this for their reasoning: A strategic studies report from the Institute for Public Research states..."the rise in sea levels is hugely important for the Navy, as it effects the use of beaches, piers and "facilities".

 

Yes indeed, Americans can sleep well, knowing that the Navy is in the process of dealing with the dreaded threat that climate change poses to our beaches and piers.

 

The Obama administration feels it's necessary to make a 180 from the previous administration, and has decided that it's imperitive to develop "21st-century" procedures to deal with the challenges of climate change--worlwide shortages and unprecedented migrations of adversely affected nations -- leading  to violent clashes and world war horror.

 

Quite a stretch. 

So forget al-Quida; forget nuclear proliferation-- future wars will be caused by migration of besieged refugee nations, fleeing from the torments of climate change.


Such absurdity!

 
But for Barack Obama, obfuscating reality comes naturally . His climate change assumption reeks of fallacy-- that Americans must learn to think differently about national security--and that we have no other choices.

 

Obviously, the handwriting's on the wall. It can be read a mile away. Obama is going to use climate change to alter everything toward his marxist way of thinking. This includes downsizing the military; wresting control of the economy; attacking the private sector with environmental regulations, and going after every entity that uses energy--which encompasses everyone.

It's Barack Obama's personal vendetta -the war on the status quo! And it could end up as the most costly war of all time. Higher energy bills; higher food prices; 6 dollar/gallon gasoline; the destruction of heavy industry-- etcetera ad nauseum.

But ironically, the real threat to our national security may be the very thing Obama is proposing to alleviate climate change --the refusal to drill offshore --and the rising tide of importing more and more OPEC oil.

From virtual nowhere comes Obama, and his condemnation of all fossil fuels, inviting disastrous future energy shortages, including the precise kind of energy truly vital to our national security...oil. So now America's ticket has been punched: we're on our way to the wondrous world of alternative green energy --and damning demon petroleum.

On paper, Mr. Obama's ideas sound great. Obama will clean the planet; he'll curb the rise in the oceans. He'll create 5 million new green collar jobs that can't be outsourced; and no more so-called "dirty oil". 

 

Thunderation! Holy Moses! Let the Red Sea part-- Obama is about to lead the U.S.out of its 40 year plague from OPEC! But unfortunately, it's all fictional. But fiction has great political box office appeal these days to many Americans, who naively believe we could abandon oil, and move to alternative sources without missing a beat.


Yes Mr Obama; he makes it all sound so very easy.

But retooling America's energy infrastructure is far more complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousands—a total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle, and business in the country--let alone the military implications.

 

And Commander in chief Obama is poised for take off. He wants to launch a 150 billion energy plan, and free our nation of foreign oil in ten years. But what kind of calendar is Mr. Obama going by? In ten years, because of his ban on drilling, the U.S. could be importing 90% of its oil.

Obama is anti-oil, anti-nuclear, AND anti coal! So lets dub him as the anti-president.

So
where would all these anti-energy policies of our beloved anti-president put us in five or ten years? It could leave us without a viable energy supply for this entire 21st century!  95% of our nation's transportation needs are currently met by fossil fuels. And despite the environmental protests to the contrary, oil and gasoline will be around for the next 50-100 years.

 
Or does the anti-president have some miraculous new energy source in mind? We need gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel to run our nation's cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, and fighter planes. 

 

Mr Obama's proposing a blue sky energy fairytale that could jeorpardize our nation-- a national security crisis during an emergency-- leaving our strategic petroleum reserve at near zero capacity, and a vulnerability to critical unforeseen events, such as a flash outbreak of war in the Middle East. 

 

This is the real danger to our national security-- not this patently absurd, so called threat of climate change.

We are a nation that runs on oil; and a country that runs on oil can't afford to run out.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Got Global Warming? It's Dr. Chu to the rescue!


 

Note to Mr. Obama: Your buddy, Tim Geithner, is more than an embarrassment; he's a scofflaw. His offense is not civil, but criminal in nature. It's that "intent" thing--  like deliberately trying to avoid paying self employment taxes for FOUR years.

Obama claimed it was, "Just a memory lapse...a "common' mistake...and "that shouldn’t bar the Senate from confirming him".

But in saying this-- is Obama embarrassing himself? Didn't he maintain during his campaign that his administration would be the most 'transparent" in history?

And treasury Secretary nominee-designate Geithner has also been deemed, by an-eager to-confirm-Congress, also as being no embarrassment. "Just a few hiccups," said majority Senate leader Harry Reid. So despite his obvious sin, looks like ol' Timothy is in for treasury czar.


OK now, who's next for confirmation? Apparently it's for the Dept of Energy... "Calling the renowned Dr Stephen Chu! You're wanted by president Obama to appear in front of the senate energy committee for confirmation"!

 
 
But the "renowned" scientist Chu, may himself be an embarrassment--an embarrassment to the intelligence of energy scientists and physicists around the world. Dr. Chu last September stated that, "somehow we have to figure out how to get the price  of gasoline in the US  to the level of that in Europe". In April of 2007,  Dr. Chu, at a presentation at the University of California at Berkeley, stated that, "Coal is my worst nightmare".

Presently, coal represents almost 66% of our electricity production, and its use as a cheaper alternative than natural gas is re-surging. But evidently, the dreaded thoughts of coal have caused the renowned  Dr. Chu to experience even more unsettling bad dreams ...(quote) "The abundance of coal in the U.S. means we won't run out of energy, but it represents enough carbon in the ground to really cook us". Hows that sound-- OUR energy secretary... our proposed energy czar, can't sleep because of his coal nightmares.

But rest easy fellow Americans; Dr. Chu has some interesting cures for his global warming  paranoia; and in the future, every time we go to raise our thermostats, or fill up at the pump, it's us who'll be having the nightmares! This man intends to use science in place of practicality and common sense. He seeks not what's best for America, but what he deems will be best for the environment-- reducing consumption by raising energy prices.

Dr. Chu is about as diehard a global warmonger as anyone you can think of. And our green obsessed new president is right alongside with him about saving the planet; turning back the oceans; and stopping the biblical like apocalypse of mankind burning up the planet with fossil fuels.

Yes president Obama...you've made a great choice for our new energy secretary; right at a time when Dr. Chu's plan to reduce consumption of oil and electricity come when both energy prices and and consumption are falling, because of MARKET FORCES. And Dr. chu, exprimenting away in his shelter from the real world at his Livermore lab, probably thinks "Market Forces" is some hot new title on X-box.

Dr Chu is determined about his mission to turn plants into petroleum substitutes, and actually hopes to find (or engineer) better biofuel plants. Chu wants to develop processes for breaking down cellulose and transforming it into fuel, at costs "competitive" with gasoline. This would indeed be a huge breakthrough, replacing gasoline with cellulosic ethanol.

Just imagine how afraid OPEC must be right now....
 
 
scene: OPEC HEADQUARTERS

oil sheik #1; Hmmm, what are we going to do about this guy, Dr Chu? 

oil sheik# 2 : we've got to stop this madman.

oil sheik#3: this cellulose for fuel thing looks like it's the end of  the line for us.  Now we'll all have to get real jobs ...I hear that new resort complex over in Bahrain might be hiring.


If you want to get a level of the enthusiasm (fanaticism ) Dr. Chu has toward  "saving the earth from fossil fuels", get a gasoline-vapored whiff of this recent AP quote: "DOE (dept. of energy)  will be run by Dr. Stephen Chu of U.C. Berkeley, who after winning a Nobel Prize for capturing atoms with a laser at Stanford, then took over the Laurence Berkeley Lab and gutted its research staff, transforming it from a  power research unit, to one working on "alternative energy" (i.e., wind and sun only).

 

But predictably, ever since the fanatical Dr. Chu has been in charge, Lawrwence Berkely Research Lab (LBRL) has accomplished exactly nothing in energy research- except a barrage of peer-reviewed papers on (what else?) Global Warming. (All of which boil down to Chicken Little screaming "The Sky Is Falling!")

Can you picture cellulose replacing oil? Are we about to enter the age of..."fill-er-up there Shorty, with premium cellulose''.

