Video: Energy independence could be as easy as 1-2-3

posted at 2:05 pm on December 6, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Bet you’ll never guess which country is the world’s largest holder of natural gas, oil and coal resources combined. That’s right. This country. According to a report released today by the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves of oil — or more than the entire world has used in 150 years. That’s enough to fuel the United States for the next 250 years. Add natural gas and coal resources to that and we’re good to go for all the foreseeable future.

But, thanks to backward energy policies, we’re still dependent on foreign sources of oil. What is perhaps even worse — at least at a time of 8.6 percent unemployment — is that those backward energy policies that restrict access to our own resources also force us to forgo badly needed jobs. Research shows that reduced job creation — not increased layoffs — explains the high unemployment we have now. Here is a readymade way to create jobs, which, again, the president says is his top priority. In fact, the IER report shows we could create 1 million jobs just by (1) unlocking more federal lands, (2) developing shale resources and (3) eliminating excessive regulation.

Why, why, why is this controversial again? I understand that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and that people are properly concerned about the potential for their total depletion. But what good does it do to conserve them just to never use them? Or, better, why is it so hard to grasp that depletion is hundreds and hundreds of years away? Why not use the energy resources we do have, trusting the impending exigency of depletion to spur innovation and the probable development of an economically viable renewable energy source? Time and time again, technological innovation has enabled us to use oil and gasoline more efficiently and to access new reserves. Similarly, a creative and affordable fulfillment of the need for a renewable resource will emerge. In the meantime, we could be enjoying energy independence and an expanded job market.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This is OT but I think any Bank of America account holders should be aware of this and act accordingly.

DFCtomm on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Tina, the environmental lobby has succeeded in so much regulation and lawsuits against developing our natural resources of fossil fuels. The Left truly believes in gas at $8 a gallon, to bring it to its “true cost”, i.e. environmental damage. Even Obama is clearly against coal, which is the crown jewel of our domestic energy supply. We’re working against our own self-interest. We’re working against ourselves.

Paul-Cincy on December 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM

upcoming Open Registration Day!

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Palin/Perry

John the Libertarian on December 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM

“… the IER report shows we could create 1 million jobs just by (1) unlocking more federal lands, (2) developing shale resources and (3) eliminating excessive regulation.”

Now if there were only a candidate running for President that had an actual plan…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Polar bears. Icebergs. Healing the planet. Curbing the rise in ocean levels. Oh, yeah,…and trading carbon credits becomes a whole new international industry.

a capella on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

DFCtomm on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Please don’t spam.

Paul-Cincy on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Wouldn’t be nice to have $1 gas again AND drive the middle east back into the stone age? Why can’t we be China’s largest seller of oil?

Darksean on December 6, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Tina, only Al Gore is allowed to understand this issue? Don’t you know there are 24 levels of complexity to this problem? Drill for oil, that’s just crazy talk.

Oil Can on December 6, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Please don’t spam.

Paul-Cincy on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Do you know how many regular people have household checking accounts with BoA, and what would happen to them if their accounts were seized in the same manner as MF global? This isn’t spam, and if you’re a BoA account holder then you should be moving your checking account.

DFCtomm on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Why, why, why is this controversial again?

Well how else are we to “spread the wealth” if not via buying that very same oil from Brazil?

rbj on December 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM

“I understand that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and that people are properly concerned about the potential for their total depletion…”

Oh, Tina…

Seven Percent Solution on December 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Tina:
Your questions must be rhetorical, because the answers are well known.
The United States is under the effective control of radical environmentalists, which has resulted in the United States not acting rationally regarding energy.
We could make huge, immediate strides toward fixing our economy and getting the real unemployment number down by flipping the switch and going full bore to develop our natural resources.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Why, why, why is this controversial again?

TEH CHILDRENS AND GAIA!!1!

/

RedNewEnglander on December 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Cheap and abundant energy equals freedom of movement and economic growth. The left does not want us to be able to go where we want, when we want, and do what we want.

