The Redhunter

Tom,
As a proponent of energy efficiency, I think the basic premise of this rebuttal is flawed. It fails to consider that our utter economic reliance on cheap oil that is dangerous, not only that oil enriches the Saudis. Yes, it would be great if we all used less oil and were able to reduce global demand, theoretically resulting a reduction in oil prices that would hit the terrorist funding states in the wallet. But the reality of global oil markets is that rapidly increasing demand for oil ensures regimes like Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia will continue to enjoy huge revenue from oil production. He is right that reducing our demand for oil will not reduce the amount of $$ they get from oil exporting.

My rational for energy efficiency is mostly a defensive measure. Our economy would collapse without access to cheap oil. That has why we have turned a blind eye to the tyranny and penchant for exporting wahhabi terrorist ideology of our ‘allies’ in Saudi Arabia. It is true that “Saudi oil is cheaply extractable oil. That's why King Abdullah gets the romantic hand-holding Presidential photo ops at Crawford and the Premier of Alberta doesn't.” It is also true that the reason we are desperate for cheap oil is that without it, our economy would collapse. They have us in a tight bind. Our economy is reliant on oil, so Bush has romantic photo ops with the wahhabi funding Al-Saud family, even though we know the state religion preaches some very backwards and anti-American drivel.

If we could reduce our demand, it would not reduce the amount of $$ the Saudi wahhabis get to spend exporting jihadi, the Chinese would be happy to buy the oil instead. The premise of this rebuttal fails to consider that it is our inefficiency and our reliance on oil (Saudi, Venezuelan, Canadian, global) that puts us in bad spot. Bush kisses the Al-Saud prince because without access to cheap oil, our economy and way of life would shrivel. America does not have to return to “Caveman Ug and Caveman Glug sitting around rubbing sticks and stones.” Increasing our efficiency and actually striving to foster the technology that will help to bring us into a ‘post-oil era’ will mean that someday our economy will not be close to100% reliant on oil for transportation. When we do achieve an economy that is “post-oil”, our president can look the Saudi leader in the eye and say “Our economy is no longer reliant one your black gold anymore. No more holding hands, you are not welcome here until you stop supporting jihadi causes.” Can you imagine if we stood up to Iran and Saudi Arabia, with no concern for the effect on the price of oil? It is not possible now, but we made it to the moon. The internal combustion engine was invented for industrial application in the 1800s. Call me an idealist, but I have faith in our ability to discover another source of energy or method of providing transportation that will move use beyond the technology of the internal combustion engine from the 1800s as a basis for our economy. Mark Steyn correctly states that will take time and money and great innovation. My argument is that we should begin now (or should have begun years ago), not just fatalistically throw our hands up and say, “Well, the Chinese will just buy the oil so we might as well drive huge SUVs since the terrorists will get funding one way or another. Gimme another kiss, you big terrorist funding sheik, I can’t make it without you and I don’t want to try.”