oil and water: a proposed solution to dependence
by Mark Hunter Mulvey
Published: July 8, 2008
“The bourgeois prefers comfort to pleasure, convenience to liberty, and a pleasant temperature to the deathly inner consuming fire.”
- Herman Hesse
“What people say you cannot do, you try and find that you can.”
- Henry David Thoreau
The current state of global affairs in the realm of Fuel has caused me to reevaluate our dependence on it. First, a description of the scene at hand:
On June 28th, OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted, “Oil prices are expected to reach $170 as demand for fuel is growing in the U.S. during the summer period and the dollar continues to weaken against the euro.” Gas stations across the country are touting prices of over $4.00 per gallon, while the dollar has fallen 15% against the euro in the past year. To wit: our fuel is expensive and our currency is weak. Moreover, our fuel is primarily owned and operated by the very nations we are currently battling in our quixotic war overseas. Our enemies wield it, and we need it.
At present there are many techniques in play to deal with the disparity. Some are speaking out for increased drilling in the United States to free us of foreign oil dependence. The chief argument against this stance is not only the defilement of American seascapes and Alaskan aurora-soaked tundra, but the fact that this solution would only yield oil after a decade’s worth of work, and start to affect gas prices after a conservative estimate of 30 years.
Other proposals call for a focus on alternative energy sources, ethanol, wind, solar and hydro being the popular choices. The latest development from Japan is a production-model Honda automobile running on hydrogen, the byproduct of which is water vapor. Detractors claim the six-figure price tag is a self-defeating alternative to rising gas prices (though Honda is offering monthly leases starting at $600), and hydrogen fueling stations are not yet prevalent enough to make this a worthy rebuttal to its internal combustion-driven forebear. A car also does nothing to address non-vehicular uses of energy.
Though Americans are making an effort to reduce their monthly energy consumption, both on the road and off, it seems to be viewed as a temporary monetary necessity that will be relieved once more fossil fuels enter the picture at a yet-to-be-announced time in the future.
I argue that the most patriotic act in response to the Arabian sheiks wringing ever-fewer drops of oil into the American economy is to permanently use less of it. Hanging a flag outside of an air-conditioned home is certainly an easier, if completely useless, display of American values, but an actual lifestyle change that rebukes excessive and convenience-grounded uses of petroleum would be the ultimate declaration of independence from the Middle East. Such a movement could never be law-driven, lest this country be dragged into an oppressive fascist regime, but patriotic families who voluntarily give up “Sunday drives” around town and heat-swathed living rooms on 42-degree autumn afternoons could be seen as heightened examples of a revolutionary spirit.
A nation so entrenched in oil and industry cannot afford to abstain from caustic fuel entirely, not yet. But today’s dependence on foreign nations is the perfect time for a new era of American innovation to start, one that can offer the world a technology, lifestyle and culture that makes its greasy black predecessor appear uncultivated and primal. This movement may require the utilization of many current technological offerings in combination with a drastic reduction of the oil and petroleum use that powers our many conveniences, but the country’s eyes should certainly shift away from fossils and toward the development of a new, home-grown solution.
It was this intrepid spirit and noble sense of independent responsibility that formed this country. For us to continue favoring an archaic fuel source over our own ability to innovate is an emphatic Declaration of Dependence to the world-at-large.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Mark begins with the old meme: “that this solution would only yield oil after a decade’s worth of work, and start to affect gas prices after a conservative estimate of 30 years.” So I will start with the pat response: “That is what your compatriots and predecessors said a decade ago (and a decade before that). Had we allowed ourselves to begin the hard work then, those oil fields would be in production by now.
As to the ‘30 years’, I can assure you that no Conservative made that estimate. :-) I would suggest that the effect on prices at the pump would be noticeable in les than one year from the beginning of a concerted effort to extract oil from fields in the US. The reason is the same one that explains some of the disparity between what we pay hyere and our friends in the EU pay, besides agressive taxes that is. OPEC wants to continue selling us their oil. No matter the cost, or the price, if we use our own oil, they don’t get one red cent. They have a vested interest in keeping their oil at a cost lower than what it would cost us to extract our own. The constant cries of the Greek Chorus from the Left, “Not here!”, only makes that number higher. If we embarked on an agressive plan, with some impresion that there was backbone on both sides of our political aisle, OPEC would be forced to consider ways of making their product more attractive. What choices do they have?
