Chapaev
29th August 2008, 23:25
The nationalistic bourgeoisie, liberal intellectuals, reformist trade unions, and bloodthirsty neoconservatives lately have been agitating for "energy independence." They want to stop the consumption of "foreign oil", which is just a euphemism for oil from Arab and Muslim countries.
It is dangerous to be buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nations that are sponsors of or allied with radical Islamists who foment hatred against the United States. The petrodollars we provide such nations contribute materially to the terrorist threats we face. In time of war, it is imperative that our national expenditures on energy be redirected away from those who use them against us
http://www.setamericafree.org/openletter.htm
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Congressman Eliot Engel
Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy
David A. Harris
American Jewish Committee
Col. (ret.) Bill Holmberg
American Council on Renewable Energy
Anne Korin
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
Gal Luft
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
Cliff May
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Thomas Neumann
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
Daniel Pipes
Middle East Forum
Hon. R. James Woolsey
Former director of the CIA
Co-Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger
Meyrav Wurmser
Hudson Institute
The concept of "energy independence" is closely tied to the Neo Cons' belief that any type of engagement and interaction with Muslims must be avoided at all costs. The loudest proponents of this new energy independence ideology are the same Neo Cons who pushed for the aggression against Iraq in 2003. The drive for "energy independence" is at its most fundamental level a xenophobic and racist response to a world that has grown beyond America's ability to control. It makes no sense to politicize energy or to think that things will improve if the United States moves toward protectionism. Energy security can only be achieved by accepting global economic interdependence and developing friendly relations with oil exporters. If countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran must import energy, then it would be impossible for the United States to become self-sufficient in energy. The United States cannot become self-sufficient in energy for the same reason why it cannot establish self-sufficiency in uranium, titanium, and even coal. If the Neo Cons were genuinely concerned about "energy independence", then BP would have been kicked out of the U.S. long ago.
The conflation of oil and "terrorism" is not substantiated by any facts. Groups and individuals identified as terrorists such as Bin Laden, Taliban, PLO, Provisional IRA, Tamil Tigers, FARC, and several others did not finance their activities from oil sales. Rather than supporting terrorists, America's client regimes within OPEC such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, and Bahrain in fact let the United States military bases on their territory and have done as much, if not more, than the United States is combating terrorism.
Nor is it feasible to discontinue the use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Oil consumption in the United States is projected to drastically increase. The alternative energy hyped up by politicians has proven to be ineffective. Even if all the corn in the United States was turned into ethanol, only 5 percent of current demand would be fulfilled. The only effects produced from ethanol are higher prices, higher taxes, increased pollution, soaring food prices, and serious waste of food and water. Ethanol actually uses more energy than it gives.
Nor are solar panels and wind turbines viable alternatives. Even with government subsidies, it would take twenty years to recover the cost of solar panels. Solar panels do not work at night or during the the winter. It is too expensive, cannot provide large enough capacity, and it cannot displace imported oil. It does nothing to impact transportation. Wind turbines cannot provide energy on hot summer days when demand is at its highest. At best, they can produce only ten percent of their capacity. Adding more wind turbines would increase electricity costs. Existing fossil fuels plants would operate less efficiently. Overall, wind turbines would provide no more than 1 percent of projected energy demand even if they were rapidly expanded. Even if nuclear power was to be significantly expanded, uranium would have to be imported.
It is dangerous to be buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nations that are sponsors of or allied with radical Islamists who foment hatred against the United States. The petrodollars we provide such nations contribute materially to the terrorist threats we face. In time of war, it is imperative that our national expenditures on energy be redirected away from those who use them against us
http://www.setamericafree.org/openletter.htm
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Congressman Eliot Engel
Frank Gaffney
Center for Security Policy
David A. Harris
American Jewish Committee
Col. (ret.) Bill Holmberg
American Council on Renewable Energy
Anne Korin
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
Gal Luft
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
Cliff May
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Thomas Neumann
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
Daniel Pipes
Middle East Forum
Hon. R. James Woolsey
Former director of the CIA
Co-Chairman, Committee on the Present Danger
Meyrav Wurmser
Hudson Institute
The concept of "energy independence" is closely tied to the Neo Cons' belief that any type of engagement and interaction with Muslims must be avoided at all costs. The loudest proponents of this new energy independence ideology are the same Neo Cons who pushed for the aggression against Iraq in 2003. The drive for "energy independence" is at its most fundamental level a xenophobic and racist response to a world that has grown beyond America's ability to control. It makes no sense to politicize energy or to think that things will improve if the United States moves toward protectionism. Energy security can only be achieved by accepting global economic interdependence and developing friendly relations with oil exporters. If countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran must import energy, then it would be impossible for the United States to become self-sufficient in energy. The United States cannot become self-sufficient in energy for the same reason why it cannot establish self-sufficiency in uranium, titanium, and even coal. If the Neo Cons were genuinely concerned about "energy independence", then BP would have been kicked out of the U.S. long ago.
The conflation of oil and "terrorism" is not substantiated by any facts. Groups and individuals identified as terrorists such as Bin Laden, Taliban, PLO, Provisional IRA, Tamil Tigers, FARC, and several others did not finance their activities from oil sales. Rather than supporting terrorists, America's client regimes within OPEC such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, and Bahrain in fact let the United States military bases on their territory and have done as much, if not more, than the United States is combating terrorism.
Nor is it feasible to discontinue the use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Oil consumption in the United States is projected to drastically increase. The alternative energy hyped up by politicians has proven to be ineffective. Even if all the corn in the United States was turned into ethanol, only 5 percent of current demand would be fulfilled. The only effects produced from ethanol are higher prices, higher taxes, increased pollution, soaring food prices, and serious waste of food and water. Ethanol actually uses more energy than it gives.
Nor are solar panels and wind turbines viable alternatives. Even with government subsidies, it would take twenty years to recover the cost of solar panels. Solar panels do not work at night or during the the winter. It is too expensive, cannot provide large enough capacity, and it cannot displace imported oil. It does nothing to impact transportation. Wind turbines cannot provide energy on hot summer days when demand is at its highest. At best, they can produce only ten percent of their capacity. Adding more wind turbines would increase electricity costs. Existing fossil fuels plants would operate less efficiently. Overall, wind turbines would provide no more than 1 percent of projected energy demand even if they were rapidly expanded. Even if nuclear power was to be significantly expanded, uranium would have to be imported.