Hillary Hallucinates Energy Independence


Wait, we don’t have to do it! Just roll up our sleeves and imagine it’s already done!

Just when we were beginning to accept that the lesser evil in this batshit-crazy, un-presidential election was also the safer option, we get confirmation that Hillary Clinton is almost as delusional as Donald Trump. In last night’s debate, minutes after scornfully describing Trump as “living in an alternative [sic] universe,” Mrs. Clinton emailed a dispatch from her private planet, announcing for the first time anywhere that in the United States, “We are now, for the first time ever, energy independent.”

Now, among English speakers, the words “energy” and “independence,” used together, have a specific meaning. (I know, it’s quaint of me to suggest that words have meaning independently of who is using them, but you can have my dictionary when you pry it from my cold, dead hands…) A country is energy independent if, and only if, it produces all the energy it needs.

Mrs. Clinton was seriously mistaken to suggest that the United States is energy independent now, and further mistaken to say that if it were true it would be for the first time ever. The United States produced more energy than it consumed until World War II, and never again.  

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest (September) “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” the United States is still extracting about nine million barrels of its own oil per day and burning about 20 million barrels per day. I say “still” because the numbers and their relationship have not changed substantially for several years. The EIA forecasts that next year we will produce less oil and consume more.

With the U.S. government reporting that we still import about half of the oil we use, and that imports have been rising during the first half of this year, how are we to process the fact that a woman who is about a step and a half away from the presidency of the United States professes to believe that we are energy independent and says we no longer have to concern ourselves about the instability of the oil-rich countries of the Middle East? Some of us remember that the near paralysis of this country during the Arab Oil Embargo (Remember? The closed gas stations, the endless lines, the short hours? Anybody?) occurred when we were only importing 30% of our oil, and the Arabs shut off a mere 10% of that.

If there is any logical consistency on Planet Clinton  — I know, another quaint concept, just shut up and hand me my broken lance — we can expect some awesome changes in foreign policy under the new President Clinton. You know, like closing U.S. military bases in 150 countries and bringing home 150,000 service members. Of course that’s not going to happen. Because of course Mrs. Clinton does not believe — cannot possibly believe — that the United States is energy independent.

The most charitable interpretation of what she said last night — actually the only charitable interpretation —  is to assume that she is referring to the fact that for brief periods of time we produce a few more barrels of oil than we import, and defining that as energy independence. So if the Middle East gives us any instability, we only have to park half our cars and shut down half our economy.

Oh, and by the way. According to the EIA, next year we are going to be less independent than that.

So the most charitable interpretation of Mrs. Clinton’s assertion is also the most terrifying — that she is utterly ignorant of the energy realities, and future, of this planet. On Trump’s planet, meanwhile, they have a thousand years’ worth of coal left to burn and, lo and behold, it is “clean coal.”  

There is no lesser evil. We are going to be completely fracked.


Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Hillary Hallucinates Energy Independence

  1. Tom says:

    Yeah, and wait til she ushers in WWIII! Won’t that be “an adventure?” Especially with a military that is practically tapped out (our own service people committing suicide);super expensive weapon systems that don’t work(F-35),and “strategy” that ends up with the U.S. on the losing side time after time (lately).

    Trump spoke the truth when he declared that she should be in jail. Neither of these people is a proper candidate, imho.

    • JungleJim says:

      Don’t forget the $40 billion Littoral Combat Ship boondoggle. And now the Saudi’s apparently need help US help slaughtering Yemenis. Madness.

  2. colinc says:

    From Mr. Lewis’ article…
    “Just when we were beginning to accept that the lesser evil in this batshit-crazy, un-presidential election was also the safer option…”

    I have to ask, what do you mean “we?” Do you, perchance, have a mouse in your pocket?! :)

    All seriousness aside, this is just one more in a long line of astute, well reasoned, well supported and well written articles. For the life of me, I don’t have any idea how/where/why you get your perseverance, Mr. Lewis! It really is simultaneously astounding and puzzling, dare I say quixotic (or did the “broken lance” reference something else?). Nonetheless, I tip my glass of Pinot Noir to you and your moxie. May you experience as much joy as possible, each and every day, in the time we have remaining to do so.

    • Tom Lewis says:

      Okay, some of us were beginning to accept….

      Whatever stamina I have springs from the good thoughts of people such as yourself. That you find these scribbles noteworthy means everything to me. Thank you.

  3. Mike Kay says:

    Mr. L.,
    Always the gentleman, in a time when such is at best an anachronism. Laudable behavior is no longer a bit of shine upon the human spirit, sir. At least not anywhere that so called information is circulated, and the elite of this failing society congregate.
    I suppose I would find the words of Mark Twain appropriate here…there are lies, dampened lies, and then there’s statistics.
    However, any common sense can easily reveal that Killary is, as usual, simply lying.
    This should not be construed as an endorsement for Trumpeter, the diseased political system, the millions of people who manage to pretend, that participation in elections equates to having a voice in government, or the intentionally duplicitous messages that are paraded before us as truth.
    Just another sign that the leaders of this deteriorating civilization have dispensed with anything approaching character, and along with it, any value they might have represented.

  4. Ken Barrows says:

    The EIA report on Wednesday mornings shows imports of oil are up about 10% year over year. Not part of Mrs. Clinton’s reading, I presume

  5. steve says:

    That line the other night caught my attention also. The hyperbole, innuendo, misdirection and lies were flying so fast in both directions, it was dizzying, so I thank you for the follow up on that one. Total energy use is of course composed of coal and natural as also, but yes, we are WAY less than energy independent.

  6. Why settle for the Lesser Evil?



  7. John says:

    I think we get the politicians that people will vote for, out of self-interest. Who’s going to vote for a candidate who promises the electorate hardship, poverty, sacrifice, loss of freedoms etc? They would get nowhere. Even the ‘Greens’ and other people who show some concern over the unsustainable course of global civilisation still promise growth, support globalisation, tout ‘renewables’ as the silver bullet that will solve all our problems, etc. Perhaps it’s also hard to get large masses of people concerned about environmental deterioration in ‘The West’, where local environmental problems have been substantially cleaned up as we’ve exported all our polluting industries to China. People will say that things are improving and we have nothing to worry about – certainly nothing that requires giving up all the comforts and conveniences and luxuries of modern consumer society.

  8. vadim says:

    I translated your artical in Russian