Schaffer made the point that our current energy prices are a combination of increased worldwide demand, and a deliberate policy by liberals, environmentalists, and socialists (er, is there a difference there?) to limit domestic energy production on the basis of aesthetics rather than economics.The insights of candidates Schaffer and Sharf follow points we have made here many times, most recently:
So let's see: we turn our food into energy, which is an inefficient use of everything involved in the process: corn, fertilizer, natural gas (which is what you make fertilizer from), energy itself. We prevent drilling in Alaska, offshore, in-state. (Cuba apparently is less environmentally sensitive.) We streamline the nuclear plant licensing process at just the time when materials and design costs are double plant costs. We limit our exposure to the world natural gas market by preventing LNG terminals.
And then we're surprised when the cost of energy, relative to everything else, rises.
- To Colorado's Detriment, Mark Udall Tries to Take Both Sides on Roan Plateau
- Mark Udall's Priorities Out of Whack as Skyrocketing Energy Prices Hit Coloradans
- Udall Rejects Gas Holiday, Offers No Meaningful Solution to Energy Dependency
- Mark Udall and Nancy Pelosi "Shed Crocodile Tears" Over High Gas Prices
- Mark Udall's Energy Plan Lacks Sense
As long as energy policy remains a big issue, Mark Udall will have a tough time withstanding the careful scrutiny. Perhaps that's part of the reason he is hiding from Schaffer's proposal for unscripted debates.