Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, January 22, 2007

Montana’s Governor Says Buying Foreign Oil Funds Dictators

I think the answer to this is “Well duh.”

HELENA, Montana (AP)—Montana’s Democratic governor says President Bush is wrong on Iraq and has failed to recognize the importance of energy independence.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who learned Arabic while building irrigation projects in the Middle East for six years, said political solutions are needed in the region.

“Mr. President, there are animosities between Sunni and Shiite people in the Middle East that have developed over centuries,” Schweitzer said Saturday in the Democrats’ weekly radio address. “Outsiders cannot resolve this conflict unless the Iraqi people want security and freedom at least as much as us.”

The governor urged the Bush administration not to embed American troops with the Iraqi army, beside what he called “untested and potentially corrupt members of the Iraqi military.”

Schweitzer also argued that American energy independence is the only way to ensure the country doesn’t have to continue fighting wars in the Middle East.

Energy independence.  So that means Schweitzer is all for expanding the exploitation of oil reserves on American lands, right?  Allowing oil companies freer access to domestic oil reserves and not taxing them into oblivion, right?

Wrong.

The governor touted his support for biodiesel and his efforts to increase wind power in Montana and develop new liquid fuels from coal. He also pointed to the efforts of others to develop more ethanol.

“We have enough energy resources and green technology in the United States to enable us to stop relying on foreign dictators to supply us with fuel,” Schweitzer said. “Along with a smart strategy in Iraq, our energy independence can make us stronger and safer.”

Schweitzer said the country uses 6.5 billion barrels of oil a year, while only producing 2.5 billion barrels. The rest comes from “some of the world’s worst dictators.”

Instead, the nation should cut back on 1 billion barrels through conservation, produce another 1 billion barrels of biofuels, and 2 billion barrels from turning coal into liquid fuel.

“We can achieve energy independence in 10 years, create a whole new industry with hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and you’ll never have to send children and grandchildren to war in the Middle East again,” Schweitzer said.

“Mr. President, let’s create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America by producing our own clean fuels—bring our men and women home—and stop spending money in Iraq.”

What a turd.

First, we don’t send “children” to fight in the Middle East we send men and women.  Adults who signed themselves up voluntarily to serve in our armed forces.  Calling them children is an insult.

Second, it sure is easy to talk about replacing our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on biofuels and fuels created from coal, but is there any evidence to suggest that these things could sustain our energy needs?  Ethanol certainly hasn’t shown that it can be relied upon as a primary source of energy.  Supply problems forced gas prices sky-high in Minnesota (which mandates the use of ethanol in all its fuels) this summer.  Capacity could certainly be expanded to produce more of the fuel, but ultimately even if we devoted every single acre of usable farm land in this country to producing ethanol we still wouldn’t have enough to meet our massive and constantly growing demand for fuel.  Plus, the E85 fuel that has been much-hyped by politicians like Schweitzer (and North Dakota’s own Gov. John Hoeven) has been all but unsellable since the federal government removed the subsidy of it.  E85 is, quite frankly, more expensive and less efficient than normal gasoline.  Until it can compete with normal gasoline on price and performance it just isn’t going to be a marketable option for most Americans.

Unless politicians like Schweitzer use the power of government to cram it down our throats, which would have the result of raising energy prices so high that most Americans would be wishing for the gas prices of last summer.

And this coal liquification fuel process, while interesting and worth pursuing, is still very much in it’s infancy from what I’ve observed of it.

So people like Gov. Schweitzer can talk all they want about do replacing oil with this or that new-fangled sort of fuel all they want, but at the end of the day the only sure-fire short-term way to stop using so much foreign oil is to a) let our oil companies develop America’s own oil supplies and b) quit taxing the hell out of the oil industry so that they can fulfill our energy needs in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

I’m all for ending our reliance on foreign oil, but we can’t just do it willy-nilly by cramming fuel alternatives that aren’t as efficient and not nearly as economically viable as oil down the throats of American citizens.

Comments

Ethanol will never be able to compete with gasoline as a motor fuel, on a level playing field.  The ethanol molecule has about half the energy of gasoline, it is more expensive to ship, and we simply can’t grow enough of the necessary crops to produce it.  We would go right back to being dependent on foreign sources for our fuel if we were forced to switch to ethanol.  We would never freely choose to do it. The other “alternative” energy sources are only economically feasible when oil is over $80 a barrel or more.  Right now, the only realistic way of becoming independent of terrorist oil is to develop our own, and buy more from non-terrorist states.  In fact, it would be great economic strategy to do so.  The terrorist states are using oil as a cash flow resource, and cutting off the flow of cash to them would have an immediate effect.  Even the threat of cutting our imports from them would be effective.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 10:12 am

I did some back of the envelope figuring and came up with 136 North Dakota’s being turned over to bio fuels in order to cover our energy needs.

Clearly that’s not going to happen.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 22, 2007 at 10:20 am
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Rob, you are being willfully ignorant.  It is perfectly appropriate to say “children”.  President Bush has used the word and used “sons and daughters”. When will you take off your political blinders?  Even the President is talking about alternative fuels.  All you want to talk about is oil, oil, oil.  We get it already.  Oil will not last forever and we need to look at alternatives.  The world’s use of oil is increasing not decreasing and the sources are not infinite. 

So quit feigning insults from a democratic conservative governor when our President has used the same language.

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 10:52 am
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

It is perfectly appropriate to say “children”.  President Bush has used the word and used “sons and daughters”.

No it’s not.

Sons and daughter’s can be adults.  Children can’t be.  It’s insulting to call our troops children.  They aren’t children, they are adults.  But they are also sons and daughters.

Got it yet?

Even the President is talking about alternative fuels.

He’s certainly not talking about mandating them, which is what you liberals want.

Oil will not last forever and we need to look at alternatives.

Of course we need to look at alternatives.  But the alternatives need to be viable economically.  Ethanol and most bio fuels simply aren’t at this point, yet you big-government libs want to shove them down our throats anyway with billions in subsidies and the like.

So quit feigning insults from a democratic conservative governor when our President has used the same language.

Again, “sons and daughters” is not the same thing as “children.” I’m of the same age as most of our troops, and I’d be pretty insulted if you called me a child.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 22, 2007 at 11:16 am

P: Nice restatement of the NeoMalthusian ideology.  Just because oil will “run out eventually” is no excuse for totalitarian control and management of the energy industry.  Market forces will do their usual superior job in managing the energy situation.  When alternative energy sources are really needed, they will be utilized, and not before.  This is just another power grab attempt by the left.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 11:27 am
Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

We are heavily dependant on oil right now and I don’t see that changing quickly, maybe or likely in the next 10 years. 

Bush is pushing a number of alternatives, I don’t see them anywhere near viable yet.  Disregarding US sources of oil is foolhardy, we need them now or even 10 years ago. 

(Most the ages I see are between 20 and 40 years.)

FlyOnTheWall on January 22, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Fly: In 1970, the prediction was that we would run out of oil in thirty years.  Now, thirty-seven years later, we have more known oil reserves than we had in 1970.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  Maybe listening to the politically-agendized scareologists isn’t the best thing to do.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Son and daughters are children.  My parents have 8 children.  They didn’t have 8 adults.  Man oh man are you off base. Here’s just one of the Prez’s quotes to refresh that sagging memory of yours:

So long as I think I’m doing the right thing, and so long as we can win, I’m going to leave our kids there because it’s necessary for the security of this country. (April 6, 2006)

No one’s calling you a child, the meaning is in the sense of “sending America’s children” off to war.  And it looks like the Prez agrees with me. Get it now, Rob?

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 12:45 pm

BTW, stating that we are “heavily dependent on oil” is like saying that we are heavily dependent on air, water and food.  It’s true, but it doesn’t mean anything, other than we do what is necessary to have what we require.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

Rob: See the following:

child (chīld)
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl’drən).

A person between birth and puberty.
A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.

An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.

An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century”

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

So...you think our soldiers are immature, or have “not yet attained maturity?”


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 22, 2007 at 01:02 pm
Avatar for pomerdorgrad

I understand now that Schweitzer is governor, people refer to Montana as “Big Ego Country.” It’s like he invented the Fischer-Tropf process.

At least he didn’t cite Brazil as an example of energy independence through alternative fuels.

Brazil is an example of energy independence through offshore drilling.

pomerdorgrad on January 22, 2007 at 01:06 pm

The real issue about independance from foreign oil for the US is that it really doesn’t do a damned thing to solve a global problem.  China and India are demanding more and more oil so for every dollar we spend on biodiesel, the Chinese will buy that oil from Iran or Venezuala and put that money right back into some nutjob’s terror funds.  That is why Oil For Food was not a scandal to the rest of the world.  How many oil wells does France or Germany have?

Worldwide demand is increasing.  Worldwide production is increasing, but only in places like Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc.  We can play all high and mighty about biofuels this or conservation that, but at the end of the day, we need to increase our production to maintain our status in the world economy and the world political arena.  The Japanese conquered a quarter of the world and the Germans another quarter to get oil.  The Chinese and the Russians are fighting us diplomatically and in other less savory ways around the world to get ahold of oil reserves because both countries know that without control of petrol, they cannot compete with us.  Oil may be all that has kept Russia afloat the last decade.

Scweitzer and the Dems are ignorant because their hatred of Big Oil and Corporations has blinded them to the fact that without big oil, we lose our standard of living and the Chinese and Russians and Venezualans and Iranians will be in charge and the French and Germans will capitulate to the owners of the oil just like Chirac did with Saddam.

