What we need is a reasonable and balanced approach that combines all energy technologies, both new and old. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, and biofuels will all play a role but expanded, environmentally responsible development of domestic fossil fuels is the best way to become less dependent on the Middle East. We must create a balanced energy portfolio that can serve as a bridge to the future, rather than something that simply creates more problems than it solves.

When I was shopping for my first computer, a friend advised me to stay away from the "bleeding edge." Since then the phrase has become so standard that it has its own Wikipedia definition: "Bleeding edge is a term that refers to technology that is so new (and thus, presumably, not perfected) that the user is required to risk reductions in stability and productivity in order to use it. ... It also refers to (its) tendency to be ... extremely expensive."

I can't think of any better way to define the White House approach to energy.

The Obama administration defends its proposals, saying they will decrease our reliance of foreign energy, while helping our environment. In fact, quite the opposite would happen.

The centerpiece appears to be an all-out attack on the domestic oil and natural gas industry. Elements of this include almost $30 billion dollars in new taxes and placing new, unneeded restrictions on hydraulic fracturing.

We know what the impact would be of the tax plan, President Jimmy Carter tried much the same thing in 1980. By the time the windfall profits tax was repealed, our reliance on foreign energy had grown by 13 percent, and the jobs and tax revenue provided by domestic producers had largely disappeared.

Hydraulic fracturing is a long-used, state-regulated process that is used in oil and natural gas production. It is absolutely essential to unlocking the vast reserves of natural gas in shale formations in Oklahoma and other states. Even the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the process safe when done under current regulations.

Why push so hard for a tax plan that's already been proven to be a failure, and needless restrictions? Perhaps it's a way to force people onto the "bleeding edge."

The White House admits its energy and climate proposals will cost the consumer dearly. But if you destroy the domestic oil and gas producer, oil and natural gas prices will skyrocket, making alternative energy seem much more cost effective. You can also use the inevitable price hikes to further demonize producers.

The problem is that you can't meet America's energy demand with alternative energy alone. On average, commercial wind farms only generate about 35 percent of their stated capacity. Indeed, you can't even make a wind turbine, a solar cell, or even ethanol without plenty of oil and natural gas.

Then there are the hidden environmental costs. The oil and gas activity that is carefully regulated in America would be shut down and replaced by more production overseas, much of it in countries with dismal environmental records.

What we need is a reasonable and balanced approach that combines all energy technologies, both new and old. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, and biofuels will all play a role but expanded, environmentally responsible development of domestic fossil fuels is the best way to become less dependent on the Middle East. We must create a balanced energy portfolio that can serve as a bridge to the future, rather than something that simply creates more problems than it solves.

Cloud, a Republican, is a member of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Web link: http://newsok.com/reasonable-balanced-approach-nee...