Read 1st Law of Thermodynamics... and keep reading.

People love to use quotes when they're speaking, like it makes them look more educated or like their information has come from a reputable source. Politicians often misquote sources, and at times even attach the wrong name (the most recent and most often I have heard is a quote attributed to Mark Twain, but that is neither here nor there). My point is that people who quote the first law of thermodynamics in an attempt to detract from the notion of an energy crisis are doing one of two things: A) they are either not reading far enough into the given information on thermodynamics (the second law, for instance) to better understand what they are talking about, or, even worse, B) reading everything they can find and dismissing any and all information that does not support their initial argument.

"If energy cannot be destroyed, how can there be an energy crisis? We just need to find more creative ways of recycling energy."

The statement-question-statement rings true on a couple of levels. First, energy cannot be destroyed. Second, we do need to find more creative ways of recycling energy.

Energy is lost to the processes of delivering said energy. You might start out with 100% energy, but you lose percentage points for an type of inefficiency (whether it is an inefficiency that can be remedied or not), starting with the transfer of energy received to being usable energy. In lecture, the example is given of a cow consuming grass, but only about 10% of what they consume is actually converted into usable energy. The biology behind this transfer from food to energy is what is inefficient, and there is nothing that can be done about that.

A lot of the energy crisis bickering today seems to be about fuel consumption of vehicles, and a portion of the population not wanting to believe they are doing anything wrong. Some vehicle owners even sport bumper stickers that say "Drill Here!" because of the shortsightedness that at least the United States wouldn't be buying foreign oil (oil being a main character in the current energy crisis). Never mind that it would be cost prohibitive to retrieve and refine this oil to usable quality. How much oil (energy) would be lost in that process?

In short, I believe the statement begins and ends in validity, but sneaks in a false question to place doubt in the minds of those who would rather be told what to think, than to simply do the thinking for themselves.

Valid: "Energy cannot be destroyed. We just need to develop some clever ways of recycling energy." There is a statement that everyone can agree with, and there is no manipulation present. From there, everyone can begin looking for a cure to our problem.

False: "How can there be an energy crisis?" And... finger pointing, complaining, lying, and looking for the easy way out (which does not exist). But, hey, under this scenario people get to keep complaining that gas prices are too high, and that they can't feed their kids because their king cab 2-ton truck only gets eight miles to the gallon. It's okay, though, because someone else is the bad guy.