Ronald Reagan once said, “It is no program to say use less energy.” It is also no energy policy to say use bio-fuel or to insist that we drive hydrogen cars.
Scientists continue to argue that the production of bio-fuels such as ethanol consumes more hydrocarbon fuel than is saved. Hydrogen cars will not be practical until scientists master the technology of compressing hydrogen.
What ever happened to drilling? What about the ANWR? America’s only solution to becoming energy independent is not to use more “wood chips” and “switch grass,” as President Bush suggested in his last State of the Union address. Take away the federal subsidies and the ethanol industry would probably collapse.
The real problem is that Bush has bought into the “peak oil” hoax. Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President believes we inevitably have to run out. After all, there only were so many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the dinosaur fuel is gone, we’re out. Why? Because there aren’t any more dinosaurs to make more fuel. That’s the inherent logic of the fossil fuel theory.
Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that “peak production” hoaxes of energy theories. In the 1800s, at the height of the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now we won’t know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don’t know what to do with all the coal.
There are abundant ways to make gasoline or gasoline-substitutes other than using dinosaurs, or any other biological material. We can make fuel out of garbage, corn, even turkey parts. The Nazis used the Fisher-Tropsch process to use chemical catalysts to make fuel for their tanks out of coal. A more cost-efficient alternative to ethanol lies in the abundant oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. The streak of oil deposits that formed the oil shale in the Rockies runs all the way up to the oil mud in Alberta, Canada. Mining that oil mud resource and converting it into petroleum products, Canada has moved to one of our top three suppliers of gasoline. Why don’t we do the same with the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains?
Mexico has just found a second major oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Even Cuba has announced plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, some 45 miles off the shores of Florida. Why don’t we drill more in the Gulf, or in the continental shelf off both shores? Developing hydrogen cars will take too long. Getting more oil drilled and into the pump is what is needed to solve the problem.
The Energy Information Administration says there are 1.28 trillion barrels of oil in worldwide reserves, more than ever in recorded history, despite worldwide consumption of oil doubling since 1970. Oil company annual reports document that the oil companies are sitting on historically large oil reserves. We are not running out of oil, it’s a hoax. But the executives of the oil company oligopolies are planning on making $150 billion this year in profits, instead of last year’s record $100 billion. Mr. President, why don’t we take away the oil company tax benefits unless they build more refineries and get more oil into the supply system? We do not need some science-fiction technology to fuel our cars, we need more gasoline at affordable prices.
No Democratic President has given us so much rhetoric about “oil addiction” as has Bush. America’s economic strength depended upon a ready supply of affordable energy. Oil is still abundant and there is no reason it should be this costly. Oil companies are actually partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline, the oil companies because they want to exploit their huge reserves at the highest possible price, the environmentalists because they have an anti-capitalist agenda and they hate our use of hydrocarbon fuels in general as much as they hate the wealth that results from the use of that fuel.
If Bush is nothing more than a RINO (“Republican in Name Only”), then we might as well have a Democrat in office. What’s the difference? Has Bush seen Al Gore’s new movie yet? Probably not, otherwise he would be lecturing us for having caused global warming.