Another month down the road, and Covid-19 continues to disrupt the global economy. In the U.S., the situation is complicated by the impending presidential election. With apologies to our international readers, the remainder of this page will be rather U.S.-centric, given the election’s importance.
Vote to support this industry. The Nov. 3 election boils down to a choice between a healthy U.S. oil and gas industry as part of a thoughtful, multi-source energy policy, and an ill-disciplined, headlong rush into other energy forms that are not 100% reliable, and which will eventually cost consumers far more, particularly for electricity. Just look at California’s recent brownouts, where smoke from wildfires obscured the sun and reduced the ability to generate electrical power from solar arrays.
Policy positions. In an effort to look beyond names and examine the facts, this page will refer to Party A/Nominee A and Party B/Nominee B. Regarding energy policy, Nominee A and Party A have a 3 ½-year track record to run on, which is favorable to oil and gas development and extraction. So much does Party A believe in Nominee A’s track record and results, that they decided to forego an official platform this year, choosing to have its candidates run on the administration’s record. Most of you know this record.
Nominee B, until just recently, said many times that he would get rid of hydraulic fracturing and phase out oil and gas as quickly as possible. Now, with votes on the line, he says, “I never said that.” Nominee B’s running mate is no better, having said the same things and now insisting that she was never anti-fracing.
Platform liability. In addition, one must consider Party B’s platform, much of which was shaped by extremists, who want to destroy the oil and gas industry and push a punitive “Green New Deal” energy policy. It is telling that in Party B’s platform, the term, “clean energy,” is mentioned 30 times. In contrast, the term, “fossil fuels” is mentioned just once (not favorably), while “oil” is mentioned just twice (again not favorably).
Beyond the nominees’ energy positions, there are other issues. Nominee A has stood for free enterprise, lower taxes, keeping privately issued health insurance, law and order, and tough-but-fair trade practices. Meanwhile, Nominee B, compromised by Party B radicals, is for bigger government that might border on socialism. Accordingly, there would be higher taxes, government-run (poorly) health insurance, tolerance of crime and violence, and rescinding all of Nominee A’s tariffs on trade-cheating nations.
The media are the culprits. Industry friends complain that the U.S. continually has lousy choices for presidential/national elections, not to mention statewide and local contests. The fault lies with the media, particularly national outlets. Media scrutiny of candidates has become so intense, that nobody wants to go through the process. Plenty of fine, successful individuals in the U.S. would make great public officials, but no one wants to go through the media meat grinder. So, that leaves us with the hard-core political junkies in both parties, the extremists, to run for office. Is it any wonder, then, that we have the polarization that exists today?
With Nominees A and B both noticeably flawed, the situation boils down to which one is less dangerous to our livelihoods. Yet, in the U.S. today, too many people emphasize style over substance. They will say, “Oh, that candidate makes me feel better,” or “I don’t like the way that candidate says things.”
Sure, Nominee A may be rough, sometimes crude, and too plain-spoken for some people. But in the end, it should be the candidates’ track records and policy views that determine which way to vote. Which nominee will be best for your livelihoods and the future of your families? This is a battle for America’s future—don’t be a “stylist,” be a “realist”—vote like your job and life depend on it.