Justin B. on January 22, 2007 at 01:16 pm

Oh PLEASE!!!!

Puzzle, your fondling of the semantics of who are children and who aren’t is bending way toward the ridiculous side of the arguement. Everyone, even you, is someone’s child. But the way the word ‘children’ was used in the original statement was meant to be manipulative. And to get people just like you to burst into orgasmic choruses of “Yes, yes, YES” in agreement.

Congratulations. You’ve been manipulated. Was it good for you?


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on January 22, 2007 at 01:25 pm
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

No Rob, you are now being willfully ignorant. Is is that difficult for you to read the entire definition? Just to make it really clear for you today Rob,

“A son or daughter; an offspring.

oh pulease Pilgrim, the meaning was quite clear.  Rob decided to make an argument out of it and I decided to prove my point. And you made my point as well. Take it up with Rob!

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 01:44 pm
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

Puzzle, Gov. Schweitzer clearly didn’t mean children in the “sons and daughters” sense.  He meant “children” in the Michel Moore, “why aren’t you signing your children up for Iraq” sense of the word.  As though the troops were our innocent, immature offspring we were sending off to fight our battles rather than adults who choose to fight.

Nobody likes to be called a child, Puzzle.  Especially not adults bearing the sort of responsibility our soldiers do.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 22, 2007 at 02:03 pm

An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.

So, the pro-abortion crowd really is killing children. Thanks for clarifying that, P.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 02:08 pm
Avatar for Puzzlefeet

I disagree Rob,he didn’t call them “a child” Rob as you purport.  You are interpreting it that way because you are wearing your partisan blinders.  The soldiers are the children and grandchildren of Americans and some who will become Americans with their service.

Get off your high horse, Rob, the prez has used the same language,I’ll be waiting for your criticism.

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 02:23 pm
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

Ok Puzzle, from now on I shall refer to you as a kid since it’s not insulting or condescending or anything.

As in: Puzzle, you child, that’s not what the Governor meant.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 22, 2007 at 02:32 pm
Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

Fly: In 1970, the prediction was that we would run out of oil in thirty years.

Rob108, the 70’s are a technological darkages.  We were in the middle of a cataclysmic global cooling!  You can’t take anything seriously that came from the era.  That’s why global warming data usually starts from the 80’s on. 

I’m hoping the Democratic position is just political posturing because the lack of energy policy will be (further) crippling.  The do nothing/sniping is _really_ starting to tell. 

I disagree with the proposition that the alternatives will not be feasible ‘til oil hits $80 a barrel.  It’s true for now but I see technology/urge/cost improving that by ~20% over a decade.  (Let’s not even start on the Saudi proven oil reserves not changing over 30 years of drilling.)

FlyOnTheWall on January 22, 2007 at 02:34 pm
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

Fly, I think you, Robert and I are all on the same page.  We all want to see alternative fuels take over because of market forces, not because of meddling politicians shoving them down our throats.

When those market forces will culminate is something we can debate about.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 22, 2007 at 02:41 pm

I’m hoping the Democratic position is just political posturing because the lack of energy policy will be (further) crippling.  The do nothing/sniping is _really_ starting to tell.

Their energy policy is well known: taxation and regulation, eventually leading to a takeover of the energy industry by the govt(Dem, of course).


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 02:46 pm

Rob: Going with what is presently known to exist, the “running out of oil” scenario is somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred years in the future.  All of us will be long gone by then, and the market will have made the necessary adjustments all along, so the only reason to harp on this is for political purposes.  More scareology=more govt dependence.  According to the lefties, more govt is the answer to everything.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on January 22, 2007 at 02:48 pm

Rob, how many adults did your parents have?

Puzzlefeet on January 22, 2007 at 03:54 pm

flyontheturd you are WAY too funny. Ought to seel that routine to Carlos Mencia.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 22, 2007 at 04:08 pm
Avatar for Brian

Your arguments are just semantics.

That aside, we should get off foreign oil.  There are viable alternatives.  Consider the EV-1 made back in the 1990’s.  It was an electric car that could go 80 miles an hour and about 80-120 miles per charge on lithium batteries which have now vastly improved.  This is more than 10 year old technology.  Even powered by coal electric plants, they put out less pollutants per mile than a gas powered engine and coal is the dirtiest possible electric solution.

Then for the gasoline we do use, we can raise standards on fuel efficiency to match what many other countries have which is about 10 miles to the gallon more than we have right now.

These aren’t pipe dreams.  Both of these technologies exist and are affordable to the average consumer. 

Let’s say it does cost more (which it doesn’t).  So we pay Americans more for American products and don’t have to live with the guilt of funding governments that do horrible things to their people and others.

Brian on May 16, 2008 at 08:51 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.