COSTLY ENERGY CHOICES DON'T BOOST SECURITY

Bob Tippee
Editor

The pursuit of fantasy does nothing for national security.

The Democratic Party needs that reminder. If Republicans keep acting like they don't believe in anything, Democrats might reclaim a house of Congress or two next November. And in 2008, who knows?

It's conceivable, therefore, that the party now in opposition might soon have to quit nagging and start leading. Then it will be best for everyone if they know what they're doing.

On energy, doubts on this score emerge in a document published Mar. 29 entitled Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World.

Among promises to "rebuild a state-of-the-art military" and "eliminate Osama Bin Laden" appears this: "Achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world."

It's not clear whether the goal is genuine energy independence or independence only from oil from the Middle East and a few exporters elsewhere. The difference is large. Genuine energy independence is unachievable and, as a policy goal, fanciful. Independence from oil from the Middle East is at least theoretically achievable and, as a policy goal, simply misguided.

Whatever the Democrats have in mind here, pursuit of the objective surely should include large additions to domestic supply such as might be available through oil and gas leasing of federal acreage now inaccessible to producers.

But Democrats have other ideas. Real Security calls on the country to "increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland including biofuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind; promote hybrid and flex fuel vehicle technology and manufacturing; enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives."

To summarize: In service to national security, the Democrats would pursue fanciful or misguided energy goals by rejecting commercially proven and potentially large supply options in favor of consumption mandates and economically marginal energy sources that promise relatively tiny supply gains and great cost.

History does not uphold preemptive economic sacrifice as a security step. But to anyone who thinks the US can be genuinely independent on energy, such a strategy probably makes perfect sense.

(Online Mar. 31, 2006; author's e-mail: bobt@ogjonline.com)

Related Articles

DOE approves LNG exports to non-FTA countries from Oregon project

03/24/2014 The US Department of Energy conditionally approved Jordan Cove Energy Project LP’s application to export LNG through its proposed terminal on Orego...

Watching Government: Alaska's ANWR reminder

03/24/2014 Alaska's state government apparently doesn't want people to forget there's still significant oil and gas potential beneath the Arctic National Wild...

Begich objects to House Democrats' NPR-A comment extension request

03/24/2014 US Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alas.) let three US House Democrats know he did not approve of their request for the US Bureau of Land Management to add 30 ...

EPA lifts post-Macondo contract suspension in agreement with BP

03/24/2014 The US Environmental Protection Agency and BP PLC reached an agreement that will effectively end the bar on new federal contracts imposed on the mu...

Careers at TOTAL

Careers at TOTAL - Videos

More than 600 job openings are now online, watch videos and learn more!

 

Click Here to Watch

Other Oil & Gas Industry Jobs

Search More Job Listings >>
Stay Connected