Energy independence: Bachmann’s $2.00 gasoline pledge void of real leadership

Michelle Bachmann's calls for $2.00 gasoline prices is neither good for America nor is it the kind of leadership that will lead to US energy independence.

Call for $2.00 gasoline just isn't Presidential

It’s time to start telling the truth about US energy policy

To be sure, $4.00 gasoline prices aren’t good for America, especially in this economy, but neither are $2.00 prices. In fact, $4.00 is probably better for America than is $2.00 because $2.00 can’t last, and the US needs to be evermore prepared for the possibility of significantly higher gas prices. The writing is on the walls of history.

Consequently, Presidential hopeful Michelle Bachmann and her $2.00 gasoline pledge demonstrates that political hype, rather than real leadership, is her path to the White House.

While I agree with Bachmann that more drilling is an imminent requirement, it should be realized that such drilling might be more of a hedge against even higher energy prices into the future first and foremost. With China alone guzzling significantly more and more oil every day, world wide oil consumption is going to increase significantly this decade and into the next decade as well.

That doesn’t means something like shale couldn’t be a game changer, but ending OPEC dependence using shale, for instance, might cost $4.00 per gallon, or more, not $2.00. Yes, that might still be a winning formula because the job creation behind such an embrace would make the economy a lot stronger, while reducing the deficit. Likewise, US companies could also help countries like China develop their shale resources for further profits.

But, new drilling is just one piece of a comprehensive energy policy. Greater energy efficiency, biofuels, electrification and every other resource and tool we can imagine must also be part of the mix. Every one. Ultimately, America’s future cannot be built on cheaper oil and natural gas alone, as such a path would only make America weaker, not stronger, heading into the future.

Therefore, instead of a $2.00 gasoline-promising President, the US needs a President willing to declare war on US foreign oil dependence with an acknowledgment of how nearly impossible achieving such independence is today. Because such a task is almost impossible.

While pundits claim US energy independence is a fool’s notion, they’re wrong. The US has the tools and resources to become energy independent by 2030, and probably even earlier. But such goals would be probably be too disruptive to the status quo and change is scary. The only hope around this conundrum is grassroots inspiring leadership, an ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’ kind of leader.

It’s not just about driving more efficiently, for instance, it’s about driving less. It’s about increased public transportation and alternative models of transportation. It’s about innovation that takes us beyond the conventionality of new car sales.

Clearly, however, timely energy independence cannot be solely driven by new cars sales, as that will take several decades to execute, minimally. As a result, natural gas retrofits might offer more bang for the buck than any other option, except mass-transit, through the next decade.

At the end of the day, it’s all about the luxury of time. Does the US have it? Can the US remain heavily dependent upon foreign fuel, especially OPEC fuel, for several more decades until more convenient solutions develop? Is it really worth betting the future on such a risk?

Regardless, the US is not on a path to energy independence by 2030. Not even close, and talk of $2.00 gasoline certainly isn’t the path to either a better future or energy independence.

Didn't find the hybrid car or electric vehicle information you wanted? Try another search.