We've heard it all before from the Republicans. There is no problem with global warming or climate change. Our problem is that we need to be able to drill in the protected wildlife refuge areas and off the beautiful pristine coast of Florida. That will solve all of our energy problems.
Right? Wrong! Experts say that drilling in these areas will not make any major difference in the cost of oil or the amount. It will only be taking our attention and money away from finding alternative sources of energy that are renewable and clean.
The Republicans have it wrong. Even though they give lip service to renewable forms of energy, that is not the way they vote. McCain has missed three major votes on renewable energy. He didn't even care enough to show up. Palin's state of Alaska depends on oil for 72% of its revenue. They are addicted to big oil money there.
It's time to get leadership in Washington that honestly supports renewable and clean sources of energy. Obama is the right choice.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
Imagine what they would have done to Alaska if that pit-bull governor hadn't taken a piece out of them?
The more drilling option has already been disproven by major economists as a mythical way of lowering gas prices, much less a means to resolving the environmental issues we are faced with.
Look at the top 4 money winners!
My recent epiphany has been that the best way to bring the price at the pump down, is to bring the value of the dollar back up.
Not that that would solve our massive addiction to a finite resource, but wouldn't ya know, Green technologies could do both.
The globe has been cooling in recent years. Can you explain that with you're global warming theory?
"or climate change."
The climate is always changing.
"off the beautiful pristine coast of Florida"
They want to drill beyond the horizon, you won't be able to see anything from the coast.
"That will solve all of our energy problems."
Can you point to any Republican in office (or running for office) who made that claim?
"Experts say that drilling in these areas will not make any major difference in the cost of oil or the amount."
I guess they disproved the "law of supply and demand"? I guess they don't believe that putting money in our economy instead of sending it abroad would be a benefit to our economy? Wouldn't it be better for the environment to drill here where we have more oversight than to rely on other nations which don't emphasize environmental controls?
"It will only be taking our attention and money away from finding alternative sources of energy that are renewable and clean."
It will put money into our economy NOT take it out. Thus we will have MORE money available for investment into renewable alternatives. The investment money is important because renewables are currently too expensive and inadequate to do much good. Moving to renewables now will increase energy prices.
Republicans had 6 years to do the right thing and did nothing. They certainly deserve the blame for that. They've tried lately, but the Democrat controlled Congress won't allow it to come up for a vote. Democrats want to keep prices high because they know you will blame Bush. They deserve the blame for the last 2 years.
Absolutely. Getting more of our oil domestically will help strengthen our devalued dollar.
No, unless you have some narrow definition of "everything" you care to share.
Hmmm...
Question: Does Carla like to parrot ridiculous (and false) Democrat talking points?
Answer: Drill baby drill!
Maybe you could pose a more pertinent question.
You have yet to answer my question?
Can you point to any Republican in office (or running for office) who made the claim that drilling "will solve all of our energy problems"?
"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources."
From McCain's RNC speech:
"We'll attack -- we'll attack the problem on every front. We'll produce
more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we'll
drill them now. We'll drill them now.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll -- we'll -- my friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants.
We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind,
tide, solar, and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use
of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles."
The reason for the "drill baby drill" chant is because the Democrats refuse to allow a vote on it.
I WILL ASK AGAIN
Can you point to any Republican in office (or running for office) who made the claim that drilling "will solve all of our energy problems"?
I'm sure you have great faith in the reliability of the DNC talking points, but why can't you admit they got this one wrong?
The point is that any new drilling in Alaska or in the Gulf is a crock. The oil companies already have leasing rights they are not taking advantage of, even the oil companies are not pushing for this. When Jeb bush was Governor of Florida, he signed a bill preventing more drilling in the Gulf for environmental reasons...
Oh how short those Republican memories are...
Perhaps some more reading is in order
http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/upload/Facts_NonProducingLeases.pdf
"When Jeb bush was Governor of Florida, he signed a bill preventing more drilling in the Gulf for environmental reasons"
And when was Jeb anointed head of the Republican party?
BTW, 61% of Florida voters now favor drilling off the Florida coast (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/06/florida-new-offshore-drilling-poll.html). I guest Florida must be full of dolts
This will also buy time for nuclear, wind, solar, etc to actually get off the ground--which Obama admits in his plan would still take at least 10 years under a government directed program. Republicans aren't saying oil is the only solution, but there's no reason to hinder it either when it's currently affecting everything from the cost of consumer goods to people's mobility. Nancy Pelosi shutting down Congress without at least allowing debate of the issue wasn't right...even some Democrats have been in support of domestic drilling.
"Drill baby, drill!" has got the Oil Lobby shaking in their boots! Imagine a Republican so tough on the Oil Lobby that he's going to force them to drill off our coasts and in our nature reserves! How courageous he is to twist their arms.
If you are going to criticise Republican positions you should at least know what those positions are.
Clearly you have not heard the Republican stance on energy. And you clearly have not watched or heard Palin or McCain give there clear presentations on their plans for handling the energy problems facing America. Therefore your analysis can only be characterised as bias and prejudicial. Trying to make an alternative argument for an issue only works if you are going to present an honest presentation of both sides.
You made an assertion that you simply can't back up. You can't back it up because it is false. You partisanship is clear.
Why should I care a number of people disagree with me? That will happen when anyone takes a position.
Make that eight.
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Talk is cheap. If anyone has any doubt that McCain's priority is drilling for oil and expanding nuclear energy, then I have some prime coastal land in Louisiana I'd be happy to sell you.
Republicans give lip service to climate change and renewable energy. w. even stated in a state of the union speech that "America is addicted to oil." But in reality, they filibuster and threaten to veto any meaningful legislation that would seriously promote renewables. How can any one seriously think that would change with McCain/Palin?
The American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) senior director of governmental & public affairs Gregory Wetstone said that the failure by the senate to move forward to consideration of the bill will cost the U.S. economy 116,000 jobs and nearly US $19 billion for the wind industry alone.
Time is running out to extend the solar tax credits and without passage in the immediate future, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars will be lost in new solar investment. Already companies are putting projects on hold and preparing to send thousands of jobs overseas — real jobs that would otherwise be filled by American workers. Failure to extend the solar tax credits is a severe blow to an industry that has proven to be an economic engine for the U.S. at a time when we need it most....
1. Nuclear? Now THERE'S a pork-barrel project if there ever was one!!!! I'm shocked that republicans are so willing for taxpayers to co-sign loans to build new nuclear plants (the old ones are wearing out).
2. No. The inconsequential "benefit" of domestic drilling is also ten years out. The "drill here, drill now" imperative is political manipulation directed at people, who don't know a thing about this issue - but are feeling incredible "pain at the pump."
3. Ten years is a good target. T. Boone Pickens (a republican) and Al Gore (a democrat) have proposed ten-year plans.
4. Ten years - what will be the emphasis of our approach to energy over the next ten years? New, costlier drilling? Government sponsored nuclear energy? Or temporarily (ten year investment/production tax credit) supported renewable energy industries? The last option addresses our three most pressing problems: climate change, national security, and the economy.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Patricia: "Republicans aren't saying oil is the only solution, but there's no reason to hinder it either when it's currently affecting everything from the cost of consumer goods to people's mobility."
Republicans are filibustering meaningful legislation to promote renewable energy. w. threatened vetoes if S.3335 passed. Now tell me: what speaks louder - words or actions?
I think the Democrat equivalent would be a Republican speaker having personal oil investments and saying we don't need to even be debating natural gas...do you see how bad this looks to us? It could've easily have led to a discussion over energy in general, in which case alternatives contained in the bill you're describing could've been brought up as well. It's the fact that a debate and a vote were blocked from even the opportunity to occur--CSPAN cameras and mics shut down, lights out, and everyone goes on vacation except for a handful of Republicans.
It's not the most cinematic video I've ever seen, but this gets the point across:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=143533
I say..........