 
 
And what else does the great Dr. Chu, besides cellulose, have in mind?  What other scientific treasured energy gems does he have waiting to reveal to us? Are we totally hell-bent on spiraling back to the stone age? While we're saving the earth, lets just get it over with now--end all land-based and ocean based energy exploration. It simply leaves too great of a "carbon" footprint...bring on the biomass!
 
Consider Dr. Chu's profoundly scientific approach to coal (his worst nightmare). Sixty-some percent of America’s power comes from coal, and Chu’s earlier comments have made the coal industry and the mining unions extremely nervous. But Chu has assured the senators in the energy committee that science and technology will allow coal "to keep the lights on".
 
 
However, when it comes to making federal investments in coal sequestration (i.e. clean coal), Chu acknowledged that research into new sources of energy will take a higher priority than cleaning up coal CO2 emissions by "sequestering" them into the ground. Oh those poor groundhogs! Will  PETA  be cool with this?

 

Chu’s two hour confirmation hearing touched on all the energy issues: wind and solar power, on shore and off shore oil and gas drilling. Chu also spoke on renewable resources, which  he deemed to be "carbon neutral" and can replace coal eventually.  Dr. Chu supports federal loan guarantees to restart the nation’s nuclear power industry, but is quick to say that, " Science must find a solution to store nuclear waste".


Translation; since nuclear waste has a "hot" half-life of about 99 hundred-thousand years (i.e. forever) Chu and his ilk will never let another nuclear plant go on line during the next 8 years; and you can take that to the bank...er, waste dump.

Despite all the conflicting evidence (and extremely cold recent weather) Dr. Chu has been unambiguous in stating that carbon dioxide emitted by cars, power plants and industry is a direct cause of global warming; and that urgent action to slash emissions is needed to avoid upheaval of the planet’s climate. Yes, it's Dr. Chu to the rescue.

Dr. Chu's stated mission for the last four years as dirctor at LVRL has been to use so-called synthetic biology to convert plant cellulose into fuel; these plants would be  a biomass composed mostly of switch grass and woodchips. But the growing of plants for fuel competes with the growing of food.

And since cellulose plants (like switch grass) have less energy content than planting corn for ethanol, they require eight times as many acres to produce equivalent amounts of energy. One estimate says replacing corn ethanol with cellulose fuel would require planting enough switch grass to cover the state of Ohio.

There's a basic truth that cannot be altered - each drop of crude oil has an energy content that far surpasses the same amount of corn, switch grass or anything else. A gallon of ethanol can't take you as far as a gallon of gasoline because there's less power in it.

And don't forget--the burning of biofuels still emits carbon dioxide, even if it is the same carbon dioxide that the plants had sucked out of the air. Subsidizing ethanol while suppressing domestic drilling, and halting construction of refineries and nuclear power plants, is a big reason why energy costs keep climbing.

To Dr. Chu's credit, there area few pluses. Cellulose energy might indirectly bring down food prices in the future. Cellulosic ethanol, while not yet ready for market, has more favorable energy ratios than corn, and presents more room for productivity gains, making it appealing to investors, farmers and refiners.

But large-scale development of cellulosic ethanol is plagued by environmental problems. Turning cellulose into fuel would require a huge expenditure of increasingly scarce water resources; and the mass production of cellulosic ethanol would likely impact soil quality.

Cellulosic energy DOES represent a better alternative than corn ethanol. But Dr Chu-to our peril--ignores one scientific fact:--gasoline is a better fuel than ethanol by many measures, especially because a gallon of gas has about 20% more energy in it than you get with the absurdly low increase in energy yield from either corn or cellulosic ethanol.

 The bottomline? Political correctness makes for a lousy energy strategy. Are you listening out there Dr Chu? We know your intentions are good, but you  must understand; America simply does not have even a fraction of the acreage necessary to grow enough of anything that would replace petroleum.

So those OPEC sheiks can rest easy, and put away the want ads for now.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JohnMcCain... his vision for America's future


My friends...I want to give you my vision of America 's future. Just drive by any large construction site sometime and witness the actual nuts and bolts of a growing economy. There will be nonstop activity: heavy trucks coming and going; cranes moving up and down; yellow front-loaders and Caterpillar bulldozers moving about. And every worker in step, doing his own individual job as efficiently as possible. That’s American free market enterprise at work.

