The inconvenient truth about energy

Claims from certain quarters of the American left to be genuinely interested in energy independence are ringing hollow. And it is painfully obvious because opposition to just about any kind of energy development comes from, you guessed it … the left.

The Wall Street Journal last week published a fascinating story about growing protests in the Midwest over ethanol plants, focusing on a bearded, ponytailed newcomer to the town of Cambria, Wis., who formed a group called "Cambrians for Thoughtful Development."

Concerned about water consumption, foul odors and air pollution presented by a proposed $70 million ethanol plant, the group protested and is now suing to stop development of the plant. The Journal reports there has been similar opposition to other ethanol plants in the Midwest from similar not-in-my-backyard groups.

How can this be? Ethanol, remember, is an eco-groovy "alternative" fuel derived from a renewable resource. It is subsidized by the federal government, and is part of the Bush administration's plan to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

Reducing gas consumption would in turn reduce America's dependency on purchasing oil from dictators who generally use oil revenue to oppose the United States in other arenas. Think of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia's export of virulent Wahhabi Islam around the world.

It is typically leftist environmental groups that oppose domestic energy development at every turn.

They protest drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, as well as expanded offshore drilling.

Who wants to breach hydroelectric dams in the Columbia Basin for the sake of salmon? Only the most strident environmental groups.

Never mind that Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is a Democrat - opposition to his bold plans for coal-to-gas development in eastern Montana will predictably come from the left.

Al Gore, the former vice president and recent Oscar recipient, sanctimoniously decrees that Americans should reduce their "carbon footprints" while he runs up electric bills that could power an entire neighborhood. He exonerates himself by purchasing "carbon offsets" from a company that he has a financial interest in. The company invests in wind power or other green projects, and presto, his conscience is clean. Just like purchasing a medieval indulgence for cleansing away sins.

Gore never talks about one source of energy that would greatly reduce carbon emissions, and that's nuclear energy. Why doesn't Gore urge Congress to provide incentives for nuclear power development, a change that would vastly reduce the nation's carbon footprint?

Because the left has long detested and protested nuclear power plants. And Gore certainly isn't going to counter that position, because he has become a national environmental leader.

True enough, the Daily Inter Lake has taken an editorial stance objecting to coal mining in the Canadian Flathead. But that position is justifiable, considering that a currently proposed mine would produce low-quality coking coal for carbon belching steel production in China and the Pacific Rim, with absolutely no energy or economic benefits for Montana or the United States. The only thing Montana and the Flathead would get from the mine are all-but-certain impacts on water quality, fish and wildlife.

It is all cost and no benefit.

And that ratio is something that the broader American public must begin considering if we are ever to make any real strides toward energy independence. We can't bow to protests over every single energy development project that comes along. At some point, in some way and some places, the benefits of energy development must exceed the costs that are so commonly protested from the left.