If Congress was to announce that they are going to do the "10's" all of the above, OPEC would think, "OH SHIT!" They would lower the price of oil per barrel just to try to keep us dependent upon their source. Hmmm.... we can all speculate and try our own conclusions but I guarantee you that if we drilled everywhere we found oil, natural gas and dug up coal AND developed wind, solar and nuclear power, we will NEVER need OPEC's oil and demand goes down, price goes down. Stick that in OPEC's eye.
Would more drilling domestically increase our domestic supply? Sure, on paper. Oil is what is called a fungible product. One barrel of oil is easily substituted for another. Which is why when a refining company goes on the open market, and it's one big world market, they don't care about the source. One barrel is as good as another as long as it's the correct grade, whether sweet/light crude or sour crude. It doesn't matter in the end analysis where the oil is drilled, it will still be traded on the open market at whatever a buyer is willing to pay.
More drilling does nothing to address a larger fundamental issue. We lack the sufficient domestic refining capacity to supply our own refined fuel energy needs. In the late 80's and early 90's larger refining companies bought up smaller operations to shut them down in an effort to increase margins. It succeeded until recently when oil rose faster than margins could. It was why I invested in the largest independent refiner at the time. In one of the ceo's messages to stockholders he even addressed this issue because he found it deplorable that 80%, yes that's the figure he cited, of domestic refining capacity existing before 1980 was eliminated from the supply chain.
I find it interesting that there is never a discussion of alternative oil like products which could be used to produce refined fuel from. The bitumen deposits in Colorado being one which estimates place in the hundreds of billions of barrels of oil equivalent. As for now, there are only 2 energy exploration companies working around the clock to figure out how to get these deposits out of the ground as cleanly and safely as possible. Neither of which is a US energy company. Or of methane hydrates which also can replace barrels of oil. Japan is moving aggressively to exploit deposits of methane hydrate while we twiddle our thumbs still experimenting.
And let's not forget another key consideration in the energy debate. Nuclear, wind and solar, while they should be brought aggressively into the mix, are not direct replacements for oil. They are used to produce electricity. Oil is only used to produce at most 1% of electricity in the US with those plants being mainly in the Northeast and only continue to be used due to the cost of replacement. So while they are all part of the same basket, one is not like another. Unless that is you are going to discuss switching to all electric cars which opens up another kettle of worms from limited mileage capacity to significantly inadequate electrical generation capacity to the power grid not being designed for large amounts of electricity being generated by sources such as solar and wind which can introduce spike and sag loads capable of disabling the grid.
No matter how you slice it energy supply reform and development is a long term and expensive prospect. One that should be done. One that will take longer than 10 years and will require the will to see it through in an environment where people only care about the short term.
There are other things we can do as well--we have refineries on our west coast that are already built but need to be brought up to environmental code. That's being blocked by people who don't want them going at all, but it's preventing Alaskan companies from having a way to get crude oil down to us effectively--the alternative is going through the Panama Canal to a refinery on the east side. This is why we hear of Alaskan oil being shipped to Japan and other countries. Even some sort of partnership with Canada right now could be a win-win for both countries.
You're definitely right in that there has to be a long-term game plan on this, and we need to look at all options.
Pickens says he favors drilling, but he also says the debate about drilling "misses the point" that we will still be dependent on foreign oil.
Your objection to Pelosi's decision also "misses the point". Democrats have tried to pass energy legislation eight times over the past couple of years. Republicans have blocked this legislation eight times - and had it passed, w. threatened to veto it. Why? Because the legislation would have given renewable energy industries tax breaks paid for by repealing tax breaks for oil and coal companies, which the record-profit fossils have enjoyed for decades."
Patricia: "Tom Brokaw interviewed her on this, and she denied any connection between this and refusing to allow debate on the issue."
And your basis for not believing her is what?
Patricia: "...a Republican speaker having personal oil investments and saying we don't need to even be debating natural gas...do you see how bad this looks to us?"
You mean like Cheney's secret energy committee, on which only the oil, gas and coal compaines had any input. You know, the ones about which Judicial Watch discovered (via court orders for document releases) that maps of Iraqi oil fields were already being discussed re: U.S. energy policy before 9/11. Is that what you mean by something looking suspicious?
