- The Washington Times - Thursday, January 25, 2018

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The latest cover story for Bloomberg Businessweek focuses on the incredible resurgence of the American oil and gas industries. The idea of the United States surpassing Saudi Arabia and other foreign oil-producing nations as the dominant producer of fossil fuels in the world was once mocked as a fantasy. The fact that America can soon claim that title and flex our energy independence should be something to celebrate, but not at Bloomberg. 

The feature story focuses on “the dark side” of American energy dominance in the world. “How could there possibly be a dark side,” you may ask?  Clearly, unlike the geniuses at Bloomberg, you actually want America to be rich, successful and dominant in the world. 

Despite the undeniable fact that America’s pending energy dominance not only results in lower prices at home and growing manufacturing and service sector jobs for Americans, it also renders Saudi Arabia, Russia and other hostile nations nearly irrelevant in America and her allies’ geopolitical and national security interests. 

But, according to Bloomberg, none of those tangible and remarkable benefits rise to the dangerous threat of, wait for it… global warming: 

The last three years have been the hottest since recordkeeping began in the 19th century, and there’s little room in Trump’s plan for energy sources that treat the planet kindly. Governors of coastal states have already pointed out that an offshore spill could devastate tourism—another trillion-dollar industry—not to mention wreck fragile littoral environments. Florida has already applied for a waiver from such drilling. More supply could lower prices, in turn discouraging investments in renewables such as solar and wind. Those tend to spike when oil prices rise, so enthusiasm for nonpolluting, nonwarming energies of the future could wane.



In the cover story titled “Good for the US, Bad for the World” Bloomberg lays out in very clear terms whose side they are on. The sub-head makes it obvious: “America’s oil boom is disrupting the geopolitical order and destroying the planet.”

“Disrupting the geopolitical order?” The order dominated by countries that fund radical Islamist terrorists and Vladimir Putin?  This is why people throw around the word “globalist” when describing billionaire elitists like Michael Bloomberg.

Let’s break down this logic for a moment, shall we?  If you really care about “climate change” and you are convinced that burning fossil fuels contributes to the phenomenon, how does America being the dominant energy producer in the world negatively impact the equation? 

The issue here isn’t the growth of global energy production, the issue is which nation leads the total energy production on the planet. Whether the dominant nation is America, or Russia or Kuwait or Canada, the total amount of energy produced is not affected. 

Furthermore, America is probably the most regulated and most responsible nation on the planet when it comes to energy production. Would Bloomberg prefer Vladimir Putin be the guy overseeing the drilling and delivery of the largest share of the world’s petroleum products? Would that put the environment in safer hands? Or the Saudis? 

American dominance of energy production in the world provides America a stronger economy, more jobs, lower prices, more independence and the opportunity to influence rogue nations and provide an alternative for allies beholden to hostile nations like Russia for their energy needs. There is no bad side. 

if American energy and economic independence is seen by Bloomberg as a bad thing for the planet, is it possible to reach the conclusion that they are not rooting for America? 

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide