A recent cover of TIME featured a new twist on an iconic American image. A famous photograph from World War II was altered for effect. The picture, originally taken by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press in 1945, depicted five Marines and one Navy corpsman raising the American Flag atop Mount Suribachi in Japan during the Battle of Iwo Jima. The battle itself was particularly bloody, costing nearly 7,000 Americans and more than 20,000 Japanese their lives. So symbolic of Veteran heroism was this image that its sculpted representation was commissioned for the USMC War Memorial near Arlington National Cemetery. The sculpture stands today as a proud recognition of the sacrifices our Combat Veterans past and present have made in furtherance of our national security and preservation. TIME determined that this photograph could be modified to shed favorable light on another cause: environmentalism. Rosenthal’s Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was therefore reproduced on the cover of TIME with a tree replacing the American Flag.
More recently, Robert Kennedy, Jr., an outspoken advocate of the modern “Green” movement, drew another hyperbolic comparison. Apparently, in Kennedy’s world, today’s environmentalists are morally equivalent to those who worked towards the abolition of slavery before and during the Civil War.
Needless to say, both analogies concocted by the self-flattering environmentalist movement were subjected to heavy criticism and ridicule. Many Veterans and their supporters the world over were angered by the TIME cover because it effectively placed conservation and alarmism on the same pedestal as patriotism and ultimate self-sacrifice. While TIME’s intention may have been to honor environmentalists by propping them up alongside our men and women in uniform, the publication instead demeaned the service of our Combat Veterans by comparing their struggles to those of relatively frivolous political activists. And Kennedy’s suggestion that the mission of the “Green” movement is somehow on a par with that of the abolitionist movement cheapens the efforts of those who put their lives on the line to emancipate Blacks from slavery.
Self-described “environmentalists” do their cause no favors when they exhibit the type of hubris that TIME and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have. Even if one has great conviction in the existence of man-made Global Warming, one must also have a sense of proportion when arguing the case. Boastful alarmists are certainly not going to convince skeptics and “undecideds” to alter their lifestyles by erroneously comparing themselves to real patriots. In fact, they are more likely to arouse further suspicion of their motives and credibility. If anything, their overstatements are counterproductive. On one hand, they serve to solidify perceptions among doubters that the movement is disingenuous. On the other hand, they risk alienating some of movement’s own sympathizers who may get turned off by such self-important bluster.
Whether or not man-made Global Warming exists is a topic for ongoing discussion and debate. Suffice it to say, however, that environmentalists are not going to advance their agenda by employing surrogates like TIME and Bobby Kennedy to exaggerate their significance while minimizing the selflessness of those who have shed blood in service to this country.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Is This Energy Crisis Necessary?
About four years ago, I decided to buy a new car. It was an economic decision. Gasoline prices were hovering around the $2.00 per gallon mark, and it was costing more and more money to fill up the SUV. So I bought a small, entry-level passenger car. I figured that I could offset the rising gasoline prices by having to fill up less frequently. As the $2.00 per gallon mark became the rule rather than the exception, I fell into the trap of blaming the oil companies for “price gouging”. The problem is, like many others, I failed to notice some of the root causes for the surge.
Occasionally, a representative from one oil company or another would address consumer concerns by appearing for radio interviews. As they were oil company representatives, I thought it seemed reasonable to assume that they came to each phone interview armed with a copious list of talking points in an effort to justify the high fuel prices. One oil representative I remember even subjected herself to pointed, even abusive phone calls from frustrated motorists. But she held firm. Much of her argument focused on the hurdles related to delivering adequate supply: the restrictions on building new refineries, the state-to-state fuel grade regulations requiring countless variations of gasoline formula and the massive state and federal taxes added on at the retail level.
All-the-while, Al Gore was reinventing himself as a modern day Paul Revere, warning everyone of the potential catastrophe related to “Global Warming”. Gore and his “environmentalist” followers claimed that much of this predicted disaster was inevitable, if Americans did not take action right away. Primary among the required actions was a self-imposed commitment by average Americans to cut down on the use of “fossil fuels”. Oil and coal, among others, were to be resisted. And forget about nuclear energy, too. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon took care of that in the 1970s. In essence, Americans were expected to downsize. Quit using so much energy. Oh, and quit enabling terrorists and greedy capitalists by relying on “foreign oil”.
Over the last several years, Gore and his crowd have made significant steps towards scaring people into seeking alternatives. Gone are many of the gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, replaced with gasoline-electric hybrids. Badly-needed new roads and improvements have given way to seldom-used light rail systems. And “clean”, but highly inefficient Ethanol has been heavily subsidized in order to be competitive with big, bad oil.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the campaign against “Big Oil” have been significant. While self-important Congressmen have been subjecting oil executives to blustery public inquisitions, the conservation and alternative energy movements have failed miserably. Gasoline prices have risen to over $4.00 per gallon, and markets suggest that the price per gallon is only going to get worse. Ethanol mandates have led to shortages in corn supply, driving up food costs across the board. And it takes more energy to produce a unit of Ethanol than that unit produces itself.
In truth, the energy “crisis” is an unnecessarily self-imposed problem. Conservation, when resources are plenty, is a luxury borne of guilt in good economic times. However, in difficult times like these, it’s a job-killing, price-inflating economic parasite. And for what? To prevent fallout from “Global Warming”, a condition that is light years away from being proven? We’re supposed to accept the widespread destruction of our economy on a speculative theory predicting damage 50 years out?