While we’re on the subject of time, how long will it take for ANY of the alternatives to become effective? The same 10 years? Longer? What do we do to heat homes in the 1`0-15 winters which are coming in the interim?
And then we’re back to the ‘Not Here! Or over there either!’ issue. Various Left leaning activists have prevented any new construction of Nuclear power plants for almost 30 years…the same for oil refineries. More recently, and ironically, a cabal of famous left-leaning residents of Massachussetts (some named Kennedy and Cronkite) prevented the construction of a proof-of-concept wind farm. An eco-friendly, green-as-grass wind farm!
Let me confidently predict that if we can not, or will not begin to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, it will not be from lack of trying on the part of big business, entrepreneurs, evil car companies, or even Big Oil. We will be paralyzed into inaction by the continued protestations of various groups standing somewhere off to my left.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
And since I know that I’ll be asked:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953527/posts
http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2007/05/07/cape_windmill_plan_creating_unlikely_all?blog=69
Three ought to do for now.
The problem is that oil is where it ended up, wind is only reliable in certain places, the sun doesn’t shine constantly everywhere. Oh, and Polar bears aren’t really endangered either. Yeah, I know….
http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
July 8th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Brilliant Russ! Brilliant! This comes from someone who installed $13,000 worth of solar panels in her home. I’m all for alternative fuels and I have the receipts to prove it. But the idea that I must get jambed at the pump until we can learn to convert manure into fuel is absurd. Let us use what we have at our reach: wind, nuclear, solar, corn and yes OIL.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Thank you, Star. Given the tenor of your commentary elsewhere on this site, I am cautiously flattered. ;-)
While I’m here, let me take exception to the ‘defilement of our seascapes’ remark as well (the Alaskan Tundra can take care of itself…and you can have it!) A couple of years ago there was some sort of thunderstorm which swept into New Orleans and caused a bit of bother…had a name…Katherine or something. Quite a show apparently. The thing is, that storm, and another big one a few weeks later, swept right through the off-shore oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico. Can anyone here honestly say that they remember even one story about a significant oil-spill? I really don’t think so. Evil Big Oil can’t make their filthy profit off of oil that simply washes ashore where any Tom Dick or Harry can slop it into a bucket. They’ve become quite good at protecting their investment. Besides which the recent proposals are all concerned with drilling on the outer continental shelf. Walter Cronkite won’t be able to dee the rigs from his manse on Nantucket.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:01 am
the next time i will tolerate a liberal telling me what to put my thermostat at, how much to drive, and what to do with my life, ill migrate to Cuba. Not now though. We are facing a problem that 85% of americans are agreeing to the solution: drill here, drill now, pay less. The solution is simple, as aforementioned. We wont see results until 10 years from now? (Clap clap clap) You liberals r so smart! So, if clinton didnt veto drilling when he was in office, we would have decent prices now. We could drill 11 billion barrels of oil. Divide that by 30 years. This will give us ONE MILLION barrels a day for the next 30 years. By then, we could streamline other methods of energy. The fact of the matter is, we CANT ask Saudi to drill for us when we have our own oil. What bothers me the most is that liberals say they dont want to drill because they dont want to harm polar bears. Liberals, have you eaten an animal ever? Do you know how they kill animals for you to enjoy every hot, tasty bite of the chicken you eat? Please, spare me the time. The drilling is only the size of an airport in an area as big as virginia. An analogy would be a stamp in a football field. No harm would be done to anything or anyone. Also, alaskans WANT to drill in their own land. Who are you to tell them they cant? A company will drill there and help americans. However, we cant let this happen because Obama, who devoured a chicken that suffered a brutal death, is worried that polar bear will be harmed. OH NO!
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS!!
July 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Mark does make one very important point with which I agree wholeheartedly: “Such a movement could never be law-driven, lest this country be dragged into an oppressive fascist regime….”
The ultimate failure of the original 55mph limit, and the ongoing failure of things like the CAFE standard, ought to have taught us that the changes we need to make will only come about when the american people are demanding them…not when ambitious social engineers get busy trying to force them down our throats.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Nick,
After reading quite a bit of your commentary on this site I’m afraid that while I cautiously agree with your politics, your abrasive style makes your arguments quite ineffective.
