POWER SHIFT: Transcending the planet as a species, leaving all sense behind.

Progressives in Gas Masks at Power Shift

C'mon, the smog in DC isn't *that* bad!

[Update: If you agree with the people at Power Shift or are one of them, I encourage you to watch this video also, before you comment.]

I’m not pointing and laughing at these people. Really, I’m not. The temptation is there, sure, but I’m not.

I’m also not sharing this out of uncharity. If I were pointing and laughing at them then sharing it here would be uncharitable. So I’m not being uncharitable.

I’m sharing it because Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, former Obama green jobs czar and current Hugo Chavez admirer Van Jones, and Al Gore are all tied to this gathering pretty significantly. Power Shift is, in their own words, the crowd they are counting on to lead the future.

Just watch.

Seriously. Some highlights from the video:

• Van Jones says the “children of every species” are counting on this crowd.

• One attendee asks, “Do we ever think about us as a species, and transcending the planet?…To be able to leave the planet and to see the planet reproduce another species like ourselves that has the ability to reach a higher awareness and a higher level of  life?”

• They call for complete revolution: social, economic, political, and cultural.

• One of the major issues in the climate change issue is “our addiction to economic growth” (you know: the flourishing of human ingenuity and talent, rightly ordered to the mutual benefit of all involved in the free exchange of private property).

• Home gardens and urban gardening initiatives followed by canning tomatoes will solve the food problem and prevent having to ship food across the country.

• While specifically eschewing the “socialist” moniker, one attendee calls for “highly localized economies based on solidarity.”

• And Nancy Pelosi (Catholyc D-California) greeted them, thanked them, and looks forward to seeing them again on Capitol Hill.

• There was also the group of girls who dropped their pants to display their matching underoos (not unsafe for work, just silly).

• Oh, and the guy who, while milling about a group that eschews money, hates capitalism, and wants to push for a more “green” economy (the sort that all sane people know will absolutely murder job creation), carries a briefcase asking “Where are the jobs?”

All in all, a stellar compendium of jaw-dropping moments from people who want a society, polity, economy, and man-made religion based on planet worship and some gauzy concept of human solidarity based in nothing but nature. Hobbes said something about that sort of life, and it wasn’t pleasant.

To think it all happened at one rally in Washington, D.C., just a few days ago.

Even if they mean well, having such a poor grasp of human nature and the true nature of what Really Matters in human relations doesn’t happen accidentally—-it has to be learned, or one has to have a significant amount of self-delusion. If nothing else, a cursory study of the history of the 20th century ought to disabuse anyone of such notions.

Alas: those who study history are doomed to be surrounded by those who don’t, who will then attempt to repeat it.



28 thoughts on “POWER SHIFT: Transcending the planet as a species, leaving all sense behind.

  1. A student says:


    I am a little confused Mr. Crowe and need a little clarity.

    What are you trying to prove with this video? You show 10 people out of 10,000 and claim that they speak for all of us. How does that work? Where are your facts? Where are your credible sources for these claims you make? Did you get any of these people to sign releases for the video?


    A student

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Hi, A student, thanks for stopping by. I’ll answer your questions in order: 1) I’m trying to prove nothing, the folks in the video displayed something and I (mostly) allow it to stand on its own. My commentary at the end is fairly light and insignificant, really. 2) There were at least 10 gals who dropped their shorts, so it was more than 10. But even if it were only 10 out of 10,000, that means the video contained 0.1% of the people at the conference. Typical national political polling, according to Gallup, is only 1,000 people polled out of an adult population of 187,000,000, which means they poll 0.0005% of the people, and it is taken as a reliable poll. Now, of course, they do it randomly and this video contains those whom the video maker chose to show, but since it was far more than 10, I don’t think you can make a strong argument that this video is not representative of “you” to a disturbing degree. 3) My facts are all in the video, and my commentary is based on experience of discussion with such people and reading your own materials. 4) My credible source is the video, and my own and others’ experience. 4) I didn’t produce the video, and even if I had, no releases are necessary when you stick a camera in someone’s face and ask them a question that they can simply refuse to answer. —— Does that help clear up some of the confusion?

      1. Flower says:

        Do you know why these girls “dropped thier shorts”? To reveal the dirty truth about fossil fuels impacts. I live in Louisiana, and I watch my friends and neighbors suffer from the industrilization of this country. My fellw Louisianians and Gulf coast citizens are DYING from dispersants in our gulf. In years to come, south Louisiana will be consumed from sea level rise attributed to global climate change. My home, and thousands of others, will be gone.

