On Energy Independence

I just read this Salon article on the myth of energy independence. I thought it was a good read (but what do I know?) I had a few thoughts, one was that while the US might never be energy independent, I think cxjo might be one day :-) I also like how he calls Thomas Friedman on his constant spew of BS. Not enough people do that, I think. While Friedman might honestly believe what he says, he says nothing at all. Lastly, the conflicting dualism of "Energy Independence" and "Globalization" is a wonderful manifestation of double-think. We want both, I presume.

The same people (Friedman, par exemple) advocate both, unaware that they are mutually conflicting ideas. The author of this piece calls us on it. If we want a better, free-er US of A, we'll need to strive for more than a mythological energy independence (and maybe back off a bit from free global markets, haven't these people heard of double-edged swords???). It might actually require leaders who give a shit about life in these here United States. We don't have those kind of people in power right now. But when the excrement hits the air-conditioning, you bet there won't be enough pols scrambling to come up with all sorts of bizarre solutions to the simple problem that we consume more energy than we can afford. Wait a minute, that's going on right now.

The article mentions several, like drilling Alaska, or building more oil and gas refineries, or more corporate give-aways to the already royal oil companies, or even improving our national fuel economy standard. None of these are a silver bullet, and some are down-right ludicrous, though I support the latter one as part of a broader, long-term solution.

So place your bets in the comments section. When will America wake up and give a shit? When gas is $4 a gallon? $5? $10? Never? Other? What needs to break so horribly that even Faux News won't be able to spin it positively for the Republicans*?

* Republicans are largely responsible for this mess (but by no means are they the sole party who shoulder this idiotic national policy). You're welcome to disagree, but I'll simply refute you by mentioning a) our winner-take-all political system b) the one-party state in charge of all three tiers of government c) the co-option of our fourth estate by the corporate media who reserve them d) the current policies being advocated by these pols and media.

4 Comments:

At 5/4/05, 4:41 PM, Blogger SPCTutors said...

I do note the times columnists seems to rely on the clever speak (like they secretly want to be playwrights but can't stand the cut in pay...) I have found Friedman interesting at times though, mostly about the middle east though.

-Carol

 
At 5/5/05, 1:32 PM, Blogger Les said...

Oil is going to get increasingly expensive to extract. Unless we can find non-petroleum sources of energy, our economy will crumble. Energy independence in the form of biodiesel, methane, fermenting garbage, solar power, wind, geothermal, etc is coming one way or another.

I don't think this is what conservatives mean though.

 
At 5/8/05, 10:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

test post

 
At 5/27/05, 10:01 PM, Blogger Stuart Berman said...

Friedman is pretty good at trying to stay on both sides of the fence. Thomas Barnett or Peter Huber do a much better job describing the lack of any impending energy doom (Huber gives us 100 years of easy oil and near limitless energy). Barnett also refutes the idea that we need to be energy independent and is no one lackey in the process.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

   Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)