By Selwyn Duke

One of the very best columnists on the journalistic scene is Walter Williams.  His articles aren’t filled with flowery prose or esoteric terms (like esoteric!); they just cut to the heart of the matter and provide simple, reasoned analysis.  In fact, I can hardly think of an instance where he has written something with which I disagree.  Every piece is a home run, including this one, about how Congress, at the behest of environmentalist extremists, is largely responsible for our high oil prices.

This is, of course, no revelation.  Yet it cannot be emphasized enough.  Sure, there are other reasons why oil is high, such as the burgeoning economies of China and India (the latter’s Tata Nano automobile, with a price tag of only $2500, will make car travel feasible for millions more Indians) and futures speculators.  Yet, regardless of the impact of these factors, our failure to develop our own resources is inexcusable.

We hear conflicting reports about the impact exploiting our resources would have, with leftists claiming it would accomplish little.  Yet I’m more inclined to believe what Williams cites:

According to ‘We don’t have to
take $4 gas prices — we can drill,’ written by Sterling Burnett in the
Houston Chronicle (5/21/08), ‘It is estimated that beneath America’s
coast lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for
60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years.
… If allowed access to American oil reserves in Alaska and off our
coastline, American oil companies could increase our country’s reserves
an estimated fivefold, taking the United States from 11th place to
fourth among the countries with proven oil reserves.’

But whether you believe this or not, something is undeniable: It’s difficult to make any definitive judgments in this regard when market forces have not been allowed to function.

First, Congress has placed 85% of our coastal waters off limits to oil exploration.  Then there’s the fact that we haven’t built a new refinery in over 30 years.  Now, since I can tell you off the top of my head that there were twice as many cars on the road in 1990 as in 1970 (just imagine what the figure is today), does this sound realistic to you?  Is this a course that a sane, growing, modern nation would follow? 

The good news is that, owing to conservation and better technology, our oil consumption is not really that much greater than it was decades ago.  The bad news is, with a propagandizing media that won’t tell people the truth and grandstanding politicians who would rather score political points and advance leftist agendas than solve problems, most people won’t know enough to place the onus where it belongs.   Instead, they’ll blame the oil companies, as if the latter just suddenly realized they could reap obscene profits by simply raising prices.

Lastly, Williams points out a very interesting but not surprising (not to me, anyway) fact.  He writes:

. . . Burnett points out that the ‘two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature
Conservancy, have allowed oil and gas production on several of their
most important and unique nature preserves.’

Environmentalists come to their senses when non-drilling philosophy
costs them something. It’s two-faced hypocrisy. At times I’ve suggested
that the best way to get oil exploration in the Alaska National
Wildlife Reserve is to give the land to environmentalists. You can bet
they wouldn’t sit on billions of dollars of oil and gas.

This actually is quite typical of leftists.  It’s another example of how they will give you the shirt off someone else’s back, of their "do as I say, not as I do" approach.  And you can witness this phenomenon wherever they wield power.  Just note how they often raped the land in the former Soviet Union, or how China today is ravaging its landscape.  Why, in one region in China all the bees have been eliminated through pesticide use; thus, its fruit farmers now have to pollenate their own crops.

You see, sacrificing money for principle requires that you believe your principles have a basis in something beyond opinion.  If you believe they derive from God’s law, you may be able to subordinate mammon to them (and, let’s face it, even then it’s difficult for most).  If you’re talking about godless leftists, however, good luck.  They will virtually never exhibit that kind of nobility.

                          Protected by Copyright

Posted in , , ,

9 responses to “Environmentalists Orchestrating Our Oil Woes”

  1. E. Gads Avatar
    E. Gads

    Yes sir, those oil companies are doing everything they can to hold prices down. I believe that…really! You can tell from how their executives have cut their compensation packages. My goodness, how can they go on in the face of masses of Godless-lefty-tree-hugging-maniacs, all hypnotically chanting the soundtrack from Gore’s movie in unison? We do owe the oil companies a debit of thanks. We owe them the respect of recognizing that…it just isn’t their fault. The market, that blessed creation of the heavens, is not being allowed to work. Despite the fact that it seems to be working fine for them, if quarterly profits are any indicator. If only they were allowed drilling rights in Alaska and off shore… the House of Saud would crumple like the sub-prime market. We owe ‘em all right, we owe ‘em…And you can bet we’re going to pay. That’s only right, isn’t it?

