Forum: Common goals and political differences

OPINION:

American politics has become so caustic that many engaged in it have become blind to the fact there are many goals shared by the two factions that hold good government hostage. Clear-thinking Americans — those not slavishly beholden to opinion polls and special-interest groups — understand that the overwhelming majority of us have more in common than not. The wise politico will harness the energy of opposite groups to achieve common goals.

Let’s take two issues involving a common goal that have supporters on the opposite ends of the political spectrum: alternative energy sources and energy independence.

Environmentalists have long been critical of the oil industry because using its products contributes to pollution, both air and water. They have lobbied — successfully — to bar new refineries from American soil and prohibit any new drilling, in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Their goal is preservation of the eco-system by ending use of pollutants. Of course, this creates a need for foreign oil and higher gas prices.

Those concerned with our country’s national security have come to understand that a portion of each petrodollar extracted from American wallets and delivered in the trillions to countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, ends up, one way or another, funding terrorist organizations waging war against the United States. The best route, in the minds of many, is to reduce or eliminate completely the need for Middle Eastern oil and thus turn off the money spigot flooding those countries and many Islamofascist organizations. This would require domestic oil production.

Then there is the largest segment of our citizenry: the consumer. I doubt anyone, anywhere in the United States would voluntarily pay more for gasoline. I would be shocked if there were families who would embrace paying more for fuel oil. To consumers, a drop in oil prices is good news, simply because it leaves them with more money for other things.

And finally, we have the elected class — always hungry to deliver something they can take credit for at election time. They would like nothing more than to be able to please all these groups at once while placating big-business special interests. It is a rare political hat-trick.

All these diverse groups are brought together by a desire for a more efficient, less expensive, cleaner fuel source for everyday needs that eliminates dependence on foreign sources. Common goal defined. Now the trick is to achieve that goal.

Leaving alternative energy development to the oil companies is like giving the wolf a golden key to the hen house. They have absolutely no motivation to develop something that will make their products obsolete.

Less so, but just as unmotivated, are the auto manufacturers. Even though people would still need to purchase vehicles — no matter what they ran on — the automakers would still have to completely retool their assembly lines to accommodate a new technology. It is easier and more profitable to remain in the status quo that disingenuously markets different vehicles with different energy performance capabilities to different people in different countries.

The most brilliant approach embraces the American entrepreneur, the private sector. In each of the major innovations or discoveries, the source of the invention or discovery has been the American people, the American brain trust. We need to divert any and all taxpayer dollars subsidizing alternative energy exploration by the oil companies and automakers to enable those who apply American ingenuity to solve the problem. As my friend, syndicated radio host Greg Allen likes to say, we need a second Manhattan Project, aimed at developing a clean-burning, efficient, less-expensive fuel source with which we can power anything and everything now powered by Middle Eastern oil.

One such possibility rests with the invention of one John Kanzius, a Cleveland inventor who stumbled on a process that creates intense energy by separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in salt water.

Another possibility involves a Florida inventor named Denny Klein who has just patented his process of converting H2O to HHO, producing a gas that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water. He has even outfitted his car with an engine that runs on water: no huge battery bank, no excessive weight, just a fuel efficient car that emits the acceptable byproduct of… water.

And yet another inventor, Stan Meyer, invented a water fuel cell and got the Pentagon interested in his discovery. Disturbingly enough, Meyer’s life was cut short under what many believe to be suspicious circumstances.

These are just three examples of what can be done if our nation invests in the abilities and ingenuity of its people. We can, expeditiously and at minimal cost, convert a nation completely dependent on foreign fuel sources into an energy independent nation, achieving greater national security and striking a giant blow against terrorist financing while creating a new business and cleaning our environment.

If the oil companies spearheaded refining and adapting this technology to the energy infrastructure, there would be no loser in moving on from the status quo. Every faction, every special interest group and, most importantly, every consumer would benefit.

Imagine, no auto emissions, no water pollution from oil-based products, no more issues with gas price fluctuations, a new business to assimilate into the tax and revenue streams, new jobs created, energy independence with no need to “run out of gas again.” Not to mention the money saved on fuel.

It’s like a giant tax cut for everyone… a tax cut that helps industry and the environment, national security and the economy all at once.

Why isn’t this technology being aggressively pursued and deployed?

FRANK SALVATO

Vice president and executive director of Basics Project a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.