for what it's worth
For what it's worth, this is an editorial of mine that was published last week in our local paper here in Little Rock. The letter is just in response to general grumblings I hear on a day to day basis suggesting that Democrats in congress are corrupt and disinterested in the welfare of the average citizen.
Enjoy.
I know people are frustrated with the growing energy crisis and casting blame and suspicion at our elected officials feels good. On a daily basis I hear people’s complaints suggesting that the politicians do not care about average people, that they are in the pockets of radical environmentalists, that our politicians are only concerned about getting reelected, that they’re concerned more about the monetary benefits they may be receiving from special interest groups, and that they are not listening to the will of the people. But these attributes we’re ascribing to the politicians are contradictory. They cannot all be true.
Either a politician can change positions on the issues as the tide of public opinion shifts and will therefore say and do anything to be reelected or they ignore the public cries on a given issue and risk losing their office. They cannot do both. If the politicians were more interested in self-serving and unethical gains gleaned by yielding to special interests and lobbyists, common sense says that the reward would be greater by abdicate to the oil lobby’s agenda rather than that of the environmentalists.
Why then might our politicians be voting the way that they are? Might I be so bold as to suggest that some of our elected officials are acting outside of self-interest and that they might be bending to the environmental agenda, not because they are benefiting from payouts or favors, but because they genuinely believe that conservation and sustainable energy policy is the best for our country. Even if you disagree with a given politician’s position, I believe the actions of our leaders demonstrate backbone and suggest integrity.
David
- rungavagairun's blog
- Login or register to post comments
dissatisfied with liberal response on energy
Thanks for the comments Jim.
I've been very dissatisfied with the response from our leaders on the energy issue, not in their actions, but in their ability to communicate and counter the messages from the opposition.
The argument that the oil companies have vast acres of land that they are not utilizing seems to me to beg the question, why aren't they utilizing those lands? Are the oil companies merely desperate to tear up the ecologically sensitive regions just because they prefer to do as much damage as they can? I doubt it.
I suspect that the reason that they want offshore and the ANWR region opened for exploration and drilling is because they expect a greater return on their investment in these areas than in any of the the lands which are now availed to them. A farmer wouldn't plant infertile land if he thought it would cost more to plant and tend than it would yield in the harvest.
When the oil lobby and right wing leaders suggest that the current energy crisis is due to the Democrats blockage of efforts to expand drilling in these protected regions, we need to fire back by pointing to the right wing's reluctance to apply higher fuel efficiency and emissions standards to our vehicles, expansion of our public transit infrastructure, and serious R&D funding for alternative fuels and energy technology.
In the end, fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. Even if the oil industry can remove oil from these protected regions in a reasonably environmentally responsible manner, even if production from these new oil reserves could make a significant contribution to our energy needs, and even if people do not buy into climate change theory, we still have a great and pressing need to move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels for the simple fact that we will deplete these resources in short order at the current rate of consumption growth.
It seems to me that many of these points are not being sufficiently emphasized in the media and in the statements made by our leaders. And the arguments and statements that are being made (use it or lose it) are not very compelling.
What do y'all think?
David
me too David
I agree with you David. I think the progressive response, at least by those leaders who call themselves progressive, has been fairly mute and unimaginative. By not taking the initiative on the issue, progressive find themselves talking about whether to drill or not. By not getting really agressive and putting forward an agenda, we're stuck in responsive moode again.
Al Gore yesterday put forward a 10 year agenda that tries to capture our collective imagination in how we solve this crisis both for our economic and political security. This issue requires a man to the moon type effort. I think this is the forward looking visionary frame that progressives need to build solid public policy around.
Oil and Public Opinion
Well written David. Lets hope our elected official continue to have intestinal fortitude. Most voters are "low information" voters. they don't have all their facts straight or they formed an opinion after 15 minutes of listening to Rush, or seeing scrawny nerdy looking Allen Comes get beat up again by the strapping Sean Hannity on Fox.
What voters don't realize is that this about control of supply. Supply must be controlled to manipulate price.The Oil Companies have over 10,000 such leases that they haven't drilled right now. Further people don't understand that once this oil is drilled, it goes on the international market, too. It is not for "us". The multi-national oil company has no loyalty to America, they have loyalty to their profit margins.This is just another example of "Disaster Capitalism". It is manipulation of an emergency to further the gains of multi-national oil companies. We have gotten this instead of real solutions for the entire Bush administration.