        It is so easy for you to mock us. As you are already educated, employed and living your happy white picket fence life. But what of me and my fellow students? Who are payig more then ever to go to college? Whoes colleges must cut our programs to stay afloat in our dying economy? To send us into a work force facing some of the highest unemployment rates in our countries history?
        What of us and our future?

        Any religon will tell you to love your fellow man and uplift him, to seek solidarity among yourselves to honor your Creator.

        I am proud to stand among those marching through the streets of DC, who came together to educate our fellow man about community building and environmental justice.

        We are fighting you save you the suffering we’ve already experienced. I think it may be wise to hear us out.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Dear Flower: As I said to one of your fellow travelers, if you have to explain your symbol, it fails as a symbol. Nothing about girls dropping their shorts and screaming with glee says “dirty truth about fossil fuels impact,” it says, “wow, these girls have an odd sense about how to do a political display, and an odd sense of the dignity of their own bodies.” Perception is reality in political theatre, so take that as a free piece of advice. ——– Rising sea level doomsday scenarios (if they happen, which is faaaar from a sure thing) will, indeed, be attributed to “global climate change,” but attribution does not equal causation. Also, I note you use the phrase “global climate change” and not “global warming.” Why? Is it because the earth’s average temperate has actually begun falling in recent decades? If the global climate change is actually global cooling we’ll surely hear about the loss of growing seasons in northern states rather than loss of coastline. As for the erosion of the coast in Louisiana, erosion is as natural a part of the changes in topography as the formation of deltas by rivers as they develop and the growth of new islands from volcanic activity: the earth’s surface is ever shifting, regardless of human activity. Chemicals in the Gulf? Like the smog in DC which another poster mentioned, I imagine the problem is quite a bit less than you suggest. And if you are concerned about jobs, you ought to be railing against the ridiculous moratorium the Obama administration has imposed on drilling in the Gulf. That, more than anything else, has killed jobs in your region, and seriously harmed the economy for everyone, especially the poor people who are less able to afford the higher gas prices. The Transocean disaster did not warrant this. I had this discussion with another poster in this thread, find my comments there, I’ll no rehash it here. ———- I am not mocking you, merely pointing out some really bad reasoning and really bad political positions, manifested in really silly demonstrations. I didn’t force anyone to act that way: you did it on your own. ——– You do realize that a major reason jobs are harder to create is because of the uber-green environmentalism regime that makes the cost of doing business too pricey for people today, right? If the regulations were a little less onerous, companies would have more money to hire people and would be able to develop more land without government interference. And I’m not talking “don’t dump raw sewage in the river,” here. The regulations are ridiculous. Public colleges get money hand over fist from the government: if they have to cut programs then it was either bad management by the college or a program that wasn’t justifying the expense. College programs are not sacrosanct: they have a purpose, and must justify their use of scarce resources, just like every other enterprise. ——– I have no picket fence. You don’t know me, so don’t assume you do. Any assumption that you know me, or that you educated me about anything I hadn’t already considered, or that you are fighting “for me” in something that you *know* I need even if I am pretty sure I don’t, or that you are trying to save me from suffering that you may or may not realize I may or may not have had, or that you know about my relationship with the Creator in any way so as to tell me how I ought to relate to Him and to creation, displays a remarkable hubris on your part that I’m sure you would reject if I were to reflect it back to you. ———– What of you all and your future? Well now you’re asking a question that is at cross purposes with “environmental justice” as the term is usually applied. The future of humanity certainly involves the environment, but when you toss “I need a job” into the mix, the usual face of “environmental justice” can really get in the way. Responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources can include responsible development of the oil and natural gas industries, AND include the limited amount of green technologies that actually make sense. If you assume that I really want to rape the earth and leave it barren for the next generation then you assume way too much, and are being, frankly, unfair. Cheers!

  2. Ivan says:

    Doesn’t seem very catholic to mock these people who have good intentions, even if you disagree with their opinions and tactics, but what do I know…but I do believe God has given us everything we need, including wind and sun, just a matter of what to use in the interim and how to least harm our planet until we get to where we can make those our main sources of energy, which unfortunately is not right around the corner….but if you are ok with the status quo, please tell me where I can send you a glass of water from a fracking town so you can have a drink on me:)

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Heh, Ivan, a few things: First, you know which road is paved with good intentions? I’ll give you a hint: the end of it is very, very, very hot. Second, not mocking, merely sharing what they themselves said and did. My first two paragraphs lay out the reasons why this is not mocking. It is a fine line, i recognize, but I believe I stayed on the not-mocking side of it. I ask you to give the benefit of the doubt. Third) I live in Steubenville, Ohio: fracking is happening all over the place around me. It is indeed a concern, and I do hope it can be done in a manner safe and responsible to neighbors, but having good intentions alone won’t fix the problem, neither will acting like a goofball or calling for “radical revolution” or calling for us all to “transcend the planet as a species”… Tell me where I’m wrong.

  3. Lauren Nicole Singer says:

    As one of the women in this picture, I feel that you are completely missing the point of what this entire conference stood for. Those gas masks are a symbol for hydraulic fracturing, a huge issue, and one of many, that people, your people, fellow Americans, are facing right now. So thank you for not “pointing and laughing at me,” thank you for not “being uncharitable.” But Tom Crow you should be thanking us for being so brave and as the youth of this country sacrificing our time and our studies to travel all the way to Washington DC to make our voices heard, and as you just affirmed that it was all worth it. So while the temptation is there to comment on your condescending tone and utter disregard for very pressing issues that us as humans are responsible for and responsible for changing, I won’t. I’m telling you this out of charity, have faith in masses of 10,000 youth. Don’t you think if they all came to gather from all corners of this nation for three days, they might have something better than the nonsense you represented to say? Not everyone can speak with eloquence, but everyone has a voice.
    This is mine, telling you to stop fighting against those who are fighting for you.

    If people keep treating the earth as they are and if human processes that are degrading our air quality, land and water keep occurring, you will really, really wish you would have listened.

    Take some time to reflect upon why you are so bitter towards those who wish to make your earth a better place,


    Lauren Nicole Singer

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Bitter? Nope. Condescending? No, incredulous. And, frankly, re-read your comment here and try to recognize the condescension inherent in telling people they ought to be thanking you. ———–

      And I didn’t represent any nonsense that wasn’t in the video. There are lots of pressing issues, but I dispute that we need to wreck the economy that has pulled more people out of starvation than any green programs ever could for benefits that, at their best estimation, will have a negligible effect on the environment. Stewardship is not about not using the environment at all, but about using it properly. And that last bit is where honest and intelligent people can disagree. The silliness in this video doesn’t inspire one to think they’re dealing with a mature interlocutor (your gas masks represent what? A suggestion: if you have to explain your symbol, it’s not working as a symbol.). ————-

      Question: did you all walk to the conference? Hot air balloons? Bikes? Or did your mode of transportation burn fossil fuels? ———–

      One last thing: I wonder, Ms. Singer, since you think strength in numbers carries weight, I wonder how you feel about the gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country that happens annually around January 22 in Washington, D.C. … check it out here: http://youtu.be/42caJw6FZjc and lemme know what you think about that one. Cheers.

      1. Michael Embrey says:


        You state that you wish fracking “can be done in a manner safe and responsible to neighbors”.

        I have contention with this hope of yours.

        Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most destructive and unsafe ways that our country uses to fuel itself. It is touted as a safe and proven method yet these same companies that stand behind this message have people sign non-disclosure agreements and buy others clean drinking water because the wells on their land are now contaminated and unfit for consumption by any living being.

        This Wednesday, April 20th was the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon drilling spill that still affects Americans today.

        Please read this article on just one recent example of the harm fracking caused for the drinking water supply of part of Pennsylvania http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/us-chesapeake-blowout-idUSTRE73K5OH20110422

        “Google has invested more than $250 million in renewable energy projects” (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-11/brightsource-receives-1-6-billion-guarantee-for-california-solar-project.html)
        The amount of money being spent by the government on hydraulic fracturing and oil could easily have started an entire new sector of jobs for engineers, contractors, construction workers, and facility operators for energy harnessed through solar panel and windmill farms.

        There’s enough space in the deserts and fields of the south, west and in the plains to power the entire country.

        A windmill farm in someone’s backyard or in the middle of the country won’t harm any human being unless someone in a misguided belief tilts at it trying to slay a dragon.

        I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong. Ad hominem is no way to have a discussion. But I will state that I hope you research the other side more thoroughly before making an opinion as the information you might find can surprise you and hopefully move your hopes to a safer, more sustainable energy source.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Michael, I didn’t carefully read both of your comments posted, but since they looked visually the same when skimmed over I’m assuming they are the same, so I approved the latter posting and trashed the former. If there was other information in the former, I apologize and hope you will re-post it. As for the substance of your post, I have seen your arguments before and the information that undergirds them, and I have seen counter arguments and studies. I have concluded from what I have seen that “green” energy cannot sustain us as you suggest, at least in part because there is significant resistance (bi-polar resistance, really) by environmentalists to putting the solar panel farms in the southwest. Some say it is the right thing to do and will produce enough electricity, others say it is the wrong thing to do because of the impact on the environment of suddenly putting that much land in the shade and the blot on the pristine landscape it will be. Also, the number of birds killed by windmills every year is not insignificant, and will obviously rise if we put up enough windmills to do what you want to do. Also, many, many trees would have to be cut down to put up turbines on the places that get wind and/or sun, so you’re looking at a not-insignificant loss of habitat if we’re serious about putting up enough turbines and solar panels. Then toss in the resistance many have already expressed to having wind turbines visible from their homes (see: folks around Cape Cod), plus those who will similarly resist solar panel farms, and you’ve got a whole lot of NIMBY opposition. So those are disagreements that are mostly between groups on your side that need to be resolved. Also, assuming we do carpet the southwest with solar panels, how does that help the megalopolis of the east coat? How do you propose to transmit that electricity from Arizona to New York City? The amount of power lost to resistance in high tension wires, plus the enormous expense of putting them in and maintaining them makes that a far less attractive option. As for the amount of money the government invests, I would prefer the government didn’t invest in either technology but act as a dispassionate referee of business and safety checker for industry and leave investment to the private sector—the government is historically terrible at investing and ought not be picking technologies since it is removed from the most efficient and effective driver of innovation: market pressures. I applaud Google for investing that much of their own private money in green technologies: it’s their money, they can do with it as they see fit. More private investment like that will undoubtedly lead to better green technologies AND better/safer means of extracting the sources of energy found underground. I have addressed the Gulf oil spill disaster in another part of the comments attached to this post, I’ll not rehash here the reasons why that is not dispositive of my position. Cheers!

  4. Del says:

    That’s not socialism. that’s Distributism. Chesterton and Belloc would approve of this one.

    There were probably some good ideas floating in that silly sea.

  5. Teep says:

    yes their argument is flawed and ridiculous. However, you throw some babies out with bath water. The addiction to economic growth comment isn’t as bad as you make it out to be. Your own comments give it away: you reduce human action to property. If all we are is property, then you are not catholic. You are a Lockean materialist. Also, local economies under a theory of subsidiarity, i.e., a localized politico-economic model is de facto and de jure more in tune with being a christian. The more say a local government (read: the more people have a say in their own political framework) has and the less a federal one does, the more likely that virtuous action can be promoted in an efficient manner, rather than ignored or run over with a front-end loader. When will you realize that big gov’t and big business are in cahoots? Who do you think WROTE the Obamacare bill, for Pete’s sake? Insurance companies, that’s who. Ask AEI. Ask Brookings. You’re view of what counts as socialism is highly skewed because you’re traveling in the wrong caravan. Get out of the republican bus and into the Catholic one; even if the Dems are worse, it doesn’t make the GOP good. You’re references are all over the place and rant-y. Do it again. Start over. You can do better.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Oh, Teep… I involuntarily laughed out loud and stopped reading your comment at “…you are a Lockean materialist.” If you took my meaning to be that we are the sum of our private property then either I was unclear (for which I apologize) or you grossly misread me. Cheers.

    2. Tom Crowe says:

      Nope, Teep, I read more. “Rant-y”? Physician, heal thyself. Cheers.

      1. teep says:

        Don’t get me wrong, I think you happen to be correct about the kookyness going on in that video. Also, touche regarding the rant. rhetori-points to Mr. Crowe. I take it you don’t think any of these people are advocating, as Del describes below, a true distributism? I too read, btw, and your Hobbes reference is well taken. It does bother me, however, that you don’t see any convertible ideas in their silliness. That is, their rancor does hit upon something correctly: the alienation of humanity from its connection to the rest of nature. Their response is mealy-mouthed and just plain silly, but the lack of rational response to the problem is, indeed, an acute symptom of that alienation. As for my Locke comment, I’m glad you laughed! I occasionally argue out of both sides of my mouth just to see where people are at. Glad I got it wrong. Upon a second reading, I see where my misreading lies: your post isn’t all over the place, it’s trying to make as much sense as possible out of collection of claims that ARE all over the place.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Teep, I think the only thing they and I agree on is that it is a good idea to be responsible in our use of the earth and its resources. I think most everything from what that would look like to motivations for it would differ greatly. Now I recognize that the video is not necessarily representative of everyone at the conference and there were likely plenty of attendees who looked at the ones int he video and just shook their head, embarrassed. I likely would have more to agree on with those people. But the disagreements seem to begin at a very, very fundamental level, and that is where we got this earth from and the implications that come from the difference in that genesis (pun intended). Too many of them seem to think the earth primary and mankind secondary, a view which all Christians must reject. Humanity is primary, the earth is secondary, but it is man’s role as primary to care for—not abuse—all that is secondary and tertiary, etc. From there, the calls for revolution and returning to an agrarian society and socialism (she wasn’t calling for subsidiarity, but solidarity, and you can be sure she did not mean that in the Lech Walesa sense) show a definite left-wing, traditionally atheistic socialistic worldview that tolerates anything but the intolerance of objective truths that don’t fit their agenda. Now, since most of the peeps were young there is hope that they will grow out of it, and there is also hope for the future in that there were only 10K at the thing rather than closer to 100K. But Having a couple things right does not justify getting so. many. things. wrong.

  6. Michael says:

    You may not like the messengers (I don’t, really) but there is some truth in their message: our planet’s capacity to support human beings in the numbers that are projected to exist in the not so distant future is questionable. Likewise, as the affluence made possible by capitalism spreads around the world–India, China, Brazil–the demands on our food and energy systems will increase dramatically.

    So there is reason for concern. I have faith in the ability of human beings to solve these problems, but we first have to acknowledge that the problems exist. Tomorrow isn’t going to be the same as yesterday.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Michael, such doomsday predictions about population outpacing earth’s ability have been with us for centuries. And yet, somehow, we continue. Yes, of course we have to always strive to be better stewards, but a failure to accept that the earth will support us if we are good stewards is a failure to trust that God would give us everything we need to survive. The reason this video is point-and-laughable is because of the inanity of their hoped-for solutions. Return to an agrarian society? Leave the planet? Complete and utter revolution of the sort they’re suggesting? Ridiculous.

      1. Michael says:

        This is an argument I would be very happy to lose, believe me.

        As you said, better stewards. My wife and I were watching “America: The Story of Us” (a great series on the History Channel last year). One episode was about the discovery of oil in Texas, and how such cheap, powerful energy transformed our country. Now that cheap oil is becoming more scarce, and as more and more people in the world compete for a dwindling resource, we are going to have to face reality. Offshore drilling and ANWR are, at best, stopgaps. What’s our plan going forward? That’s the kind of question I’d like answered!
        I enjoy your posts very much. Thanks for the respectful dialogue! God bless you on this Holy Thursday.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Michael, i dispute that the available oil is dwindling. What has dwindled is the land the government makes available for drilling, but that does not mean the oil in the ground is dwindling. And with modern drilling techniques we are able to extract oil from a far, far greater area through just one hole than the oil barons who showed up in that History Channel piece you referenced, who had to poke multiple holes in the ground to get oil we can now get through one hole. The Macondo/BP/Transocean well blowout in the Gulf last year is a good example of a number of things here. Drilling in 5K-foot deep water is exponentially more risky than drilling in shallow water and on land. The reason they were drilling in such deep water is because they weren’t allowed to drill closer to shore or on land. Had they been able to drill closer to shore or on land then the blowout would have been faaar less likely, and even if it did happen, it would have been faaaaar easier to cap. So while some use this disaster as an example of why drilling is bad, the example is actually quite different: drilling in such deep water is far more dangerous than drilling in shallow water or on land, and even at that there are precious few disasters like this. And this disaster was a freak accident resulting from the perfect storm of risks taken that went perfectly bad. Had even one of the risks not gone bad the disaster would not have been nearly so catastrophic; but everything that could have gone wrong, did. Then it was compounded by the government’s ineptness in responding and starting cleanup, and then the finger-pointing (“whose ass to kick” was really juvenile) and shutting it all down rather than soberly assessing the situation, realizing it was a lone incident, and moving on healthily with lessons learned. There is a point at which regulations keep the industry operating healthily, and beyond that point the government simply hampers the industry altogether. And on the actually availability of oil, estimates are that the U.S. is sitting on reserves that would make Saudi Arabia look like a drop in the bucket. I’m not advocating opening up the entire country to drilling operations, but of finding that happy balancing point. After all: God gave us oil, we’ve figured out how to extract it more safely over the years, we really don’t have any conception of just how much is available apart from “a whole heckuva lot more than we really know”… All of that, of course, is not to say that we don’t need ever consider reducing our oil consumption or looking for alternative sources of energy, but to say that, provided it is done responsibly, there is no tension between being a good steward and continued prospecting and drilling for oil, and in places far more accessible and therefore safer than the deep deep waters of the outer continental shelf.

          1. Tom Crowe says:

            Heh: people are clicking dislike on a post in which I merely point out facts. Says more about them than about me.

          2. Seach says:

            Tom, I respectfully urge you to reconsider your statement that “What has dwindled is the land the government makes available for drilling, but that does not mean the oil in the ground is dwindling.” . Your discussion rests on the axiom that our oil supplies are infinitely abundant, yet their tangibility – the fact that they are made of matter – clearly suggests that to some degree our consumption of such resources is limited. Why should we be using our land, poking these holes and sucking from them with the insensitivity of parasitic leaches – when we have the option to do otherwise. We shouldn’t be using America for its oil reserves but for its incredible ingenuity! We’ve already developed the technologies to harness our energy from sun, wind, hydro and bio sources – all of which are infinitely available and healthy for not just our bodies but our economy. This is a green economy – one where we can create jobs that involve creativity, innovation, design and science for an indefinite period of time, not just until the well runs dry. This is what America was built upon, not our reluctance to move into the future! While you argue that drilling on our land is ‘safer’ than other practices I must submit that we can do better. The process of extracting our oil reserves from shale rock, in the practice of hydraulic fracturing is actually an incredibly unsupportable business model – for it clears and takes advantage of the land then moves off – leaving a barren and polluted plot, moving only to the next one. The practice of drilling in this way not only pumps 596 complex – implicitly unable to breakdown- chemicals into our groundwater sources but also drives down real estate values so drastically that those who lease their land to natural gas companies will not be able to sell their land once it has been fracked. I hope you can agree with me that our already fragile real estate market should not take another blow due to the incomplete thinking of our energy practices. We should not compromise our land nor our economy for the preservation of archaic industry. We are humans, made by God from the same precious stuff as our Earth – to love trust and respect God as you say you do – would be to honor the land on which you live and the people whom you provide for. Our current practices do neither, when we could be doing both! Why not support a clean and entirely safe economy and infrastructure? You dismiss these students but by doing so, you only strengthen their motivation and their message. Nature is smart, efficient, incredibly beautiful and amazingly complex – have you ever even watched one millisecond of BBC’s Planet Earth?? You should. And we should take those lessons of efficiency, adaptability and coexistence and apply them to how we run our systems so that we never have to have an internet discussion over it-or wear gas masks in dc-again.

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            You respectfully urged, and I say we can do both-and. Our ingenuity has enabled us to use less oil per unit of work accomplished, and to extract oil more safely. Pursue green initiatives, by all means, but don’t demand that we all pay for it or the government forces it until it is cost-effective and proven. You lament the fracking process for the barren plot it leaves, then talk about how nature is smart, etc… You are correct. I’ve watched a fair number of episodes of Planet Earth. Earth is amazingly resilient. The plot left by fracking will grow in. You call oil an archaic industry, but age isn’t a proof against an industry: obsolescence is. When something better comes along it will fall by the wayside. I don’t dismiss the students: my point in posting that was to show that a number of powerful people give them credence, so it behooves us to look at what they’re doing… but I do dismiss the lunacy in which they partake and trust that at least a lot of them will grow up. God gave us the oil and the ingenuity to use it, and the responsibility to extract and use it safely and responsibly. So pursue your green solutions, without harming the economy and the millions of disadvantaged people whose lives will be made harder and more expensive if the government forces green. In the mean time, I will support a responsible and safe approach to oil production, using the best of American ingenuity and God’s creation. Cheers!

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            I also should point out that I do not rest anything on any notion that oil is an infinite resource, but the evidence suggests that there is no end in sight, and even some wells which were previously sucked dry have begun producing again, leading some to wonder if oil really is a fossil fuel at all, or if it is something produced by processes in the ground and is, in fact, a somewhat renewable resource. Some interesting speculation going in that direction. But at any rate, the estimates put our domestic undiscovered oil reserves somewhere in the stratosphere, well beyond Saudi Arabia, which is to say, a lot.

    2. Jennifer says:

      Michael, I think you have too much trust in human beings and not enough in God.
      And as for this group of people and their ideology, I find it ironic how they can dehumanize man by lowering him to the status of an animal, while at the same time elevate him to the level of God in his intelligence. Can you say total lack of dignity and humility?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.