 

Now if you want to picture an Obama economy in 4 years, just look at the local news from Atlanta . Gas lines winding around the block...people pushing cars...drivers anxiously leaning out their windows looking ahead...white bags covering the nozzles...people arguing in line... worried driver facial expressions-- civil disorder. My friends... these aren't scare tactics, but rather to point out that energy is the lifeblood of our economy! Our economy cannot grow without inexpensive energy. When oil prices go up, our economy heads south. Many other Atlantas will become commonplace if we can't supply gasoline to the nation.

 

Barack Obama won't admit it, but his jolly green giant energy policy will destroy economic growth, jeopardize our military security, and ruin our economy. Bulldozers and all heavy vehicles run on diesel. There will never be an electric freight train, or fuel cell airliner this century; nor any wind powered tanks, or solar Humvees. Today, there are 300 million internal combustion engines sitting in our garages and driveways.

 

But democrats hate oil, and want to tax oil companies out of existence. They will permit no new drilling, and no new refineries. They wouldn’t mind a few more Atlanta gas lines. Their policy has caused this city to halt to a virtual standstill, and has even changed our entire culture. Many families now stay apart on Sunday, because people can no longer afford to drive back home to visit mom and dad every week. That’s what no new drilling does. It's caused us to send our money to OPEC every month, instead of the to the bank for our house payments. And it's made the grocery store a nightmare.

 

The democrats are the know-nothing party on energy. They don't know what causes high gas prices...its lack of an expanding world oil supply. The commodity futures market sets the world price for oil. If there's no new future supply coming, traders will bid the future price up; if there is new future supply coming ( if we start to drill), they will bid the price down. That's why its called the futures market. But these know nothings don't understand the world markets. Instead, they fault Exxon-- when their no-drilling policy is the blame. China is growing rapidly because they believe in cheap energy. Our policy should be cheap energy, in conjunction with clean technology enhancements.

 

The Democrats also know nothing about alternative energy. Mass produced electric and hydrogen cars are decades away. They remain prohibitively expensive. The battery and re-fueling problems have yet to be solved; and only hybrid vehicles with gasoline assist are practical now. We cannot replace coal with solar or wind anytime soon. Ask any engineer.

 

We are at least fifty years from seeing alternative energy mass production; and right now alternatives account for 0.5% of our total energy BTU's produced. Coal is 60%. Obama is either dreaming or misleading. If we all understood physics a little better, we'd know you cannot take money away from drilling, and then use it to INVENT a new alternative type of energy. Once again, ask any engineer.

 

Was coal invented...oil?...nuclear?...electricity? How about the great invention of the wind?  My friends, Barak Obama will fabricate anything to get elected. His jolly green no drilling-save-the environment policy will spike gas prices to $6 a gallon. The only people who would benefit would be the bicycle shops --the rest would suffer. This no-growth policy will destroy our dollar, prolong a recession, and put us on the road toward becoming the world's most advanced third world country. 

 

 

Now let's take a second look through our window of the First Obama Administration. Our entire country would look like the Michigan of today... 8% unemployment, and a state that went from a poor economy, to a disaster after democratic Governor Granholm came in and raised 1.4 billion in new taxes. And long before she arrived, the government had begun choking the auto industry with regulations. The industry had boomed in the 50's and 60's, but the very year the government stepped in, it's been on a downhill trajectory since. Why can't we let Detroit produce what Americans want to drive, rather than what kind of cars the government mandates them to build? Let the free market work, and Michigan will rise again!

 

Let's talk about the free market and tax cuts. President Kennedy tried it in 1961 and it was boom times. Now lets talk about my first administration. How many of you out there have your own idea of how you'd get rich? We are an entrepreneurial people by nature. When I cut taxes, including the corporate and capital gains tax, it would unleash capital overseas and else where, and flood the market with new small business investment, springing from the millions of new ideas we have.  Exxon was once a small business. General Motors, Ford, Hewlett Packard... these all started in someone's garage, or basement (or in someone's mind). But higher taxes on the top 5% of the rich, will ruin small businesses, and thwart innovation.