Russ,
Thanks for your insightful commentary. Though I can’t claim to be an expert on the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling, I would support drilling for oil where it exists, even if the effects may not be seen for some time. It is ironic that the same people who would have the foresight to support “saving the earth for our children” would object to a solution on the grounds that it will not bring immediate relief. This is a long-term problem that requires a long-term solution.
Ultimately, I do believe that the best solution is alternative fuel sources, and I hope that the unexpected consequence of this dramatic increase in fuel prices will be a market-driven technology boom in that area. Say what you will about capitalism, but there’s nothing like a monetary incentive to drive innovation.
So Mark, is it possible to simultaneously support the solutions proposed by both parties in this case?
July 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Dave,
I dont know where youre living, but we live in a place where republicans are evil, they are to blame, bush is the devil, and democrats are always right. Do you know how much liberal-stimulated hate I go through everyday of my life? Do you know how much Bush-bashing and name-calling I hear everyday? This is precisely why you think my tone is “abrasive.” I meet people everyday who say they dont want to be friends with someone because he is conservative or name-call him because he supports McCain. So Dave, you can keep absorbing hate and being cursed at just because of your views, but im going to say something back.
“Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. … We’re Americans…and we’ll never surrender..” - John McCain
July 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Dave:
I do think supporting multiple proposals is the way politicians should be handling this issue right now. By combining temporary relief in the form of alternate fuel sources, and focusing the majority of our efforts on a cleaner, long-term solution, America can make clear that our future is not remotely tied to foreign oil dependency. The transition will be a gradual one, but an ultimate goal has to be established in order to provide focus while we make do with the technology and resources we have now. Otherwise the movement will simply shift toward a self-sufficient oil economy, rather than the revolution we so desperately need.
This article is a reminder that an additional facet of the problem is sheer overuse of energy, and that the prudent use of fossil fuels during this energy transition period could help make our current energy sources (including oil) last longer and curb some of the severity. We need to view this for what it is, an Energy Depression, and adjust accordingly as a nation.
Temporary relief of oil prices needs to remain just that: temporary. The final target is a whole new energy source or, as you’ve suggested, a tapestry of several sources that exploits the various solutions this country has to offer.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Marcus! Mugabe sent troops out to kill, mame and displace people who planned on voting against him. Is that the moral equivalent of what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq?
July 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
This conversation instantly strikes a cord with me. I believe that this moment that we live in is as imperative for action as the generation that stormed the beaches of Normandy. Mark, I think that you are very right in that we must make a statement of independence from foreign oil. What America must realize and hopefully they will, is that this change will only come when it is from and by the people. Not a government edict. This is an issue that we can all agree on. The environmentalist, the conservative, the politician, the soldier, the business owner… etc. The issue is that politics will not free us from the stranglehold of the sheiks in Arabia, but that what made this country great its countrymen can affect this issue. Every individual doing what they can in their own capacity to bring change. Everyone should visit T. Boone Pickens website. He is demonstrating what I am talking about. America is missing the boat on this idea of energy resources. If we can create/develop technologies that are cheaper, easier on the environment and more available to all people, and America is who exports it not only throughout our nation, but to the world, how transforming would that be. Imagine if we could develop solar technology that can be available to villages of 3rd world countries. It could create cheap and renewable energy but provide a economic complex for everyone to participate in. We are transfer the wealth of this country to our enemies over seas that could and should be reinvested here in our schools and roads and welfare. This change needs to happen and must be by Americans collectively.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Jason, I hate to do it, but I have to argue one, admittedly picayune point, with you. I don’t think that everyone agrees with you and I that energy policy change must come from the grass-roots. There are far too many, who have held sway for far too long, who believe that effective change can come from punishing big business, which in turn punishes the less well-off in this country.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Russ,
I didn’t communicate that right… Sorry
I am not a good writer. I meant that All Americans agree that we are experiencing a crisis. Now our process/ideas to solve it are wildly different. We will see what takes place. I think whomever candidate for the Presidency gives forth the most viable, concrete plan has a greater shot at winning. Neither has really done that yet….