Energy and Conservation

Our current president and Democrats like Joe Kennedy always present the false choice between energy and conservation. Our country sits on enormous energy deposits (oil, natural gas, and coal). We need not be dependent  on foreign oil any longer. Proper management of our own resources does not need to encroach on our environment, which is vitally important to the health and well-being of future generations.

Energy independence will vastly improve our economy and improve national security. Each dollar we spend abroad for foreign oil increases our national debt and strengthens nations that will threaten both the United States and our allies.

The free enterprise system is the most powerful engine for growth and innovation in the history of mankind. The advent of renewable energy  technologies must arise as the result of private sector innovation – government must get out of the way, and not pick winners and losers in technologies not ready for their prime. America’s entrepreneurs live and work in their communities; I’ve canoed up and down rivers such as the Blackstone River in central Massachusetts and the Saco River in Maine and New Hampshire, and always maintained the highest regard for ecological concerns. Such rivers are an example of precious resources we must never squander, we must protect them for future generations. Common sense local and state regulations will protect these resources, while entrepreneurs respond to the demand for renewable energy with solutions like affordable bio-diesel, more efficient engines, and more environmentally efficient acquisition and use of existing resources.

The choice between a vibrant economy and energy conservation is a false choice. Whether it is Evergreen Solar in MA or Solyndra at the federal level, governments do not innovate or invest, they simply pay off donors and well-placed contacts. Cap and Trade is not acceptable at any scope, carbon is not the only pollutant, and government officials have used Cap and Trade as a piggy bank for wealth transfers, not environmental protection. Like Catch Share, which Congressman Frank correctly opposed, the program was proposed to regulate the fishing industry, but in practice it allowed for abuse – larger companies purchasing share allotments from smaller fishing vessels, thereby creating a monopoly on the catch. Ironically, Congressman Frank supported Cap and Trade nationally, but opposed Catch Share locally. Once again, a regulation sold as green ecology, but motivated primarily by green cash and political pandering.  We can have a booming economy and preserve our nation’s beauty. The root of both conservatism and conservation is the same: conserve.