 

Recall our great American history of the 19th century. It was the century of invention: steamboat, telegraph, telephone, etc. Was there any government regulation back then; or cap gains tax...or corporate tax...or inheritance tax? Lower taxes mean higher economic growth. Taxing the rich was tried with Bill Clinton's yacht tax; it was a disaster. Rich people stopped buying yachts, the boat building industry lost 7600 jobs, and the unemployment benefits paid out far exceeded the meager 10% luxury tax revenue brought in. Distort the free market with regulations and higher taxes, and destroy your middle class job out of existence. Once again, the democrats have no clue of how markets work.

 

My friends, I have been soundly criticized for having no other policy than tax breaks and cutting spending. So lets have a little straight talk. Look at the Obama plan: friends, WE CANT SPEND OUR WAY OUT OF A RECESSION. But Obama's plan is just that...to spend our way out by creating hundreds of new alphabet-soup government programs, to the tune of $1.2 trillion. During his first 4 years as a U.S. senator, Obama spent his time dreaming up literally hundreds of new federal agencies for when he becomes president.

 

My friends, I don't blame you for wanting change, but change to what, creeping socialism? Do you want the government regulating you for everything from what you shall drive, to the temperature that you shall heat your home? Would Obama's creeping socialism make your life better, with the government as your mother? Do we want a giant welfare state of big government, big taxes, and big unemployment? There are not enough 5% rich people, or closed corporate tax loopholes,to pay for it all. He will say he's raising taxes-- but "not yours". He'll lead us deeper into debt, and his policies are nothing more than vote-shopping.

 

My friends, to where will all this entitlement mentality take us? Since when did we lose faith in our free markets? They've worked for 235 years to make America great. And now Obama and his democrats have decided to throw it aside, and claim more government is the answer. My friends, the last successful government program was the Apollo moon shot, and ever since then, they have ALL failed. Why? When the government steps in, productivity flees out the back door. There is no incentive or motivation for anyone to perform, because nothing is at stake. People are not accountable, nothing gets done, and corruption moves in;  and what few taxpayers are left, suffer all the more. 

 

 

Americans thrive on motivation. That’s why Apollo was so successful. Socialism is basically non-violent communism. Obama wants it, and America would become, "the land of the regulated... and the home of the dependent".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Alternative Energy...Fallacy or Reality?

 
The growth of our economy historically has always depended on cheap gasoline and energy. But suddenly we're now challenged with a radical and politically popular conception: we need to get off oil now, and proceed to another alternative source. But something is glaringly missing from this argument for alternatives.
 
First; what new source? And at what unforseen cost to our economy? Next: How would we replace the  internal combustion engine? This is basically a 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' solution, without any thought of the aftermath. Are we now so lacking in foresight as a nation that no one is rebutting these nebulous arguments for energy alternatives?
 
Imagine our civilization without gasoline or diesel engines. Picture a 200-car hydrogen freight train...or an electric concrete truck; or a solar-powered 747.  As absurd as this sounds, its just as absurd to think we could get rid of oil in the next 50-100 years. 
 
Yet Congress asserts we should go for a breakthrough; that we allocate sufficient resources away from drilling toward the invention of a new type of clean, renewable energy. But while we're waiting for this ambiguous breakthrough, OPEC methodically extracts a $700 billion-a-year payment from us. But what happens after we max-out the national credit card on this foreign oil binge? Could we face insolvency exporting our money at this reckless, unsustainable pace?
 
About 400 implacable democrats have caused our economy to roil with high gas prices for environmental reasons. But consider the partisan smokescreen that these drilling-blockers are using to obfuscate the issue: They blame the greedy Exxon monster as responsible. They blame Bush and Cheney. They blame the people for being addicted to oil. These incongruent objections seem preposterous.
 
And it seems even more ridiculous when the drilling blockers proclaim..."It'll be 5 or 10 years to get the new oil here...it won't affect gas prices that much". This is beyond absurdity, similar to saying, "Why be a doctor? It'll take five or ten years to get your degree". Yet this manipulation of public opinion against drilling survives with little challenge from the media.
 
Consider the alternatives. Ethanol starts and ignites poorly, especially in cold temperatures. A tank of 100% ethanol would make you late for work in the wintertime.  Lacking the explosive power of gasoline, pure ethanol produces engine knocks, poor mileage, and is only used as a blend. It's not a true alternative. Considering it's cost to produce from corn, it's better as food than fuel.

