The key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is to spend tax money on developing renewable energy sources. President Barack Obama actually said this in his weekly radio address. He also said we need to increase our drilling at home. Yet he deliberately makes it difficult for the oil companies to drill in the United States and offshore, knowing that the lack of locally produced oil will drive up the cost, justifying his “spend” agenda.
In an August 2006 article in the Courier, I wrote about the high cost of gas, which then was $3 per gallon. How I wish for that price of $3 per gallon again. We have more than 3.7 trillion barrels of oil in the United States, yet we still pay outrageous prices for oil. Why? Just listen to Obama — listen to his agenda to develop alternative sources of fuel by spending our money.
The only way Obama can justify his “renewable energy” resources is if oil becomes so expensive that it rivals the cost of renewable energy. Then we will have new sources of energy, but at a cost higher than you and I can afford.
None of the renewable-energy supplies are self-sufficient. They are all hybrids. Electric vehicles sound great, but they still depend on gas engines. Wind turbines are reliant on the wind, and they still need existing energy during wind variances. Other renewable sources, such as biomass, tidal, solar and geothermal, have limited and expensive applications.
Exactly what is our energy policy in this country? In 1977, President Jimmy Carter formed the Department of Energy to develop a national energy program to avoid another shortage of nonrenewable energy like we had in the mid-’70s.
The United States was and still is dependent on foreign oil. The DOE spends more than $26 billion per year, and it is a complete failure. After 34 years, we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil, even with the tremendous wealth of oil, which exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Rocky Mountains, North Dakota and offshore. Obama now wants to buy oil from Brazil rather than develop our own properties.
Shell oil spent $4 billion on research and $2 billion on leases to drill in the Arctic Ocean. The Environmental Protection Agency will not let Shell drill for oil because it claims the drilling would be hazardous to the 245 Alaskans, which live 70 miles from the drill site. This site contains 27 million barrels of oil, twice what the Trans Alaska pipeline moved in the past 30 years.
The EPA administrator is Lisa Jackson. She holds a cabinet position, answering directly to Obama, who ultimately decides policy.
Obama should not tell us that these alternative energy sources are the solution to the high cost of gas when the nation is facing bankruptcy. We just can’t justify the expense. If alternative energy is so great, then entrepreneurs will invest the money and do the necessary research as they have done throughout history when new technologies became workable. It is not within the realm of the government to support this research or to lie to the American public.