Most adults grasp that, when it comes to broad, multifaceted objectives, it's best to not put all of your eggs in one basket.
For instance, most grownups understand that if you're shopping for groceries, you shouldn't obstinately stick to one single supermarket; if another store has something you need, you should be prepared to go there. That's fine.
Apparently that same simple pragmatism doesn't apply to energy policy, at least not for Democrats:
House Republicans introduced the "American Independence from Russian Energy Act" on Feb. 28, a measure meant to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline, boost domestic oil and gas production, and prevent President Joe Biden's executive branch agencies from halting energy leasing on federal land and water, among other provisions. Yet on March 1, the legislation was shot down in a 221–202 vote, almost entirely along partisan lines...
Republicans on the floor voiced near-unanimous support for the measure, with Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) describing U.S. reliance on Russian oil and petroleum products as "unconscionable."
By contrast, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Republicans "talk about energy independence, yet … are the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real energy independence."
Ooookay. Time to crack open a book or two.
Here's the basics:
- You can do both. You can support green energy—as Democrats broadly do—while voting in favor to open up the taps of American fossil fuel energy in order to bolster our national security and improve our economy. I'll say it again: You can do both.
- It's a bit disingenuous to claim that anyone has "voted against... green and renewable energy." Nonsense. Next-generation energy tech is one of the most thriving sectors of the American economy. It's happening right here, every day, all the time; it's well-funded and is attracting some of the best talent possible. You don't need to hold some sort of vote on something that's already happening to that degree.
- The same can't be said for fossil fuel development, which is constrained by a confounding patchwork of federal and state laws. If you want to expand the U.S.'s ability to harvest more fossil fuel, you very often have to vote to make it happen.
So, in short: Yes, we should be in favor of green energy technology. Yes, it's already happening. No, it doesn't need to come at the expense of fossil fuel. Yes, you can do both. Yes, you should do both. Yes, Democrats who refuse to do both should be voted out of office.
The U.S. can be an energy powerhouse if we let it. So let's let it.
P.S. Now check out our viral vid "How to speak Bidenese" 😁 👇