Next is the all-electric car (not the hybrid).  All-electric means "the little engine that couldn't". Current technology is still lagging woefully behind the great expectation that we can easily swap gas engines for batteries (which generate heat). Battery engines lack torque; so no golf bags in your trunk while climbing a hill with passengers. You can't range much beyond 40 miles. The need to expand battery packs for more power creates unwanted additional heat, and the risk of a vehicle fire, a bedeviling engineering problem.

How about recharging? This begs the question; what would be the source of the all the new electric power? Coal? Nuclear? Solar? What?
 
Environmentally, switching  gasoline for electric power would be a zero sum game. The gasoline pollution eliminated would be offset by the coal burned at the power plants. Has Congress ever considered this? I guess they're just too darn busy these days to be bothered by the natural laws of science.
 
What if you could go out tomorrow and buy a hydrogen car?  Honda has introduced their FCX. First there's the sticker shock (very-very expensive)  Next, you'd need a mega-platinum Triple AAA membership, because fuel cells need frequent heavy maintenance.  Remember Apollo 13? That near-disaster was caused by a fuel cell blowout. Unlike the $400 reliable Model T of the 1920's, big expense and maintenence costs eliminate hydrogen cars from the public's reach. Will the next Henry Ford please stand up? 
 
Gasoline and diesel vehicles will remain without a huge breakthrough. Oil has such a unique molecular structure that no scientist yet has any idea of how to replace or improve it.  Like the internal combustion engine, it's replacement would require the great grandmother of all inventions.  And engineers know this. That's why the oil companies haven't had any breakthroughs. Why spend research money on hope?

Congress often talks of replacing oil by wind and solar power. A wind or solar car? Hardy-Har-Har!  Shall we all wait breathlessly for the next big discovery? Well, Edison and Einstein are long gone. Our American students shun the "geek" pursuits of math, science, and engineering. There are very few American-born engineers working anymore. Most are past 50. The vast majority of engineers here are foreign-born, as are most college engineering instructors. Is Congress aware of this brain-drain?

Have you watched Nancy Pelosi on C-span lately?  Her attitude, and that of many democrats on the energy committee is..."let's don't drill...keep blocking  these greedy oil companies...we need to get off this dirty oil now...things may be tough near term (higher gas prices)...but we must stop our addiction to foreign oil''
 
Basically they assume that public outcry from obscene fuel costs will force the onset of a new type of clean energy. Wonderful! Welcome to the era of the congressional monarchy. How dare us peasants demand cheaper gas? We must save the planet! 
 
And sadly, this monarchy, other than begging OPEC for more oil, offers no alternative measures. So according to their prodigious thinking, what should the rest of us do in the meantime, as we scrounge to pay nightmare gas prices?

Of course there's the tried and true methods from the good ole days. We can go with the Yabba-dabba Fred Flintstone foot-powered car...or the Little Rascals dog-chasing-the-cat car (or the mule-powered one)...or the Jetson air cars, that run on nothing and NEVER collide. Yeah, let's end all this oil craziness now! Or we'll use french fry oil, and recycled grease; use "biodiesel"...we'll show those meany Saudi Arabians!  Yeah.. we're Americans...we can do ANYTHING!...just beam us up Scotty.
 
Will high gas prices inexorably bankrupt the middle class? Can our nation be far behind?  The continued mega-billions we send OPEC every month will eventually strangle the economy. Is anyone even talking about the 300 billion annual interest we pay on our 9 trillion-dollar national debt?  But the pro-environment pundits don't seem to mind. They often mention European gas prices in comparison to ours.

But our economy was built on cheap gasoline. After World War II, the Europeans built railways and public transportation. We built cars and highways. In pre-war 1941, gas sold for 19.9 gallon. The height of the Vietnam war was 1968; it was also the height of the "gas wars," when you actually filled up for five bucks (24.9 gal.) and went "joyriding". The cheap fuel era lasted 60 years, and so did our flourishing economy. But where we go from here is anyone's guess, until the uncertainty of our energy policy becomes more clarified.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »