Friday, October 16, 2009

Find carbon-emitting fossil fuels, chronologically challenged person, find carbon-emitting fossil fuels!

Madame has written another great op-ed on energy independence. An excerpt was also posted on Facebook. One of the first things Madame did in this piece was a little bit of math:
Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil.
We have a President right now who can't correctly count the number of states and a Vice President who can't count the numbers of letters in the word "jobs", so I'll do the math for them. After all, it is my job to compute. This would mean that America would need to produce 1.55 million bpd in order to satisfy American consumption, even if cars ran on something other than gasoline!

Madame thoroughly discussed how one can be both pro-environment and pro-development, the benefits of using natural gas, renewable energy,the need to build more oil refineries, trade deficits, and job creation!

Madame closed with her one of her signature phrases and a knock at the Great Opologizer's signature phrase:
Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!".
I'm surprised that the softy southpaws haven't gotten upset at Madame for that phrase: "Drill, baby, drill!". They probably think that it isn't politically correct or environmentally conscious enough. They probably think that
"Find carbon-emitting fossil fuels, chronologically challenged person, find carbon-emitting fossil fuels!" sounds better.

It was another good piece!


bestbud said...

Another nice LOTUS Whitney

I love your sarc.

Sarah's "Yes We Can" is so classic! taking Obama's words and making him eat them!

Bill589 said...

I like the specifics, presented with a logic even I can understand. Although my adult mind appreciates the simple truth, my inner child laughed with the jab at the end.

thirtynine said...

This is another good piece, too, my friend!

NYPalinPower said...

First I want to say, LOTUS, you are incredibly witty and I love reading your words. It is a relief and a real pleasure to laugh in light of a serious subject such as POLITICS!

As far as drilling goes, I'm all for it. It's truly a matter of energy independence. Alaska will be set for life financially if this happens (and the U.S. will as well as long as most of the money or power is not going to the private contactors).

I can understand Sarah's urgency with this issue. One key reason is that she wants to keep her promises to the Alaskan people first before she moves on to the rest of the country. And so I would like to offer my unbias, "independent" and very simple idea for a solution to this. (I won't speak about the private "special interests" here because I am against them controlling the political landscape.) But I can offer something else.

Since not everyone in Washington thinks with common sense like Sarah (at least not yet), she might have to speak to the politicians in their own language by negotiating with them first (but not selling out) in order to get them to agree to developing Alaska's natural resources.

It has to be ethical and something that also makes sense. Maybe making a commitment to developing new "green" energy resources or other progressive ways to develop energy in addition to drilling (to me, progressive really isn't a bad word. If you look at Germany and some other countries, they are really more advanced and prepared in this area.) Also green will bring "other kinds" of jobs too (workers and teachers of the new technologies) and IT WILL NOT compete with or remove the need for fossil fuels which will always be needed in some way.

So, that's just my two cents. It's just a matter of coming to an agreement that makes sense for the good of all and is a win-win situation for both sides. Then if that is the case I'm sure the people will come together and back it too.