T. Boone Pickens' $700 Billion Claim is Overinflated
Posted by K. Allen at 4/2/2010 6:45 PM 
Categories: Pickens Plan News,Examining the Opposition
Tags: Clean Green Network Clean green nation Cleangreennetwork.com cleangreennation.com
Categories: Pickens Plan News,Examining the Opposition
Tags: Clean Green Network Clean green nation Cleangreennetwork.com cleangreennation.com
On October 16th, H. Joseph Hebert of USAtoday.com posted an article titled "'Unfriendly' oil import figure is wildly inflated" where he insinuates that T. Boone Pickens fabricated the $700 billion the US spends on foreign oil annually. He also goes on to indicate that most of our oil is purchased from friendly countries. Below is my response to the article. I welcome your opinions as well.
Sir,
Let me ask you this: If T. Boone Pickens used $300 billion instead of$700 billion would the problem be any different? Would we not want tostop giving money to foreign countries (friendly or unfriendly) tosupport our energy demands? Would we not want to develop renewableenergy projects which contribute to breaking our dependence on foreignoil and other less environmental friendly energy sources?
The fact that the presidential candidates have not challenged thefigure, and have adopted the $700 billion expenditure, should give youan indication that the figure isn't so far off as to not warrant makingit one of the main focuses of each of their campaigns.
As there is no actual point to this story, I have a feeling the goalhere is to simply discredit the man's mission. Surely you'll say thatyou've made no such attempt, and that you leave it to the reader todraw their own conclusions (wink wink, nudge nudge) but it's fairlyobvious what you want people to believe.
Sir,
Let me ask you this: If T. Boone Pickens used $300 billion instead of$700 billion would the problem be any different? Would we not want tostop giving money to foreign countries (friendly or unfriendly) tosupport our energy demands? Would we not want to develop renewableenergy projects which contribute to breaking our dependence on foreignoil and other less environmental friendly energy sources?
The fact that the presidential candidates have not challenged thefigure, and have adopted the $700 billion expenditure, should give youan indication that the figure isn't so far off as to not warrant makingit one of the main focuses of each of their campaigns.
As there is no actual point to this story, I have a feeling the goalhere is to simply discredit the man's mission. Surely you'll say thatyou've made no such attempt, and that you leave it to the reader todraw their own conclusions (wink wink, nudge nudge) but it's fairlyobvious what you want people to believe.
Brought to you by
Comments