What does Al Gore know?

Friedman wrote an editorial for the New York Times. Al Gore loved it. Friedman’s basic point was the horrific oil spill in the gulf of Mexico should tell America it is time to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. Gore took that to mean that he is right. Global warming is the culprit.

I can understand Gore’s confusion. Friedman’s editorial is a mishmash of liberal sentiment accentuated by a call to the White House to use the oil spill to advance the cause of clean energy. Arguments based on a single dot, enable anyone to draw the line anywhere citizens like Gore want. For example, since a baby died, birth is dangerous. We should legislate against it.

To the point, it is hard to disagree with Friedman because he eloquently advocates pretty much everything. He argues for a clean energy infrastructures that would get us off the long term path to ending our addiction to oil, but never bothers to define what a “clean energy infrastructure” is. It is a popular phrase, however, and rolls off the word processor neatly. Agreement with Friedman is seductive because we can each define it in terms we individually believe. AKA - Gore says Friedman is right.

Gore loved the editorial. Despite Gore’s movie being banned in Britain; it plays well in America because we simply do not want to know where the great steaks come from. They come from killing cows. It is messy. Oil is a messy business too. Drilling is not perfect. Neither is making cars or making great steaks. Cars kill people, but I do not see any movement to close down the automobile business. Cigarettes cause cancer. We all know it. There are no New York Times editorials to close down the cigarette or the automobile business. Just the opposite, the Times supports sending them a basket of money to keep them in business.

Wind farms. Solar energy. I have studied these forms of energy earlier in my career. The economic use of these energy alternatives is prohibitive without massive government subsidies. To you and I that means a lot more taxes. Alternative energy policy is code for increase taxes to pay for these alternatives. Pay who? The government. If they were commercially viable, they would be everywhere. They are not. They only live in areas where tax money is liberally used to artificially make them seem viable. I am not willing to pay more taxes when we have untapped supplies of oil and gas in our own country. Here is an idea? Maybe we could export oil to China to offset the USA toy imports. For example, Venezuela just signed a mega-billion dollar contract to supply oil to China. Why are we not a net energy exporter? We should be. What is more? We could be.

The problem with commentators like Friedman is their breathtaking ability to eloquently write nothing, but make it sound persuasive. Friedman style editorials are virally spread by respected people, like Gore, who arbitrarily extract a phrase or two from the editorial as proof they are right without even a slight recognition that the editorial makes no real sense; or by the way acknowledging that the editorial writer is not a subject matter expert and as such his opinion is not relevant. In my expert opinion, drilling for oil in Alaska is critical for keeping our energy dollars in the USA instead of shipping tankers full of dollars to countries that espouse self-righteous doctrines adverse to the USA. Disagree with me. Google OPEC and look at its list of members.

The pundits will have a hey-day with sound bites targeted at the phrase drill-baby-drill. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich will take a “hit” for having these phrases on their websites. The pundits will infer that supporters of that phrase have no concern for the environment and are reckless. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, give some writers a dot, and a line to almost anywhere magically appears. When I connect the dots, Gore is not in the picture and we are drilling for more oil.