http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Institute-for-Energy-Research-statement-on-latest-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-platform-accident-102183849.html

By: MARK TAPSCOTT
Editorial Page Editor
09/04/10 11:25 AM EDT

A second Gulf of Mexico oil platform accident has produced some interesting reactions. Compare, for example, the respective statements issued by the Institute for Energy Research, an industry backed think tank, and Sierra Club, one of the most vocal and aggressive advocates of radical environmentalism.
First, the IER statement:
“IER congratulates the U.S. Coast Guard, the employees of Mariner Energy and all those involved in the successful response to the fire and evacuation on the Vermilion Production Platform in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday.

“Their training and quick response resulted in no loss of life and very little release of hydrocarbons into the water. At IER, we recognize the outcome of this industrial accident is the norm, rather than the exception that marked the Macondo well in April.

“Although the opponents of domestic energy production were quick to try to use this accident as an indictment of all offshore energy production, the heroic actions of all concerned proved what all the experts and reports from the National Academy of Science have been telling us for decades – producing oil in our own waters is safer than importing it on tankers from foreign nations.

“Less domestic oil production means increased foreign imports, more job and dollar exports and the higher probability of a spill. The government’s self-imposed ban on production at home is even more reprehensible when you consider that the resulting need to increase our imports also increases the chances that the blood of young American soldiers will be spilled in areas where the flow of oil, so vital to the world’s economy, emanates.

“It is instructive that the same leaders in Washington, so quick to indict an industrial accident like that which occurred yesterday, refuse to investigate industrial accidents in their own districts, whether it be New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona or Hollywood. If it is fatalities they are focused upon, we at IER suggest these salons investigate why more people died this week due to environmental extremism than from domestic offshore energy production.

“With that in mind, and with an eye towards the celebration of Labor Day, IER calls upon President Obama to overrule his Energy Czar Carol Browner and lift the moratoria on offshore drilling. Not only the official and illegal moratorium on the deepwater, but also the unofficial one being imposed by bureaucratic inaction which has led to less than ten percent of the normal permits being issued for new wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

“With 9.6% unemployment and a cratering economy, it is time to celebrate the Labor of those men and women who would otherwise be working hard to provide the secure energy our economy demands were it not for the Obama administration’s ongoing war on the production of the plentiful domestic oil, coal, and natural gas resources that power our lives and run our businesses.”

Now, compare the above with this statement from the Sierra Club:
“Our hearts go out to the workers involved in this disaster and their families. This is the second incident in recent months that has sent oil workers into the water, and some of them have never returned.

“The oil industry continues to rail against regulation but it’s become all too clear that the current approach to offshore drilling is simply too dangerous. We don’t need to put American workers and waters in harm’s way just so multinational oil companies can break more profit records.

“Instead of pursuing more dangerous, dirty, outdated offshore drilling, we could be investing in clean energy and a 21st century transportation system that would create good, safe jobs and infuse new life into our economy.
“How many disasters will it take until our leaders decide to act? We don’t want to see one more oil disaster. The BP disaster was supposed to be the wake up call, but we hit the snooze button. Today the alarm went off again.

“Oil is just too dangerous and dirty. It’s time to move America off of oil and onto clean, safe energy.”

Aside from the obvious differences in terms of emphasis, detail and tone, take particular note of the profound gulf between these two advocacy groups regarding the practical realities of America’s energy needs and future.

The IER statement focuses on the immediate need to restore domestic energy production and the reality that producing more oil and natural gas at home is ultimately safer and environmentally more sensitive than increasing America’s dependence upon foreign sources.

Then there is the Sierra Club vision of “investing in clean energy and a 21st century transportation system.” Sounds nice, but here’s what Sierra doesn’t say:
First, even the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama estimates that it will be 2030 before those “clean energy” sources – wind, solar, biomass – will be able to produce anywhere near the amount of power, especially electricity, required by the American economy.

Second, do you ever wonder what that “21st century transportation system” might look like? Well, just take a look at the inside of a bus or subway car because urban mass transit is what Sierra Clubbers have in mind for all Americans. Of course, for mass transit to work even minimally well for the public, we all have to move back into the city. It will also be decades before anybody will be able to afford electric or fuel cell powered passenger cars able to serve the needs of a typical family of four.

In other words, IER is dealing with and has practical solutions for the real world. The Sierra Club has an abstract vision that has about as much chance of becoming reality as the Jamaican bobsled team has of winning a gold medal.

Special thanks to Richard Charter