GreenfieldNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Brookfield Basics

A column about history, culture, policy, and things in between.

Energy - The Environment - And Congress

By Tom Gehl
Wednesday, Oct 8 2008, 12:06 PM

Our energy policy in America today is dysfunctional.  And the reason it is dysfunctional is that Congressional (and Presidential) leaders are unwilling to portray realities to the American people such that we can forge a cohesive way forward.  They clammer and clang about being "energy independent" and "bringing relief to the pump", as if their empty rhetoric could make it so.  I believe both candidates, but in particular John McCain, missed an enormous opportunity by not making this a key component of the campaign. 

Reality Number One:  While we absoluely need to explore alternative energy sources (especially nuclear), there is no reason to believe that ANY alternative to fossil fuels is going to have a measurable impact for at least fifteen years.  So while we pursue alternatives, we also need to pursue every drop of oil and every cubic foot of natural gas we can.

Reality Number Two:  We would want to fully exploit our fossil fuel alterantives even if we were farther down the road with alternatives than we are.  As fragile as our economy is right now do you want it to be MORE or LESS dependent on the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad.    

Readers of this column know that I love northern Michgian.  Lake Michigan, the Au Sable River, the Leelanau Penninsula, Tahquamenon Falls - all have their claim on me.  I have written of her land, shore and water many times, and to the extent my heart can reside in a physical place, it does so there. 

I came to love northern Michigan when I lived there for nearly five years.  I worked for Amoco Production Company and spent many months as a roustabout working in the "oil patch".  And a result of working there is that I learned exploration for and production of oil and natural gas can co-exist comfortably with the environment.  I remember walking in the woods with some out of town visitors and telling them we were within one hundred yards of a producing oil well.  As they considered the dense forest and beautiful greenery, they simply did not believe me.  But a short walk down a trail revealed the truth, for the forests and fields of northern Michigan, topography that Melville would have described as "loveliness unfathomable", are replete with well-heads and pump jacks inexorably pulling energy out of the earth. 

  

While it is certainly true that the drilling phase is messy, sites can are restored to a level of pristine cleanliness that is all but pre-production, with only some trees cleared to make room for the well head equipment.  That was the case thirty years ago, and with the technological advancement that has occured since then, the energy companies can look for and produce this bounty with even less impact on the environment.  It is simply no longer credible to suggest that the exploration for and production of oil and natural gas is a significant environmental threat.  Yet many still cling to this tired and long debunked argument.

So what?

Well - Alaska's ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is currently sitting atop staggering reserves of natural gas and oil.  Estimates peg the amounts as fifteen BILLION barrels of oil and nine TRILLION cubic feet of gas.  And the estimates of reserves that exist off-shore are far greater than even these numbers. 

It is time to unfetter our energy companies and send the unequivocal signal to them that it is time to go and get it.  And it is time to realize that such a decision can be taken without trashing our responsibility to the environment. 

And the only group of people keeping us from doing exactly that is the United States Congress. 

Comments

Jeff B   

I assume by this

"And the only group of people keeping us from doing exactly that is the United States Congress."

You mean Republicans in congress. The Dems have and will always be against it. McCain/Palin will help too!

October 8, 2008 1:06 PM

mikeyd   

'I believe both candidates, but in particular John McCain, missed an enormous opportunity by not making this a key component of the campaign.'

Barack Obama has made energy independence a major piece of his platform. Why has Pres. Bush and Cong. Sensenbrenner fought every increase in CAFE limits, which would very quickly have a larger long term impact than more drilling, with the added benefit of actually helping our climate change problem. Drilling, pumping, and burning more will only hasten dramatic increase in global atmospheric CO2 content, increase pollution, and global warming.

It is time to consider all these issues as being linked.

Our desire for slightly cheaper gas might not trump the environmental or socio-economic impacts of drilling more and more, and thus burning even more. The gas companies do not own the world.   There are Many hundreds of oil permits issued and currently being held by oil companies and not being used. Why don't they just start there?

'we also need to pursue every drop of oil and every cubic foot of natural gas we can'. This kind of thirst goes strongly against the love you claim to have for the environment.  Oh to be Republican and an 'environment lover', I am sure it is an annoying and sharp edged fence on which to stand.  No one is saying that the drilling itself is all that bad, except it is a lie to say it is always environmentally safe and friendly. How many platforms were ripped off their moorings by Katrina and Ike? How is the groundwater in the area near your beloved well heads? Care to pump and supply your family with the downflow groundwater for drinking? Don't care for that, and the wells you mention are probably Extremely low producers... Do they ever burn off anything there, spewing mercury, CO2, and all kinds of carcinogenic toxins into the atmosphere in the vicinity? What about at the nearest refinery; a clean, green machine?  

On top of all this, there are those trying to scare us into pumping it at all costs, since we aid terrorists by buying their product if we don't...  you mean like Canada and Mexico?  I will not be terrorized and most Americans thankfully seem  to have gotten over being terrorized like this since the Bush/Cheney ad campaign leading up to the last presidential elections.

Why not just decrease our desire for this product altogether?

October 9, 2008 3:31 PM

Jeff B   

MIKEY...those are the funniest comments, but I am sure you feel all warm inside. Global warming is a hoax. Humans contributing to this current warming cycle is barely debatable. Don't fall for media hype.

October 10, 2008 1:39 PM

mikeyd   

Hi JB,

It is the science that I read and understand. I did not say anything about 'the media'.

First you say Global warming is a hoax, then you say 'current warming cycle', contradicting yourself. Good job.

I agree it is barely debatable that humans are contributing, because the scientific facts depict trends that are without scientific doubt attributable to humans and there isn't a debate in scientific realms at all anymore.

October 10, 2008 3:14 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Tags

No tags have been created or used yet.

Search the Blogs