Patricia: "It could've easily have led to a discussion over energy in general, in which case alternatives contained in the bill you're describing could've been brought up as well. It's the fact that a debate and a vote were blocked from even the opportunity to occur...."
You mean the one that had already occurred eight times? The one that republicans had filibustered? The one that McCain had already failed to show up for eight times?
Well, that's the sound-byte, marketing, hype from entrenched industries, who are trying to keep an advantage - and who never, ever plan to let a significant percentage of our energy supply come from conservation technology or renewables. What you should try to understand is that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are not only NOT indispensable - they are not necessary. If fact, they are increasingly expensive distractions.
I quoted Al Gore's self-evident observation - "When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down."
MEET THE PRESS, Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008 (Transcript)
MR. BROKAW: It's hard to get the kind of focus that we need on this kind of a challenge in the midst of a political season. Last week they were chanting "drill, baby, drill," at the Republican convention. Senator Obama, speaker Nancy Pelosi have said recently, well they'd be willing to take a look at offshore drilling, even though we know that there wouldn't be any real productivity for 10 more years. Both parties, it seems to me, share a responsibility here and blame at the same time.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.
True, if you just consider the total investment needed. However, if you consider also the return, then it is not only not costly - it is profitable (that is, if it's done right).
Winning the Oil Endgame
Actually, I consider increasing energy efficiency the most important first step we need to achieve. It's simple economic competition at which I'm looking. I ignore all the naysayers that say we can't have a growing economy and conserve, which is an interchangeable term for efficiency to me. Europe currently uses 20% less energy to produce $1000 of goods compared to us. At the same time, they were growing at a rate of 5.6% which was higher than our economy was growing. Of course, much of their advantage which allows a higher efficiency rate is a denser population level, However, even though we wouldn't be able to have a similar efficiency level, I would believe it is definitely possible to achieve a substantial amount. Also, they continue to increase their energy efficiency and productivity at the same time. Eventually it could lead to much higher competition for goods which could hurt American industry further and by default the workers.
True enough. Efficiency is, as Amory Lovins frequently says, the low hanging fruit.
ML S: "I ignore all the naysayers that say we can't have a growing economy and conserve, which is an interchangeable term for efficiency to me."
That would be Cheney, who infamously said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Of course. That's why the issue is one of political will much more than a technological one. However, the point that is almost never raised (you're a relatively rare exception in that regard) is that any new energy infrastructure is going to be initially costly. New nuclear plants, "clean coal", offshore drilling - these too are going to be every bit as expensive as wind, solar and other renewables - probably more so. So it's not like renewables are going to be expensive, and everything we're doing now will be a "walk in the park". So..., the political will has more to do with inertia than any real "cost-benefit" analysis.
ML S: "No matter how you slice it energy supply reform and development is a long term and expensive prospect. One that should be done. One that will take longer than 10 years and will require the will to see it through in an environment where people only care about the short term."
I think that is exactly the "political will" issue. Do we, as a nation, begin thinking long-term? If we can't, then we're sunk anyway. Another reason why the "drill here, drill now" slogan is so absurd.
Carla - I try. Energy is the most important issue in this election. Everything else hinges on energy - foreign policy and mideast wars, the environment and public health, global warming and quasi-natural disasters, the economy and jobs. How we address energy over the next decade is HUGE. Do we expand drilling and nuclear? Or do we make an all-out-effort to transfer our economy to a renewable energy infrastructure. I vote for the latter. And don't be fooled by the "all hands on deck" slogan. That's just a ploy to further delay a significant push into renewable energy.
ML S: "...will take longer than 10 years...."
Perhaps. Lovins says we could transform our economy to hydrogen by the 2040s, but also make substantial progress to that end by the 2020s. Gore says we can provide all of our electricity with renewables in ten years. People scoff, but I also read that a $5K residential solar system is likely by 2015. I think it will happen sooner rather than later if we can keep from becoming distracted with such dead-end efforts as "drill here, drill now."
ML S: "In terms of political and public will, the upfront costs are extremely important."
Another way of addressing it is to put these costs in context. Compared to our current practice of transferring $700 billion to foreign governments annually - not to mention the cost of the Iraq war - investments in renewables via investment/production tax credits are a bargain.
