Daniel Turner: 2020 Democrats want to turn our energy independence into submission
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}This year, our nation’s birthday came after an odd two-day debate between the top 20 Democratic candidates for president. Along with promoting victimhood, proffering generous welfare benefits and poorly-conjugated Spanish, there was a universal determination to destroy our nation’s energy industry. Oil, gas, and coal are the trio of fossil fuels that power our economy, and they were denigrated by every candidate, with each one promising to bring about their end in favor of "green" energy technology.
Finances aside, physics works against them. We have neither the technology nor the capability to generate and store enough green energy to sustain our current way of life. Our major cities don’t have the available adjacent land for wind and solar farms, and those technologies aren’t remotely capable of generating enough power.
WHERE DO 2020 DEMOCRATS STAND ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL, CLIMATE CHANGE?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}There are also the inconvenient truths about planes, trucks, trains, and numerous energy consuming products that won’t be green within a decade.
Telling voters we will stop using fossil fuels under their hypothetical administrations is a lie.
2020 Democratic presidential candidates should explain why they want to surrender our energy freedom, and turn our independence into submission.
There’s another area outside of commerce and transportation which would be exponentially more difficult for a "green" commander in chief: foreign policy. Dependence on foreign oil has limited our trade options and forced us into disastrous foreign wars. America watched, almost paralyzed, as the OPEC cartel dictated oil production and pricing. Anyone who lived through the 1970s oil crises knows this all too well. Sadly, many of the most powerful members of Congress today forgot that lesson. Some were not alive at the time.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}America is energy independent today, and growing in worldwide energy dominance. This puts us in an enviable, powerful position of leverage and strength. China wishes it had our energy independence. Despite China's economic and military growth, the Chinese cannot power their nation autonomously.
The last two years have been banner years for American energy. The "shale revolution" has made America an energy powerhouse. Just last year, for instance, America broke the world record for oil and gas production increases, posting the “largest annual” increase in oil and gas production of any country in world history.
The Trump administration's reduction of unnecessary regulations has enabled American energy workers to access shale deposits never thought possible. It led to “all-time high” U.S. production, and experts predict our energy boom will only grow stronger.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}The Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. will become energy independent by 2020.
Much of the boom has to do with a region in parts of New Mexico and Texas called the "Permian Basin." Thanks to the production increases in this region, the International Energy Agency estimates that the U.S. will account for 70 percent of the growth in global oil production over the next five years. By 2024, we will surpass Russia and nearly match Saudi Arabia in oil production.
Yes, even Saudi Arabia.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}At the next debate, should it venture into a serious conversation about foreign politics, I’d like to ask the candidates about Middle East negotiations should the U.S. once again — thanks to their policies — find itself energy-dependent. How would a Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren administration deal with Iran or Russia knowing their energy markets govern America's economy?
How do you face down China when you can’t even power your own military?
Would a President Pete Buttigieg or Cory Booker or Joe Biden cede energy dominance? Would President Julian Castro or Tulsi Gabbard prefer to deal with a Russian President Vladimir Putin whose liquid natural gas sales dominate world markets, or would they rather America be unaffected?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Going green may be a talking point to appease the liberal base, but its consequences have grave national security and economic implications. Even President Marianne Williamson would prefer to spread love when there is no fear of being destroyed.
During his State of the Union speech this year, President Trump lauded America’s newfound energy dominance, saying we’ve "unleashed a revolution in American energy." That revolution is still going, and 2020 Democratic presidential candidates should explain why they want to surrender our energy freedom, and turn our independence into submission.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}