Paris is Right!

Hotelier heiress Paris Hilton has it right.

Instead of an "either/or" choice between the energy policy proposals of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. A hybridization of both plans (with a healthy portion of the Pickens Plan on the side) is the solution to our country's reliance on foreign oil.

We need: limited off-shore drilling with environmentally protective oversight; we also need a windfall tax for oil companies and earmark the revenue from this tax to alternative energy development (wind, solar AND nuclear); we need to commence the building of wind and solar energy farms in the plains and southwest; we need to mandate a two-way power grid allowing individual homes and businesses to implement wind and solar technologies to produce their own energy and potentially sell excess energy back to the grid.

The energy crisis this country has finally decided to acknowledge is far too important to allow the stagnant two-party political process to play with. This issue demands and deserves the active participation of all people. The time has come for the people to speak. Let your representatives know your mind on this issue.

Two-Way Energy Grid is Part of Solution

Ronald Reagan effectively delayed solar and wind energy development by decades with his energy policies. Democrats, the scare in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine combined to kill nuclear development over the last 40 years. Nearly everybody has taken a "wrong stance" on the energy issue at one time or another.

The major factor killing wind and solar currently, however, is the lack of a two-way energy grid, whereby individual homes and businesses could implement these technologies to provide their own energy needs and sell the excess to the public and/or private utility companies. Some states allow for it, but Missouri does not.

I'm not saying these technological implementations by consumers should be subsidized by various levels of government, but, if you consider all the federal money handed out to utility companies over the last half-century, maybe such subsidization would be commendable. It would be easy to verify if recipients had utilized the money for the technology and could potentially save millions of dollars of energy expense for the utility companies themeselves: thereby increasing their net profits.

With some of the increased profits, the utility companies could expand development of large-scale wind and solar energy production and (hopefully) bring more nuclear power facilities onto the national power grid, as well.

Solar, wind and nuclear energy production being increased would allow for natural gas (something we have plenty of in the U.S.) to be developed into more efficient and cleaner fuel for automobiles and other forms of transport. This plan would grant us nearly two decades of reduced reliance on foreign oil, while providing us with the time to develop a more eco-friendly source of fuel for transportation.

Big Oil Wins; U.S. Auto Maker Loses

Exxon reported second quarter profits of $11.5 billion, while General Motor Corportation reported a $15 billion loss during the same period. It's an all-time hight profit for a single quarter. GM's loss is its third largest for a single quarter and includes $3 billion in employee contract buyouts.

Initial analysis of what the big oil companies do when they record such high profits (Shell Oil reported over $11 billion in profit, as well) is to reinvest in their company. They just buy their own stock and watch it go up. Meanwhile, we hear from the big oil PR people about how invested the companies are in research for alternative fuels and leaving less of a carbon footprint. I'm not buying it. Whatever they're investing in such research is, quite literally, a drop out of every barrell.

Anybody who knows anything about the subject can tell you the U.S. has had a deflated price on gasoline for years. It was bound to catch up to the world market price, but most people didn't expect it to happen so fast. It's still not as expensive as it is in Europe.

So, with full knowledge of this, the U.S. auto makers went on a collision course of economic destiny by pursuing the marketing and sale of big trucks and sport utility vehicles.

There is no conspiracy, but the big oil companies didn't do the auto makers who pursued this philosophy any favors, either. The big loser is the consumer, of course. Americans are suckers for a big, comfortable, safe and reliable vehicle.

The price of gasoline is tapering a little bit, but it's not going to fall as rapidly as it rose and it won't decrease by the same degree, either.

If you think about it, there was no other way for this to play out. Just when consumers were beginning to realize the impracticality of the big vehicles, the price of light sweet crude became the speculative game of the week for Wall Street and everyone driving those big large vehicles was saddled with the exhorbitant cost of gasoline.

The situation was predicted by many of us back when the trend to larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles became popular. It wasn't a difficult assumption to make.

The realization of it has come hard to some people, however. Now we've got people calling for more oil wells in this country and the Arctic. The Russians are making a military presence felt in the region to establish territorial rights to the largest untapped oil fields left on the planet.

Many people may not realize this scenario has been written about by several authors who foresaw the struggle to control oil production as the root system for the next global military confrontation: WW III. Doesn't sound too far-fetched with the Russian navy establishing a military presence in the Arctic Circle. Not to my mind, anyway.

It may be a long way off. It may happen next week. It may never happen, but it's certainly a plausible course of events. If you don't believe me, research it on your own.

The best thing for everyone in this country to do right now, is to work on conserving. If we work at it, we'll save some money for ourselves. The Wall Street fat cats aren't going to donate any of their profits for subsidization of our fuel bills.

Try to car pool. Try to combine trips out in the car. Walk. Use public transportation.

Pickens Plan Provides a Bridge To Future of Energy in U.S.

I strongly encourage everyone to go to this site and at least play the video clip and hear what this man has to say. It is not a radical concept. The U.S. Dept. of Energy has done a study that supports Pickens' claims.