The Idiocy of Energy Independence
|
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_idiocy_of_energy_independe.html
Type of Content: Article It's amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good. Most every politician and pundit says "energy independence" is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations? The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace. Read »
Created 20 weeks 2 days ago
Made popular 20 weeks 1 day ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 176 reads
****
True "energy independence" would be not paying for it, period. (eg, solar.) This would eliminate the power that they hold over us.
"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world." --Henry Kissinger
Energy independence would be great. But corporate boondoggles and panic politics are usually pretty hard on the wallet. On the other hand when the private sector stops looking for government handouts you get commercial ventures, (such as the solar tower in Australia) which may actually be viable. And Ron Paul supporters have been called isolationists since day one due to our opposition of free trade agreements and assorted global bodies, but in this case, who would the real isolationists be?
"Freedom without emotion is like a car without gas."
Energy independence is bad if it means isolationism. However, if we're talking about moving out of a reliance on OPEC, then it would improve free trade.