Their goal is to have us herded in to huge urban centers with 99% of the country available for their use only.

darwin on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Monetarily enriching, and being dependent on the Islamic Middle East for energy, when we don’t have to, borders on treason.

If enemies cut off our foreign energy sources, then they’ve severely diminished our military options, longterm, along with destroying our economy. It takes five years, sometimes ten years, to develop new large-scale energy sources. That’s too long to wait in wartime, or even just to repair a sick economy.

RBMN on December 6, 2011 at 2:28 PM

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM

when when when when when when when when?

John the Libertarian on December 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM

This follows Perry’s free market energy plan. Plus that Canadian pipeline is shovel-ready, well, most of the energy jobs are. Oh, and Tina, no one knows for sure if gas and oil are renewable or not.
This is such a no-brainer, except it would loosen government’s grip on EVERYTHING by stopping it from regulating the atmosphere. And progressives can’t allow that.

cartooner on December 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM

when when when when when when when when?

John the Libertarian on December 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Ed Morrissey Show thread.

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM

sharrukin on December 6, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Got it! Thanks!

John the Libertarian on December 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Or, better, why is it so hard to grasp that depletion is hundreds and hundreds of years away? Why not use the energy resources we do have, trusting the impending exigency of depletion to spur innovation and the probable development of an economically viable renewable energy source?

Because Shut Up, that’s why!

catmman on December 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Do you know how many regular people have household checking accounts with BoA, and what would happen to them if their accounts were seized in the same manner as MF global? This isn’t spam, and if you’re a BoA account holder then you should be moving your checking account. DFCtomm on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I think you’re looking for the BoA ripoff thread which is somewhere else.

Akzed on December 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Never let a crisis go to waste.

And if you don’t have a crisis, make one.

Socratease on December 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM

I think you’re looking for the BoA ripoff thread which is somewhere else.

Akzed on December 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Yeah, because my post warning people about potential financial disaster is such an affront to on topic etiquette, but all the OT posts about open enrollment aren’t? Can we expect to see you and Paul-Cincy wagging your fingers and tuttuting them?

DFCtomm on December 6, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Palin: “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

ConservativePartyNow on December 6, 2011 at 3:00 PM

No such thing as energy independence.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Jon Huntsman tacks to skepticism on climate

Jon Huntsman, who slammed Rick Perry over the summer for not trusting scientists on climate change, has now developed his own doubts.

“The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description of explanation about what might lie beneath all of this. But there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it’s a global issue,” the former Utah governor said Tuesday at an appearance at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

J_Crater on December 6, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Perry has the best energy jobs plan

http://www.rickperry.org/energizing-american-jobs-html/

juliesa on December 6, 2011 at 3:08 PM

No such thing as energy independence.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Why?

catmman on December 6, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Bet you’ll never guess which country is the world’s largest holder of natural gas, oil and coal resources combined.

Wasn’t that obvious when the relativly new sourses of natural gas became recoverable?

burt on December 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Personally, I think that all these agencies that foist these regulations on us should be neutered. Only Congress should be able to pass laws and make regulations. Deferring to an Alphabet Agency is avoiding their job, these agencies have no, none, nada accountability to the voter, as once they are started they tend to continue on like Zombies, killing innovation and discovery. If congress thinks that we should not be able to drill, then they should put their stinking name on a Bill and pass it, own it, defend it and not hid behind a faceless department. If you want an Agency to recommend or enforce, fine, but it is not in their purview to legislate, that is strictly for Congress. Time to do some nipping and tucking if we win this round and gain control of Congress and POTUS.
Rob

rgranger on December 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Mr. Hayward touched on the shale development in ND and PA, but he missed the biggest shale deposit–under the Rockies (western CO, eastern UT, southern WY), which is estimated to hold 500 to 1100 billion barrels, or some 70 to 150 years of the USA’s total crude oil consumption. According to a 2005 RAND report, this could be developed in an environmentally-friendly way for about $30/barrel, meaning PLENTY of profits for an oil company selling it at $90 or even $50 per barrel, allowing the USA to control the world oil market.

