Energy policy | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    On the anniversary of George Washington's birth, Jay Carney, White House mouthpiece, tells us that the Reps caused the Keystone XL pipeline to be disapproved by the anointed one. They made it political by establishing a cutoff date by which the decision needed to be made. Prior to the Reps involvement it wasn't political.

    Whaaaat?? This from the same group that after handing over a lot of GM to the unions (instead of the secured bond holders), tried to stop Boeing from establishing a plant in a Right to Work State, loaded up the NLRB with recess appointments (after redefining "recess" to suit their purposes) and more decided it was time to throw the environmentalists a bone. This from the same group that established one "drop dead" date after another for the approval of Obamacare legislation. This on behalf of the anointed one who every time he wants something done demands that it be done post haste. There are some folks who might suggest that the reason everything needs to be done in a hurry is so no one will have time to think about the ramifications of doing whatever it is that the anointed one wants done (like Obamacare for instance). Does anybody care about unintended consequences?? In the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, it has only been being analyzed for three or four years, which one would think would have been plenty enough time to figure out what's in it.

    It is interesting that what seems to be the big reason for not wanting anything to do with the Canadian oil is because the greens don't like the process involved in recovering it. The question that remains unanswered is: How is that process changed if the oil is sold to the Chinese instead of us?? Short answer; it isn't. Sooo...?? It also seems that the Al the Goracle acolytes haven't yet even begun to acknowledge that there is some serious disagreement among real scientists that global warming is man made. Question: If global warming is not part of a cyclical climatological phenomena, what made the several ice ages that occurred in the past reverse themselves??

    We also hear that the (Rep) Gov. of Nebraska dissatisfaction with the route was a big factor in the anointed one's decision. Can you believe it?? The Tenth Amendment applies to Nebraska but not Arizona. Interesting.. The administration disagrees with something the Gov. of Arizona does and the Justice Department is all over her. This while the Gov. of Nebraska opinion (that coincidently supports the administration' desires to keep the greens in his camp) gets the kid glove treatment. Hmmm...No politics there.. Yeah, right...It wouldn't seem to matter that the NE Gov changed his position before the ink was dry on the anointed one's rejection" letter. As a matter of fact, it isn't clear that his initial "disagreement" with the pipeline route should have counted for much after 3 or 4 years of analysis and looking at alternatives by the folks who prepared the EIS. Where do you suppose he was while all that was going on?? And what of the other pipelines that already cross the aquifer purported to be at risk?? Could he possibly have been counting all his ethanol subsidy money??

    We are also told that more U.S. oil is being pumped than ever before implicitly suggesting that the anointed one had anything to do with it (not) and therefore we don't need any additional oil (not - again). Unfortunately there are a lot of folks who will make that fallacious interpretation and actually believe that the anointed one had anything to do with the increase and that we don't really need any more oil.

    Ever since the gas lines of the 1970s, we have been told that it would take four to five years to get any "new" oil into the marketplace. Unfortunately, it is about the only thing that we have been told about increasing our oil supply that is true. That would be that from the day new drilling is approved until the "new" oil shows up at the market is in the range of four to five years - which suggests the "new" oil we are pumping and refining is the result of things that were done by the prior administration. Can any among us remember just who that was??. Oh yeah, the "oil guy" from Texas... Hmmm...

    In any case the "lead time" argument has been used successfully every time there has been a "gas crunch" beginning at least in the 70s as a "reason" for not upping our exploration and drilling.. It has virtually always been successful - unfortunately. There is one truism that doesn't seem to have occurred to a lot of folks. That would be that if we don't start drilling we will never see any increases in the production of U.S. oil. In the meantime Ms. Schumer's boy, Charlie, pleads with the Saudis to increase the amount of oil they are pumping. Do you suppose he would really prefer to see American dollars continue to be sent to the middle east to buy Saudi oil and pay for whatever they spend it on (Hmmm...) instead of keeping those dollars at home to buy North American oil?? Hmmm...

    What is particularly perplexing about this entire situation is how the anointed one gets away with suggesting that we even have an energy policy. He proclaims that our energy policy is that we need "all of the above" (i.e. oil, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and even coal) in order to get out front of the energy curve. He then adds insult to injury by opting for wind and solar pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. Another example of the administration deciding for all of us which energy sources will prosper in his "all of the above" world. His Energy Secretary first tells Congress that he wants to see gas prices rise (so wind and solar energy will seem to be economical) and then comes back a few days later (presumably after being provided some "guidance" from the White House) and tells us that we need to keep gas prices down. So which is it, Mr. Secretary?? And then the anointed one personally lobbies congress (unfortunately successfully) to reject an amendment that would have allowed the pipeline to proceed. Do you suppose there is even a minute chance that the American public will ever "see through" the disingenuous (but good sounding) rhetoric we hear from this administration and start demanding that there be a relationship (which is currently sorely lacking) between the rhetoric and the actual performance - not only in the realm of energy, but in everything else they promise (and then ignore)??

    Do you suppose that we continue to be "had" by the so called "greens"?? Their Patron Saints were exposed as charlatans several years ago and yet we are still spending our way to the poor house worrying about global warming. How much chutzpah do you suppose it takes to believe that we can control nature. (However much it is, the Al the Goracle crowd certainly is not lacking on that count.) If we can really control nature, there are a number of other things that we should be probably taking on ahead of global warming. How about we start with controlling tornadoes?? How about controlling Hurricanes?? How about earthquakes (and their occasionally resulting tsunamis)?? If we don't get those things under control, there may not be much left to save by the time the global warming does us in.

    Once we get those things under control, perhaps we could then turn our attention to the global warming issue, if it is indeed still an issue by then. Of course there is always the possibility that by then we may be in a "cooling" phase of what many argue is a cyclical global climate. If we are, we may need to figure out a way to stay warm. Perhaps we could burn a little coal to generate some warmth. Hmmm....

    D'ya think??