    Like

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is odd, that anyone would think that a capitalist market works in the general good. You know the “rising tide raises all boats” baloney. The trouble is that capitalist markets are controlled by capitalists. The guys who were the inspiration for the Edward G. Robinson character, Johnny Rocco, in the movie Key Largo. Just like Johnny Rocco, what these guys want is “more.” And the more they have, the less you do. The staggering amount of wealth that is hoarded by the top of the food chain in this country is just not enough for them. They want more! And everything is structured so that they can get it. The sacrosanct “market” is not a mysterious entity driven by invisible natural forces that defy understanding. It is a street corner game of Three Card Monte where the dealer always wins. Of course to do that, the deal needs a shill. I guess that is where the ‘Free Market” drum beaters come in. I would like all these oil company bandits to just admit that. To come clean and in public tell us, “Hands up suckers!” I wouldn’t so much mind paying them four bucks a gallon then.

    Like

  3. Brown Avatar
    Brown

    What is this? The reincarnation of Marx and Engels? What’s odd is that anyone would imply that there is something better than the free market. What do you prefer? Communism? Socialism? And no, you’re wrong. It’s not true that the more they have, the less you do. Wealth isn’t a zero sum game.

    Like

  4.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh…wealth is infinite, is it? Just like gold or diamonds, TV sets or garbage disposals; there is only so much to go around. If there are only three SUV’s in the world and you have two, then I can only have one. Wealth is relative. Your two SUV’s make you wealthy in relation to my one. In other words you can only be rich, if I am poor. That is a zero-sum game, is it not? By the way, there is no such thing in a practical sense as the “Free Market.” (I assume your question about socialism and its big brother, communism was rhetorical.)

    Like

  5. W. Tieff Avatar
    W. Tieff

    Ok, sooo..
    If you have two SUV’s, (or a company that makes or sells SUV’s..) and I have one SUV, then you are relatively wealthy. That is, relative to me. But what if I want another SUV? Or I want lots of them to sell off for a profit? Am I going to go to you for more SUV, or am I going to go to the government?
    I am a lowly Muggle, and cannot Magic an SUV out of thin aire………. So it will have to be one or the other, right? Now without a free market, you might say that I do not even have one SUV, but I can certainly go to work for the government to help produce Hybrid sedans that the government will then sell to other countries, and then provide the meager basics for me to consume like a good citizen.. But really its the Big Oil Companies that are paying for my subsistance, as the product is useless without fuel to power it! Right? uhhhh… Anyways, Free market or no, I still have the freedom to walk on my own two feet, or ride a bicycle, skateboard, hangglider, etc. that doesn’t involve octane, and build a business selling Pirate outfits to tourists, if I wanna. And guess how many Pirate outfits I have, relative to you? A lot more! So I guess that makes me a wealthy man, beeeyatch!!!

    Like

  6.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Brilliant! You represent your position so well. I’m overwhelmed. I’ve never heard a thought expressed so stylishly. I read it over and over. You should publish. Really!

    Like

  7. W. Tieff Avatar

    Nah. I was just having some fun with sarcasm. No offense, though, really. I’m sure you know far more than I will ever learn about societal finance and economics. I mostly just work all the time to pay my rent. hmmmm… I should look into buying a property! Now if I could just get me one of them Sub_Prime mortgages… Uh oh. Now that’s a whole ‘nuther topic!
    Ok bye.

    Like

  8. HC Avatar
    HC

    What is it about these commies that makes them gravitate to our great country? If you have a problem with America, put your roubles where your mouth is and emigrate to cuba, or china, or better yet Saudi-Arabia. We’re sure those freedom loving regimes will appreciate more sniveling whiny jealous ingrates like yourselves, and don’t forget to wipe your noses.

    Like

  9. ? Avatar
    ?

    “What is it about these commies that makes them gravitate to our great country?”…HC
    That really is such a profound question isn’t it? Maybe, they were born here? Hard to tell, it’s just my thought there HC. What’s yours? Or, have you already had your thought for today?

    Like

Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!