Paper and Other Absolute Truths Providing Analysis and Perspective Uncommon in Mainstream Media

The Jon Stewart clip we posted two days ago reminded us that the last eight U.S. presidents promised energy independence. (If you have not watched it yet, don’t miss Jon Stewart on “Energy Independence” ).  The promises went unfulfilled, however, as we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil over the last 40 years.

Why have we failed to accomplish this objective? Unfortunately, oil supplies are finite and our energy wants seem infinite. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, but U.S. demand for oil continues to grow rapidly. Our economic growth and prosperity over the last century have allowed us to build an energy intensive society that runs on fossil fuels – primarily oil. Meanwhile, we have not allowed the development of energy sources that would reduce this dependence.

The point Jon Stewart makes is that it is time to face the truth. We are dependent on foreign oil, and we are going to be dependent on foreign oil long into the future.

However, what Stewart does not address is that political decisions made in the past determined our present – and political decisions that will be made during Obama’s term as president will determine our future – at least for a time. We can either choose to reduce energy dependence or to increase it. It is up to us.

How can this imbalance be resolved? There are only two ways. Increase the supply of energy, or reduce the demand.

President Obama makes “energy independence” speeches like the previous seven presidents, but his approach is dramatically different. Each of the other seven presidents did what they felt was prudent in setting aside funds for developing alternative sources of energy, and encouraging conservation.

The last seven presidents, however, understood the supply side of the equation. They knew that we needed to encourage the development of as much U.S. based fossil fuel energy as possible. Their philosophies differed on coal, nuclear, offshore, etc. but they all recognized that fossil fuel supply was as crucial as demand.

Obama, however, has a simplistic and dangerously naïve view. He sees fossil fuels as evil. He speaks out against the oil sands in Canada. The offshore drilling ban will significantly reduce U.S. supplies. The president hopes to place a carbon tax on coal. A cap and trade system would also greatly increase energy costs, create a gigantic government bureaucracy, and make energy development in the U.S. less competitive.

Around the time Obama was voted into office the enormous potential of natural gas shale deposits was becoming evident – and yet nothing is being done (politically) to encourage the use of this new energy source in automobiles. This is a clean-energy windfall of gigantic proportion and yet the President ignores it, simply because it is a fossil fuel.

The fact that his policies will dramatically reduce supply and increase energy costs doesn’t faze the President. The President’s supply answer is wind, solar, ethanol, and wood. But that is not the whole story. The President also has a plan for the demand side of the equation. Obama is intent on changing the way we live. In order to wean us from our dependence on fossil fuels, he is very willing to use economic weakness to get us there. In fact, a forced redistribution of economic resources, along with “de-development”, is the objective.Obama’s new science tsar John Holdren has similar beliefs; that is why he was chosen for this post. Holdren describes it this way.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

(I looked up photos to see what I could find under “de-development”  and I found this photo of  Ted Kaczynski, the Harvard trained Unibomber. He was ahead of his time – a man committed to de-development.)

To claim that the President intends to de-develop the economy seems extreme, I suppose, but how else can we explain the President’s actions. Costly and subsidized alternative energy is not going to grow rapidly enough to fill the energy void – that is a fact. If Obama’s energy policies are enacted – energy costs are going to soar! That is a certainty.

The economy is resilient, but it can be killed. All travel businesses, auto sales, etc will be directly damaged. Businesses will raise prices to recover higher energy costs. Individuals will then have less income to spend on more expensive products. High energy and health care costs will send the economy into another severe depression.

De-development may sound innocuous, but it is frightening. Obama and Holdren have no idea of the problems they are about to unleash.

For those of us who prefer growth, rather than decline, we can hope that sanity returns – that neither the cap and trade nor the carbon tax is passed. New natural gas supplies will continue to grow and that could ultimately save us. Nuclear energy must be revived, but this is not a short term solution. We live in perilous economic times.