The Saturday edition of the Democrat and Chronicle included a guest essay from RIT Professor Ronald Amberger. The essay was titled Obama doesn't set oil prices and tried to "explain the real reasons that oil prices are rising ("speculators, people who refuse to conserve oil and the refusal to look to alternative energy sources").
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment