If you see this text then you need to update your flash player.

Print this pagePrint this page.

Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
by Theodore Dalrymple
Defending The West:
by Ibn Warraq
Nations, Language and Citizenship:
by Norman Berdichevsky
Romancing Opiates
by Theodore Dalrymple
Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
Our Culture, What's Left of It
by Theodore Dalrymple
What The Koran Really Says
by Ibn Warraq
Life at the Bottom
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Origins of the Koran
by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not Muslim
by Ibn Warraq
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
Leaving Islam
Edited by Ibn Warraq
Friday, 18 July 2008
Q & A With T. Boone Pickens

National Journal: Q: You know, you have really changed the world with your conversation about wind energy. [PickensPlan.com] is really an incredible Web site -- these videos, the ads, what you're doing. For those who haven't seen it, which means they don't live here in the United States -- but why don't you just give us a quick one minute on how you think you have the answer to the energy issue?

Pickens: OK. The problem first: We are paying now $700 billion a year for foreign oil. We're going to break the country, is what's going to happen. If we go 10 years at this, and we've been doing it for 40 -- not at that level, but we have... our imports have gone up from 24 percent in 1970 to now -- we're almost 70 percent, and by 10 years from now, in 2018, we'll be up to 80 percent. It's crazy, we're insane to do what we're doing.

OK. That's where I'm approaching the problem. Now, when I look at the solutions -- we only have one natural resource in America that can replace foreign oil, and that is natural gas. Natural gas is a better transportation fuel than gasoline, so if that's the case, it's cheaper, it's cleaner and it's a domestic resource. So we have to go to natural gas; we don't have any choice if we're going to reduce the $700 billion. And I think within less than 10 years we could reduce that by 30 to 40 percent -- the import of foreign oil.

So you know, when I see it, I see only winners here. And then I fold in a wind project to help it all, but you'll get into that on some questions here.

Q: Absolutely. In fact, let me ask you about that. Let's start with wind, because your own state of Texas yesterday agreed to a $4.9 billion plan -- now it's new transmission lines. Can you explain the transmission lines and how it works with the wind power?

Pickens: Yes, they're going to build -- that's a [unintelligible] system, that's our transmission in Texas -- and they're going to build these lines and extend it into the wind area -- which is up in the panhandle of Texas -- which will be very helpful for us.

Q: But how? I mean, if it's such an effective way, why wasn't it done before?

Pickens: Listen, that is a question you can ask about the problems with energy in America. I mean, why wasn't it done before? For 40 years, Tammy, 40 years, we have had no leadership on energy in this country. Can you imagine that we drifted, drifted, drifted like we have, and we're so dependent on foreign oil? You know, it's the same thing; government moves very slow, as you know, and they are reactive instead of proactive. Government is not like business and industry is.

Q: So business right now has to push and prod governments to get into this?

Pickens: What we've got to do, is we've got to come up with some leadership in Washington that recognizes the problem and you know, then has a plan, and they tell us this is what we're going to do, because the American people are fed up with this...

Posted on 4:41 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Comments
18 Jul 2008
Artemis

We are paying now $700 billion a year for foreign oil.

And that $700B is not going to just any foreign country, but as Hugh has pointed out, by an accident of geology, that $700B is going disproportionately to foreign countries who share an ideology that mandates warfare against non-believers.

Think of the effect it would have on the jihad if that $700B per year was not available for spreading Allah's message.  Think of the effect it would have on our economy if that $700B was not leaving our country in supertankers, but was instead going to companies, and to workers, in our own country.

I don't know if the answer is natural gas, or nuclear, or oil shale, or wind, or solar;  maybe the answer lies in cellulosic ethanol (that uses enzymes or yeast instead of corn or beets to generate the ethanol), or molten salt batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells, or some other emerging technology.  I only know that the answer is not to continue on our current energy path.

And if that answer, whatever it is, also contributes to alleviating anthropogenic climate change, then so much the better.  What could be the harm in treating our planet as if it were the only place in the known universe on which we can exist comfortably?  Or is that too beardy weirdy eco-puritanical?



22 Jul 2008
Send an emailrobert a

"fed up"  is a very, very mild description of the American mood.



Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
 
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
    1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

RSS Site Feed
RSS Feed