To the Editor:

Re: “McCain energy follies”

Our country is currently inundated with the rising prices of energy in our daily lives as our struggling economy meanders along. I always enjoy reading and hearing others opinions on how it is we should bring ourselves out of this energy crisis that we are currently submersed in. There are many suggestions and ideas about what to do, but the amount of true reform and change has been minimal. The author of “McCain’s energy follies” approaches the issue in a disturbing way however by starting his editorial evoking fear in its readers in what I suppose is an effort to conform them to his negative views toward Republican ideas for the situation. Although striking fear in people can be a useful tactic in certain situations, is it really appropriate for the extremely serious issue of our future energy plans?
The author also makes statements as if they are proven facts when they are clearly not. He says that “fossil fuel emissions are the main drivers of global warming”, which is a statement that has no concrete scientific validity. Scientists are becoming increasingly open to the idea that our climate change is not necessarily due to our actions, but rather could be a global event that would have happened regardless of human activity. The ice age wasn’t caused by human interference, so what is to say that this time of warming on our planet is due to our actions? He accuses of Sarah Palin of being out of touch with reality because she tends to think human actions are not the main cause of global warming when the only reality is that the globe is warming.
Despite the authors poorly analyzed use of fear and unproven facts initially in his article, he makes a strong and universally accepted statement when he discussed our addiction and obvious over use of our natural resources and our need for a global response. However, that one paragraph proves to be the only reasonable set of statements in the entire article.
Immediately at the conclusion of his one bright idea, the author begins to attack McCain and Palin for their positions on energy, but proves no alternatives on how he or she would address the problems. By attacking McCain and Palin’s desire to open up additional drilling around the country, he quickly distances himself from the majority of Americans. Depending on the poll you look at, Americans favor additional drilling here at home by a little more than two to one. Democratic arguments that drilling won’t produce gasoline for more than five years are mystifying. There is no way all cars, trucks, planes, and almost every other form of transportation and manufacturing will be able to run off something other than oil in the foreseeable future, let alone the next five years. What is the possible disadvantage of giving ourselves a stronger oil supply in the mean time? Arguments from environmentalist are ridiculous and why so many politicians are influenced by them is mind boggling. We need to work on alternative fuels at a rapid rate, but even the most promising alternatives are many years away. Sarah Palin and the American people are clearly the ones in touch with the realities of our situation, not the author!