|
|
Jewish World Review July 14, 2008 / 11 Tamuz 5768
‘Alternatives’ to Logic Won't Work
By Jonathan Tobin
 | |
|
| |
Conflicting impulses complicate push for energy independence and less foreign oil
And so, in recent weeks, we have been treated to congressional hearings
in which the ever-unpopular oil-company executives, and the more
obscure but equally villainous "oil speculators," were pilloried.
Having pontificated at the expense of these supposed malefactors,
Congress then adjourned for the Fourth of July holiday without doing
anything other than demonstrating the shaky hold many of its members
have of the basic principles of economics.
Yet for all of the bloviating that was — and will be — done about the
cost of oil, this is actually an issue that could use more, and not
less, discussion. That is especially true considering that we are in
the middle of an election year in which the discussion of the war in
Iraq, the threat from Iran, as well as the current economic slowdown
will dominate the discussion.
TRUE LITMUS TEST
That is especially true for an American Jewish community that ought to
be treating this topic as a truer litmus test of the presidential
contenders than rhetoric about Israel, or pandering to our fears about
the separation of church and state.
To their credit, energy independence is something that national Jewish
groups have paid attention to in recent years. The Jewish Council for
Public Affairs, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish
Congress have all spoken out consistently in favor of measures to
promote this cause.
But this year, the stakes involved are even higher. And nothing
demonstrates the complex nexus between energy and international
security than the question of what to do about Iran.
Tehran's determination to move ahead with its nuclear program is a
threat the West ignores at its own peril. That's not only because Iran
remains committed to destroying Israel. Letting Ahmadinejad and his
mullah masters go nuclear raises the specter of another Holocaust.
Iran is also the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, and their
proxies/allies in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas) have the ability
to keep the region inflamed. An Iranian nuclear umbrella for these
criminals would be a direct threat to Europe, as well as every country
in the Middle East.
In addition to the appeasement reflex that drives the reluctance of
many to take direct action to stop this from happening, the increasing
dependence of the West on Middle Eastern oil potentially gives Iran the
ability to squeeze the supply and raise prices even higher.
Indeed, with speculation growing that Israel may attempt to spike the
Iranian nuclear program itself, pressure may be placed on the Jewish
state to forebear from pre-emptive action, lest our economy be sent
into a tailspin by Iranian economic retaliation that could cripple
production and supply of petroleum.
Iran isn't the only reason why energy independence is important. The
enormous financial power of Saudi Arabia — a supposedly "moderate"
American ally — is no less dangerous. The Saudis have already spawned
terrorists like those of Al Qaeda. Just as troubling is their massive
funding campaign of Islamist mosques and educational institutions
around the globe, as well as their infiltration of U.S. college
campuses via donations that create institutes that support their
distorted view of the world.
In Europe, rising oil prices have funded the revival of Russian
authoritarianism by former President Vladimir Putin and his hand-picked
successor.
In the Western hemisphere, oil bankrolls Venezuela's rogue leader Hugo
Chávez, whose support for narco-terrorists like the Columbian FARC
(some of whose hostages were rescued last week) and alliances with
Islamists is potentially just as dangerous.
In short, Western addiction to foreign oil is, along with Islamism, the
chief long-term threat to American security. So why hasn't this issue
provoked more than an occasional sound byte?
The answer isn't just the oil companies, though they are far from
blameless since they have sought to undermine the very notion of energy
independence.
Ironically, one of the primary obstacles to tangible progress is an
issue that ought to go hand in hand with support for alternatives to
foreign energy: environmentalism. Going "green" ought to promote energy
independence. But the same environmentalist frame of reference that
impels Americans to want to do that also have undermined support for
measures that could loosen the hold of the oil oligarchs on our economy
and foreign policy.
Though finding more oil on American territory does not provide a
long-term solution to the oil problem, drilling in the vast untapped
areas off America's shores, as well as in the tiny part of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge that could be set aside for exploration, is a
sensible way of increasing supply. But it won't happen because of
overheated rhetoric that exaggerates the dangers to wildlife.
Similarly, nuclear power, which is an energy resource that is being
used safely and effectively elsewhere in the West, is virtually dead in
the United States because of the "Three Mile Island" accident and
subsequent hysteria. The high cost of building nuclear plants may be a
greater negative than anything else, but this is another example of the
lack of clear thinking about an underutilized technology.
TERROR-FREE ENERGY
For too long, talk about energy independence has been mired in empty
recommendations about lowering thermostats in the winter and using less
air-conditioning in the summer, reminiscent of the sweater-wearing
Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech during a previous oil crisis. In the
same way, the Luddite sensibilities of extreme environmentalists who
seem drawn to the dangerous notion that our economy must regress in
order to purify the planet are also no solution. What we need isn't
less energy, but energy that doesn't fund terrorism.
What America requires this year are direct answers from the candidates
to the questions of how to increase the supply of oil and fund
realistic alternatives. But in order to get that, we must resolve some
of the inherent contradictions in our thinking about energy. Until we
do, all we'll get is more of the sort of empty grandstanding that our
politicians perform all too well.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
American politicians are not dumb. They know that most people don't
like paying $60 to fill up a gas tank that could have been topped off
for about $15 a decade ago. With the cost of gas at the pump over $4
and heading north, they know that Americans want somebody to blame for
all of this.
The point is, no matter what the candidates say about the war, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions or even the price of
food, unless you know what they will or won't do to reduce America's
reliance on foreign oil sources, you're throwing your vote away.
Increased support for the development of other technologies, like
electric cars, and the use of solar and wind power is vital.
Unfortunately, the only alternative that has gotten real help is
ethanol, a costly boondoggle that has been a bonanza for farmers while
increasing food costs and doing little for independence.