But most of this shale oil is under Federal land, and therein lies the rub. Ready, aim, shoot self in foot.

Steve Z on December 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Palin: “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

ConservativePartyNow on December 6, 2011 at 3:00 PM

That would be during the October 2, 2008 VP debate.

Tina is a little behind on this issue (3 years)

ChuckTX on December 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM

In the meantime, we could be enjoying energy independence and an expanded job market.

Too bad, but that’s NOT the goal of the Democratic Party.

GarandFan on December 6, 2011 at 4:58 PM

This is the American people’s fault.

Obama promised higher energy prices to satisfy his religious cult of Global Warming.

He was not coy about it, he openly promised higher energy prices as a result of his environmental policies.

It functions as a tax on the poor, since higher energy prices raise the prices of all other products.

The people voted for him, and now we will reap what we have sown.

scotash on December 6, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Why, why, why is this controversial again? I understand that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and that people are properly concerned about the potential for their total depletion.

Wrong, Tina. Petroleum products have never returned the tiniest shred of any element other than carbon which ties it to life-bearing organic matter. There is no evidence of DNA, or of any of the enzymes required for living tissue.

How many dead critters would be required to produce a single barrel-worth of crude oil? And this report suggests 1.4 Trillion barrels worth? How many dinosaurs is that, and how did they all give up their petroleum-creating substance at the same time, and in a way which allowed that substance to be conducted to deep below the surface of the planet?

Talk about a faith-based concept. Calling crude oil “fossil-fuel” is the biggest lie since the serpent deceived Eve. It is renewable, by chemical chain reactions within the Earth. More oil gets into the oceans through seepage every year than all of the man-made oil spills of history. How is it that there are fossil death beds below the surface of every ocean and sea? Ridiculous.

But hey, aside from that tiny detail, nice report.

Freelancer on December 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Energy independence may be possible but energy independence isn’t the point, I wish conservatives would get off the concept. Energy independence on it’s own means nothing. If the cost of energy independence means paying $140.00 per barrel of oil when we could buy if from Canada or Mexico for $90.00 a barrel, energy independence would be stupid.
Opening up the the U.S. for oil and both onshore and offshore while at the same time examining the tax structure to keep the cost of production down is what matters. This wouldn’t just help the U.S. economy it would also lower and stabilize the price of energy worldwide. That’s what is important, forget about the energy independence argument, it means nothing.

lowandslow on December 6, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Wouldn’t be nice to have $1 gas again AND drive the middle east back into the stone age? Why can’t we be China’s largest seller of oil?

Darksean on December 6, 2011 at 2:14 PM

That could go a LONG way to paying off our debt to the Chicoms

plymouthacclaim on December 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM

It’s never been about conservation, it’s about control. Control of business. Control of the economy. Control of the American people.

sadatoni on December 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM

That could go a LONG way to paying off our debt to the Chicoms

plymouthacclaim on December 6, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Forget the Chicoms how about paying back the debt to SS.

whbates on December 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I understand that fossil fuels are nonrenewable and that people are properly concerned about the potential for their total depletion

This is a FALSE PREMISE.

First, oil and gas are NOT “fossil fuels”.

Second, both of these resources are being constantly renewed.

landlines on December 6, 2011 at 8:49 PM

The Obama Administration cares more about gay rights overseas than job creation at home through the energy industry.

BigAlSouth on December 7, 2011 at 8:14 AM

But most of this shale oil is under Federal land, and therein lies the rub. Ready, aim, shoot self in foot.

Steve Z on December 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM

First thanks Hotair for allowing me to register. I’ve been waiting a long time.

Steve hit the nail on the head. Most of the currennt activity is happening on private land. The feds have shut down drilling on federal lands by severely regulating and slowing down the permitting process. I am now having to work 700 miles away from home for weeks at a time because of this admin’s energy policy. I am looking forward to the day when I can make a living again in the most energy rich part of the planet.

Fred

jrsrigmvr on December 7, 2011 at 12:16 PM

But won’t this warm the planet?
(ducks)

shick on December 7, 2011 at 3:50 PM