Obama’s Naïve Energy Meanderings

Last Monday, presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama gave a speech in Michigan in which he said he would eliminate the nation’s dependence on foreign oil within 10 years – without drilling for any additional domestic oil. In his clouded mind, he believes we can free ourselves from our oil addiction by means of renewable forms of energy such as wind generation, solar energy and bio-fuels. And it’s only going to cost taxpayers $150 billion in “investments.” How is he going to do this, considering these energy alternatives comprise only about 3% of total energy production? He’ll simply wave his magic tire pressure gauge and command it to happen. In his speech, Sen. Obama dumbed-down his plan for energy dependence when he said, “I will set big goals for this country as president – some so large that the technology to reach them does not yet exist (emphasis added). But that has not stopped us before. When President Roosevelt's advisors informed him that his goals for wartime production were impossible to meet, he waved them off and said ‘believe me, the production people can do it if they really try.’ And they did. When the scientists and engineers told John F. Kennedy that they had no idea how to put a man on the moon, he told them they would find a way. And we found one. I believe we will again.” The difference between wartime production during World War II and now is that the country was a manufacturing giant. Factories that produced Singer sewing machines were retooled to make .45 caliber pistols. Everything was in place at the time – it was just a matter of factories changing their product to meet the country’s need. As far as NASA scientists having “no idea” how to put a man on the moon, I beg to differ. Rockets and satellites already existed. The Soviets had already orbited the Earth. I hardly think NASA was mystified about how to put a man on the moon and return him safely. Sen. Obama also said in his speech: “I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses – we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil. Now I have to admit – the room was pretty quiet after that.” I’ll bet it was. Their jaws must have dropped when they heard such an appalling statement. They must have thought, “This guy really thinks he’s a messiah.” Detroit is very good at supplying automobiles that the public demands, as evidenced by producing SUVs when gasoline prices were reasonable. I don’t think Sen. Obama needs to tell auto execs how to run their businesses, and that the demand for larger, gas-guzzling vehicles has waned. Detroit doesn’t need an excuse to produce something that is in demand. It’s basic supply-and-demand economics. But finding alternate forms of energy to replace oil, gasoline and other petroleum products is a different matter altogether when you’re anti-nuclear power, like Sen. Obama. Oil and coal burning generators produce 80% of our electricity. Only about 20% comes from nuclear power plants. The most obvious question is: How are you going to recharge all those electric cars Sen. Obama is also calling for if reliable electrical generation is not expanded? Sen. Obama would like you to believe that as president he would simply snap his fingers and command private industry to make it happen. He must really believe he is the messiah. His understanding of the situation is so atrocious that it creates serious questions about his ability to lead anything other than a horse to water. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for alternative means of energy. But the best estimates on coming up with viable, reliable new forms of alternative energy are at least 40 to 50 years away. The only way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil without economic disaster is to produce more of what is here while simultaneously developing alternatives. Then, and only then, can you reduce your percentage of dependency on oil. Oil reduction must correlate directly with the development of new alternative forms of energy until oil becomes a thing of the past. Sen. Obama’s vision of a “clean energy future” is short-sighted, naïve and ignorant. Like other liberals, he thinks he deserves credit for having good intentions. I don’t think he should get credit for showing leadership when he doesn’t offer any specifics on how to solve the problem at hand.