That assumes that a future energy system would look anything like what we have now, doesn't it? If, as I noted above, a $5K residential solar system is available in 5 years, I think you'd see much less need to move electricity around. That said, a grid will likely exist, and the function of utilities may shift to distribution instead of production. And in that regard, nanotubes may address the transmission issues you raise.
ML S: "I would be very willing to debate Gore on one of his claims that we could be 100 wind and solar for electricity in the time frame he's given."
I, for one, would like to see that debate. I know Gore has critics (beyond people, who simply hate him). But I think, from what I read, he has a point in saying that technological developments of the last few years make more possible that what even he would have thought 5 years ago. At any rate, even if we can't do it in ten years (I noted other estimates above), we should start acting like we can.
The other thing I would re-emphasize is the cost of what we're presently doing. It's not sustainable. As Gore says:
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.
I have done some articles on these topics. Others, like Sam Carana and James B., have done articles too.
Most of the oil we use is for the production of distillate fuels for use in transportation. Relatively little of the move to solar and wind would replace this usage. It could potentially impact stationary usage of oil for home heating and similar uses. Increased efficiency through the adoption of clean diesel, hybrids and so will have a greater impact on oil usage. I'd like to see someone come out with a diesel hybrid, especially in a light truck since we are highly dependent on them in my state for ag and so on.
I'm aware of the home solar systems and other sources of residential and industrial power generation. I've been quite intrigued by the fuel cell generation systems companies like Walgreens have been testing. The costs of such systems would need to substantially come down to find widespread use in the state where I live. The per Kw generation costs of our installed base of nuclear and coal are among the lowest in the nation, on par with states with large amounts of hydro-electric generation. Though Nebraska has hydro power also which I've found surprises most people. We do also have an expanding wind industry since we are one of the top states for wind potential and my community does purchase from a wind system for those customers who request that supply.
I'm most interested in energy sources such as the bitumen deposits in Colorado which Shell and BP are working on finding a way to extract economically and safely. Also in methane hydrates. Japan has been moving aggressively to develop methods to access those sources safely as they are highly dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf.
I agree the statement is rhetorical for effect, but the point is not missed. Our current energy set up is expensive in the extreme. The arguement that we cannot afford to change it is specious at best, and dishonest at worst. The fact is that we cannot afford to not change. That is the point.
ML S: "Most of the oil we use is for the production of distillate fuels for use in transportation. Relatively little of the move to solar and wind would replace this usage."
Of course, wind energy can produce hydrogen, and hydrogen can fuel transportaton. Boone Pickens is suggesting a move to natural gas. Gore responded that if we are going to change our transportation infrastructure, we should do so only once. And since Pickens acknowledges his approach is a "bridge" to renewables, use of natural gas can also be used to make hydrogen. Additionally, the Dakota states alone have enough wind energy potential to fuel the nation's transportation, given "state of the art" efficiency capabilities, described by Lovins.
ML S: "The costs of such systems would need to substantially come down to find widespread use in the state where I live."
And they will. Pickens is calling for a ten year investment/production tax credit for renewables. The purpose, of course is to bring these industries to scale, so that they are competitive with coal and oil. Although republicans have been blocking this legislation over the past two years, a new congress may be more favorable.
ML S: "...the bitumen deposits in Colorado...methane hydrates."
As long as we're changing our infrastructure, let's stay away from things that we have to burn in an internal combustion engine. Fuel cells or electric cars are much preferable. Honda currently leases a hydrogen fuel cell car in California, where there are hydrogen stations. In the short term, Toyota will introduce a plug-in Prius in 2010. Lovins writes as well about "lightweighting" cars with carbon composite material (Boeing 787), which is several times stronger than steel, and therefore, safer. This speaks to your above point that conservation (watts/barrels not used) is still the best, first thing to focus on.
All of this is not to mention the strides that solar has made in the last few years.
We need to think large and long-term. I think that's the value of Gore's challenge, even if you can criticize this and that detail of this perspective.
