|
 |
Townhall...
Reckless, Quixotic
Fantasies
By David Limbaugh
At what point do environmentalist liberals become accountable for the
results of their policies instead of their allegedly good intentions?
Why isn’t President Obama held accountable for his ideologically based
interference with lower oil prices?
Obama has repeatedly shown his willingness to use his executive
authority discriminatorily to implement his preferred environmental
policies. On the presidential campaign trail, he bragged that he would
ensure that any company that built a coal-fired plant would go
bankrupt. By charging coal-powered plants “a huge sum for all that
greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” he would “generate billions of
dollars that we (could) invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other
alternative energy approaches.”
He also made no secret of his intention to pressure Americans into
driving hybrids or into taking alternative means of travel entirely.
His transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, arrogantly boasted that the
administration would “coerce people out of their cars.” In justifying
the administration’s push for public mass transit options, LaHood said,
“We have to create opportunities for people who want to ride a bike or
walk or take a streetcar.” Obama’s ill-conceived and cost-prohibitive
high-speed rail proposal is similarly fueled by this obsession.
Have we detected any concern by the administration about the economic
impact of all of this? Then again, how often do environmentalist
zealots concern themselves with economic realities?
Research has shown, for example, that if the United States were to
adopt the Draconian cap-and-trade policies urged by the administration,
it could cause a loss in gross domestic product of $9.4 trillion by
2035 and increase each family of four’s share of the national debt by
$115,000. Never mind that the policies would have a trivial impact on
future concentrations of greenhouse gases and have no meaningful impact
on global temperatures, even by 2100.
Not that we need more proof, but we might recall Obama’s lawless
defiance of a federal court order blocking his moratorium on offshore
drilling -- a moratorium that would further exacerbate our lack of
domestic oil production, our dependence on foreign oil and the high
price of oil to the American consumer.
The unmistakable lesson is that such is the myopic zealotry of
environmentalists like Obama that they would implement policies
virtually guaranteed to harm our economy significantly, even when they
offer no promise of appreciable environmental benefits.
It is doubtlessly this factual backdrop that led Mississippi Gov. Haley
Barbour to accuse the Obama administration of favoring a run-up in gas
prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Barbour cited
Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s comment that a gradual increase in
gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas guzzlers and
finding homes closer to where they work. Higher gas prices, according
to Chu, could force investments in alternative fuels and spur us to
embrace “cleaner energy sources.”
I think Barbour has a point, especially in view of Obama’s attitude and
energy policies. But we needn’t get bogged down in this ongoing debate
over whether Obama sets out intentionally to harm the economy or even
to raise gas prices. We must, however, hold him accountable for his
damaging policies, irrespective of his intentions.
On that note, The Heritage Foundation argues that Obama’s policies are
indeed making gas prices higher. This week, the price of a barrel of
crude oil surpassed $100 for the first time since September 2008.
Heritage acknowledges that Middle East turmoil has had an impact, but
long before this chaos, experts were predicting $4-a-gallon prices by
the summer and $5-a-gallon gas by 2012 because of “increased oil demand
worldwide.”
So what’s the obvious solution? Well, increasing domestic oil
production comes to mind. But the administration has done just the
opposite -- to the direct detriment of the American people.
Both Chu and White House press secretary Jay Carney have insisted that
the remedy is to develop alternative energy sources to decrease our
dependency on foreign oil. That’s just peachy in theory and something
to continue to explore for the long run. But in the short run, it is a
reckless, quixotic fantasy -- a tilting at windmills.
Windmills, incidentally, are not the answer. Heritage experts argue
that wind and solar energy sources are miniscule and “entirely
irrelevant to gasoline supply in the transportation sector.” The
administration’s other alternative sources of energy, such as corn and
electric cars, “won’t help a bit.” Corn-based ethanol produces less
energy than gasoline, “contributes to food price increases, costs
taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply,
and has dubious environmental effects.” Electric cars are
“prohibitively costly and environmentally suspect.”
Wake up, folks. Regardless of Obama’s intentions, his energy policies
are, at best, grossly negligent and irrefutably damaging to Americans
and our economy.
Read it at Townhall
|
|
|
|
