 I have heard an awful lot of public
discourse over the past few days about the irresponsibility of our
Washington policymakers’ refusal to tap domestic sources of
hydrocarbons. What seems to be gaining particular traction is objection
to the lame defense that, well, the oil from ANWR wouldn’t be here for
another seven to ten years anyway, so let’s not do it.
I have heard in response the rather sane assessment that it does seem rather likely that we are going to need it in seven to ten years, as well, and as such that accessing our own energy sources remains a good bet.
And there's
the rub. The typically implicit and often express rationale underlying
the “it’s not immediate” rationalization is that we should instead
invest in alternatives of the future. First, taxpayers have been
investing in alternatives to hydrocarbons to the tune of about $40 billion since the 1970s — and what have we gotten for all that appropriated money?
More
absurd is the larger argument that X resource won’t be here for seven
to ten years so let’s invest instead in something else that will be
here in, I don’t know, 14 to 20 years. If ever. Remember how
the wind and solar industries tell us every year for the past three
decades — since the subsidies started pouring in — that in a few years
they’ll be cost competitive, that the technologies and economics will
make sense in, oh, maybe a decade, but for now they must have subsidies
and mandates? How has that worked out?
No
one knows when the next miracle drug for any particular ailment will be
here, but the fact that it isn’t immediate has never, ever been a
reason not to go after it. (Yes, I am comparing tapping the most
abundant affordable energy sources with life saving technologies; I
believe you would too if you thought about it).
So
here’s the bet. Let’s go after both, and see which gets here first.
ANWR oil, or the miracle fuels, commercialized and somewhat
economically sensible hydrogen alternatives, cost-competitive wind and
solar, cold fusion, cellulosic ethanol. You name the viable,
commercial-scale alternative that you believe would be here to compete
in seven to ten years on its merits with no more subsidy than
hydrocarbons receive, and get it here first, and you were right.
If
you bet on it with your own money, you will win, and win big. Name
names. Tell me the technology you bet on that can win that race. Source
|
News, Views, Vids 
