Not a worthwhile goal?

In a short editorial in the Washington Post this Sunday, Kerry Energy Facts, we read: (emphasis added)

For the near future, and certainly well beyond the eight years Mr. Kerry could be president, there is no possibility of genuine energy independence, nor is it clear that that is a worthwhile goal. Oil is an internationally traded commodity; there is no intrinsic value to oil drilled here, as opposed to Qatar or the North Sea; we do not speak of "plastic independence" or "textile independence," so why energy?

Well, we do not speak of "textile independence" because it's not a critical part of the economy, and if somehow textiles from overseas got expensive, they could be produced in the United States. We could go on, but the point is that energy policy is different from that of other commodities. And anyway, Kerry is speaking about sensible energy independence. The United States could be energy independent by moving swiftly to coal. Coal-fired plants all over the country, generating electricity, being converted to liquid fuels, and adding enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Kerry is advocating programs where the country moves to a position of energy independence, continued emphasis on energy efficiency, clean fuels, and alternate sources. Why sneer at him for that?

posted by Quiddity at 8/01/2004 06:45:00 AM