Global Warming and Four-Buck Gas

It's going to wind up being one of the driving issues of this election year, that much is certain. As such, I want to pitch in my $.02 on the topic, as I don't hear anybody else taking my particular stand.

I'm sure some of you have noticed that the price of gasoline has gone up considerably in the last couple of years. You also would not be alone in noting that this coincides with the take-over of Congress by the Democratic party. No less than former Vice-President Al Gore has stated that he'd like to see it be five dollars a gallon. The other day on Imus In The Morning, NY Times columnist Tom Friedman said that there should be a federal mandate keeping the price at no less than four dollars.

These wise, accomplished people have a good reason to believe this. With the price of gas sky-high, there is a strong movement to find an alternative to fossil fuels. Many alternatives that have already been discovered are now more cost effective than when gas was $1.50. T. Boone Pickens is making waves by suggesting a combination of wind, solar, and natural gas to wean ourselves off foreign oil. All these choices were too expensive a couple of years ago.

Get it?

Besides the reliance on foreign powers, the other big disadvantage to fossil fuels is that they're dirty. Nobody's suggesting coal as an alternative, because it's even dirtier than oil. It's no big secret that this is the motivation of the left for wanting expensive gas in order to drive the move to alternative fuels. Yes, expensive fuel may be crippling our economy, but it's for the long-term good. Not that anyone expects Barack Obama to put it like that out on the campaign trail, but it's still the truth.

There are many on the right who have added this to the pile of great sins being committed by the left. There is a firm belief among many conservatives that there is no such thing as global warming, and that any amount of pollution can be absorbed by the environment. Those people should sit in a running car in a closed garage for a couple of hours and see what they think then.

The simple fact is, whether or not pollution causes warming, cooling, or whatever, it's not good to shovel dirt into the air and water. That's a no-brainer. It would be good to have an alternative to fossil fuels for that reason, if for no other.

As for dependence on foreign powers, remember for a moment that we are the biggest customers for the Saudis and their friends in OPEC. The less of their oil we buy, the less influence we have over them. After nobody's buying their oil any more, they go back to being poor. The average person there is anyway, but the royalty will join them. They've brought it on themselves. After all, the people who own the ground the oil comes out of have to be the ones getting the $140 a barrel. I have little sympathy for them. I reserve it for their people, who will benefit more by following Iraq to freedom than staying with their rich rulers into more bondage.

The biggest problem I have with the liberal position, that expensive gas is good, is that it is not good for most of the country. The average schmuck who drives to work and heats with oil is getting screwed. All that wind and solar power may replace oil for producing electricity, but our light bills won't go down either. Most of the monetary benefit will be felt by factories, skyscrapers, and other high-volume users.

Ironically, the left has come up with a solution that will most benefit the richest 1% of the populace. The rest of us will see what used to be disposable income, if we had any, eaten up by energy costs for a fuel we will have no replacement for. That may be the greatest irony of all. They are promoting the idea of clean alternative fuel to the general public, and for the most part we're all for it as long as it won't break us financially. Every time gas goes up, another diesel Rabbit gets converted to run on fryolater grease.

But the people who could make the most use of wind and solar power resist the switch if the price of oil remains cheap. It is because of their stubbornness that we are forced to put up with these crippling prices, and that's the simple truth. There will be no widespread alternative to gasoline for another century, unless the internal combustion engine itself becomes obsolete.

So which lousy alternative will we choose in November? High energy prices, or continued pollution? I would love it if any of you out there would leave your thoughts in the comments section, even if you think I'm totally off the rails. All I ask is that you be nice, and please be brave enough to leave your name.