In recent weeks, the world has watched those in Texas and Florida experience horrific rains and devastating damages to homes, vehicles and even lives. No one can deny the heroism of the first responders and regular Americans who have aided their neighbors in the midst of disaster. In addition, one industry has helped the rescue and recovery more than any other: the fossil fuel industry. Powering helicopters, generators and utility vehicles, fossil fuels continue to save the lives of those affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
In south Texas, diesel (or jet fuel) helicopters rescued people from their rooftops. Commercial planes, utilizing jet engine fuel, transported refugees from Houston to Dallas for shelter and food. Diesel-powered firetrucks and ambulances rushed to the aid of people, as did the National Guard and the Air Force’s diesel and jet-engine powered planes. After the waters receded volunteers drove their gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles to render aid to those in need.
When the power lines were down and parts of Texas and Florida lacked electricity, back-up generators, powered by diesel, natural gas, or LP fuel gave electricity to apartment residents, and patients in hospitals, many for whom a power outage could be deadly as patients on ventilators and dialysis require electricity.
As Texas and Florida rebuild their damaged cities, they continue to clear the road of debris using diesel-powered cranes and heavy equipment. They use gasoline-powered chainsaws to cut apart the fallen trees blocking the roads and diesel-powered trucks to haul it off. Utility companies use diesel- construction equipment to dig deep holes to plant new poles for power-lines and stand in diesel-powered cranes to attach the wires.
Hungry evacuees ate bread and peanut butter farmed by diesel-powered farm equipment, slept on cotton blankets harvested by diesel-powered equipment and drank bottled water produced in factories which use fuel not only to run their machines but to create the plastic bottles.
In addition, cell phones, computers and technology equipment have helped to keep people connected, and provided advanced warning systems to help people evacuate or take shelter. And fossil fuels? The microchip, the defining element of all computers and cellphones, is made from silica, a mineral mined by diesel-powered mining equipment.
Fossil fuel divestment campaigns, which seek to destroy the energy industry, advocate for people, corporations and endowments to sell their stock in petroleum based industries. They shout slogans like “People over Profit” and claim divestment as a moral obligation. Yet they ignore the reality of how fossil fuels, not divestment campaigns, put people over profit by saving lives. How we steward our resources to preserve human life stands as both the truly compassionate approach to putting people over profit and the greater moral obligation.
Some may say, “Great, but we are saving lives at the expense of the environment” thinking that we must choose between the environment and saving lives with fossil fuels. However, according to Forbes magazine, air pollution in the US has declined 72 % since 1970, in spite of a 47% total increase in energy use. This means that despite increased energy use, U.S. air pollution has decreased. Really? Yes. Because our technological advances have improved fuel-efficiency and cleaner internal machinery, causing less petroleum waste by-products in the air.
While wind, solar-powered and electric equipment certainly have their place, their functionality is no match for the fossil fuel powered equipment which have literally saved lives in recent weeks. No Tesla chainsaws or Prius helicopters saved the day. Technological advances, research and innovation should continue to take place, and we should always strive to create new products that help make our world a better place. But we should not forget the debt of gratitude that we owe to the petroleum industry for fueling our greatest needs in our time of disaster.
Listen to podcast interview with Heartland Institute.
Image credit: Creativa Images/Bigstock
Originally published on Patriot Post, September 14, 2017.
The North Korean nuclear threat has continued to escalate in recent weeks, beginning with Kim Jong-Un’s threat to destroy the U.S. territory of Guam, the launching of a missile over Japan, and claiming to have tested a hydrogen bomb, tremors of which were felt in China and South Korea.
In early August, President Trump responded by stating that an attack by North Korea would be met with “fire and fury.” Last week, the president issued a statement clarifying that “all options are on the table.”
On Monday of this week, Nikki Haley spoke at an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting saying that “[Kim Jong-Un’s] abusive use of missiles and his nuclear threats show that he is begging for war.” She continued, “War is never something the Unites States wants. We don’t want it now. But our country’s patience is not unlimited…24 years of half measures and failed talks is enough.”
Critics claim that such statements by both President Trump and Ambassador Haley appear brash, impulsive or harsh. Such critics, however, ignore the longevity of the issue. Since 1993, the U.N. Security Council has issued nine sanctions attempting to negotiate with North Korea and to thwart their nuclear program economically. Yet, over the past two decades not only has North Korea violated these sanctions but they have continued to build their own nuclear arsenal and test their nuclear weapons with brazen confidence while signaling their intent to use it.
Some in the media think of Kim Jong-Un as a silly little boy threatening to blow up the playground with his baking soda and vinegar volcano project. They hope, “Maybe he just needs a little fresh air. Maybe he just needs friends. Maybe this will all go away when we wake up tomorrow.”
Others characterize Kim Jong-Un as a crazy man. However, former Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael Morrell thinks differently: “People are wrong when they say he’s crazy. He’s not crazy. He’s very rational in his own world. He is smart, he is decisive, his is persistent, but he’s also an attention-seeker. He’s also paranoid…and…extraordinarily violent.”
Our post-modern culture labels the aggressors as victims and the responders as aggressors. It has blurred the lines between right and wrong, innocent and guilty, victim and victimized. Our universities spend time trying to “understand” Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. Our courts speak of mass-murderers as “troubled” people who forgot to take their medicine. We dismiss terrorists when they issue threats and minimize their actions and violence. Our chronic avoidance of real threats can have dangerous consequences.
Peace advocates see disarmament and negotiation as the only way to solve problems. Though well-meaning, peace advocates do not recognize the truth of Reagan’s axiom, “Peace Through Strength,” or the wisdom of Winston Churchill’s statement, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”
Many people assume that only a war kills innocent people. However, “false peace” or a peace that solves no problems can be just as dangerous. Consider, for example, how the “Peace Movement” of the 1960’s destabilized and disrupted the Vietnam war to ensure a victory for the communists. The movement, which played upon the sentiments of Americans to stop the war, ultimately led to the American retreat from Vietnam. As a result of this “false peace,” the communists slaughtered nearly 3 million innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese when they gained power.
In contrast to false “peace” movements, the “Just War Theory,” espoused by medieval luminaries such as St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, refers to situations in which the use of military force is justifiable. The conditions include the following:
1) The war must be a response to an action of direct aggression
2) The war must be in the protection of the innocent
3) The war must be declared by a legitimate authority
4) The war must be fought with the right intent
5) The peaceful conclusion of the war must be non-vindictive.
Professor Jean Bethke Elshtain Professor of Social and Political Ethics at University of Chicago notes: “St. Augustine claimed that war may be resorted to in order to preserve or achieve peace—and not just any peace, but a just peace that leaves the world better off than it was prior to the resort of force.”
We should not apologize for or dismiss the threats made by Kim Jong-Un. In addition to enforcing the sanctions, we need to revive the information strategies used to topple the Soviet Union. We need to implement political warfare and information campaigns to raise doubt among the North Korean military leaders about the regime in order to fray the loyalty within their ranks. Yet, if the situation requires military action we need to know that a just war protects more innocent people than a false peace.
Image credit: Zeferlee/BigStock
Originally published on Patriot Post, September 7, 2017