Truth be told, the only crisis regarding energy is on the supply side. China and India, both of whom are more populous than the United States, have had recent industrial surges. Both countries are relatively new players in the worldwide market. The increased demand that they bring to a fixed supply has played a huge rule in driving the price of oil to record levels. The upward trend will continue unless and until new supply can be brought into the marketplace.
In the United States, we have the ability to tap into this crucial supply. Environmentalists have convinced the government to legislate against drilling for oil off the coasts of California and Florida. They’ve also designated an oil-fertile region of Alaska as a “wildlife refuge” to prevent exploration and drilling. Other toxic legislation has led to a restriction on building new oil refineries and pipelines which would have made gasoline more accessible and cheaper to the stretched American consumer. They’ve promoted inefficient alternatives like solar power, wind power and biofuels while restricting access to the sources proven efficient like coal, oil and nuclear energy. As a result, fuel prices are higher, food prices are higher yet demand for oil has not decreased.
If there is really a need and a demand for “cleaner”, yet efficient energy sources, the market will take care of the problem, as long as it’s left alone. Self-motivated investors will steer their money towards reasonable alternatives on the promise of rich returns. The potential to make a tidy profit by meeting a consumer demand will motivate scientists and inventors to develop real alternatives. In the meantime, consumers need relief from the high costs of food and fuel. Why not relax the prohibitive taxes applied to fuel consumption? Why not let oil companies research, discover, drill for, refine and efficiently transport domestic oil? Why not end the artificial promotion of false energy gods like Ethanol? Strange as it might seem, these solutions may re-stimulate an economy that has faltered in large part due to overbearing environmental policies.
Occasionally, a representative from one oil company or another would address consumer concerns by appearing for radio interviews. As they were oil company representatives, I thought it seemed reasonable to assume that they came to each phone interview armed with a copious list of talking points in an effort to justify the high fuel prices. One oil representative I remember even subjected herself to pointed, even abusive phone calls from frustrated motorists. But she held firm. Much of her argument focused on the hurdles related to delivering adequate supply: the restrictions on building new refineries, the state-to-state fuel grade regulations requiring countless variations of gasoline formula and the massive state and federal taxes added on at the retail level.
All-the-while, Al Gore was reinventing himself as a modern day Paul Revere, warning everyone of the potential catastrophe related to “Global Warming”. Gore and his “environmentalist” followers claimed that much of this predicted disaster was inevitable, if Americans did not take action right away. Primary among the required actions was a self-imposed commitment by average Americans to cut down on the use of “fossil fuels”. Oil and coal, among others, were to be resisted. And forget about nuclear energy, too. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon took care of that in the 1970s. In essence, Americans were expected to downsize. Quit using so much energy. Oh, and quit enabling terrorists and greedy capitalists by relying on “foreign oil”.
Over the last several years, Gore and his crowd have made significant steps towards scaring people into seeking alternatives. Gone are many of the gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, replaced with gasoline-electric hybrids. Badly-needed new roads and improvements have given way to seldom-used light rail systems. And “clean”, but highly inefficient Ethanol has been heavily subsidized in order to be competitive with big, bad oil.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the campaign against “Big Oil” have been significant. While self-important Congressmen have been subjecting oil executives to blustery public inquisitions, the conservation and alternative energy movements have failed miserably. Gasoline prices have risen to over $4.00 per gallon, and markets suggest that the price per gallon is only going to get worse. Ethanol mandates have led to shortages in corn supply, driving up food costs across the board. And it takes more energy to produce a unit of Ethanol than that unit produces itself.
In truth, the energy “crisis” is an unnecessarily self-imposed problem. Conservation, when resources are plenty, is a luxury borne of guilt in good economic times. However, in difficult times like these, it’s a job-killing, price-inflating economic parasite. And for what? To prevent fallout from “Global Warming”, a condition that is light years away from being proven? We’re supposed to accept the widespread destruction of our economy on a speculative theory predicting damage 50 years out?
Truth be told, the only crisis regarding energy is on the supply side. China and India, both of whom are more populous than the United States, have had recent industrial surges. Both countries are relatively new players in the worldwide market. The increased demand that they bring to a fixed supply has played a huge rule in driving the price of oil to record levels. The upward trend will continue unless and until new supply can be brought into the marketplace.
In the United States, we have the ability to tap into this crucial supply. Environmentalists have convinced the government to legislate against drilling for oil off the coasts of California and Florida. They’ve also designated an oil-fertile region of Alaska as a “wildlife refuge” to prevent exploration and drilling. Other toxic legislation has led to a restriction on building new oil refineries and pipelines which would have made gasoline more accessible and cheaper to the stretched American consumer. They’ve promoted inefficient alternatives like solar power, wind power and biofuels while restricting access to the sources proven efficient like coal, oil and nuclear energy. As a result, fuel prices are higher, food prices are higher yet demand for oil has not decreased.
If there is really a need and a demand for “cleaner”, yet efficient energy sources, the market will take care of the problem, as long as it’s left alone. Self-motivated investors will steer their money towards reasonable alternatives on the promise of rich returns. The potential to make a tidy profit by meeting a consumer demand will motivate scientists and inventors to develop real alternatives. In the meantime, consumers need relief from the high costs of food and fuel. Why not relax the prohibitive taxes applied to fuel consumption? Why not let oil companies research, discover, drill for, refine and efficiently transport domestic oil? Why not end the artificial promotion of false energy gods like Ethanol? Strange as it might seem, these solutions may re-stimulate an economy that has faltered in large part due to overbearing environmental policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)