I look at it all as not an ecology debate but more importantly as an economic one. We are in a horse race with Europe and everyone else. Just in comparison to Europe we use significantly more energy to produce a basket of $1000 in goods. They are 20% more energy efficient in producing that basket of goods. Most of which is attributable to their denser population centers. But, I believe we can still close this gap by a large way. I tend to dismiss those who assert we can't grow and conserve at the same time as their gdp was growing until the current credit market mess at 5.6% while energy efficiency was still increasing.
I've been lucky enough to talk with T. Boone. One of the business leaders I've admired for about 26 years since I got involved in investing in Jr high.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss methane hydrates since those are natural gas minus the heavy gases like pentane, butane and so on just in a frozen state. Those deposits internationally are enormous.
Anyway, I'd like to thank you for the entertaining discussion. I'd say our outlooks are very similar, we just come to it from different sides of the coin. It has definitely been the most respectful talk I've been involved in for a while outside my writing group's threads. I probably won't be able to comment again with some upcoming time constraints so thanks again for the discussion.
ML S: "I prefer to acknowledge that the usage of fossil fuels is going to continue well into the future and we will end up with a mix of different energy sources. To me, that's a more realistic picture than the statements of total renewable within a very short time."
You may prefer to acknowledge that. I will work to end fossil fuel use as soon as possible. What is "realistic" for he future is something we make decisions about today. That is not something set in stone or predetermined, IMO.
ML S: "I've looked at solutions such as the hydrogen powered vehicles and I'm not certain the infrastructure needed would materialize to a practical usage extent in places like where I live ...not exactly a realistic solution for here until there is some major breakthroughs in battery technology than have been a long time coming."
I don't know what kind of infrastructure you're thinking about. Hydrogen can be produced locally. No need for a distribution infrastructure, as there is with fossils. Hydrogen fuel cells are already on th e road, and they're effectively electric vehicles. I'm not as familiar with battery-electric cars. Sam Carana is familiar with battery-electric cars, and often writes about them.
ML S: "I look at it all as not an ecology debate but more importantly as an economic one."
You should rethink that. If we don't do something about climate change, the economy will be one of the major casualties. In short, they are not separate entities.
ML S: "We are in a horse race with Europe and everyone else. Just in comparison to Europe we use significantly more energy...."
Indeed. I agree that conservation technologies (efficiency) is every bit as important as renewables. Amory Lovins uses the term "micropower" to describe the combination of conservation, renewables, and co-generation.
ML S: "I tend to dismiss those who assert we can't grow and conserve at the same time...."
I think you must never have read anything by Amory Lovins. Growth and "micropower" are entirely compatible - in fact, more compatible than growth and fossils. I think we currently see how uneconomic fossils are. Your friend, Boone Pickens, is making that case daily in a multi-$million ad campaign.
ML S: "We are in a horse race with Europe and everyone else."
Tom Freidman opens his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America with the following notation from a billboard he saw in S. Africa, promoting a new, efficient car, the Smart "forfour":
German engineering, Swiss innovation, American nothing.
I'll stick with looking at it from a economic perspective. I do understand very well the environmental concerns and issues. My one career field is in public health and environmental studies. It's far easier to show someone how we use that 20% more energy than Europe to produce a set amount of goods and the need to close that gap because that is something concrete to their daily costs of living. In other words, it's far easier to get them to understand their pocketbook than how a climate change of 1/10's of a degree can impact their lives.
Counties, such as this, are primary beneficiaries of renewables. Pickens notes that windprojects, like in Sweetwater and Pampa, Texas, are revitalizing rural America. Because hydrogen can be produced from wind energy, counties, like the one you describe, can produce and export hydrogen. That's why federal investment and production tax credits are so important. They spur growth precisely in rural countie, especially in Nebraska, which lies in that wind belt that Pickens keeps referring to.
ML S: "...it's far easier to get them to understand their pocketbook than how a climate change of 1/10's of a degree can impact their lives."
I don't know. Just point to shifts in the insurance industry in recent years around climate threats. State Farm had to be sued by policy holders in Mississippi after Katrina to collect on their policies. State Farm had tried to settle with them for pennies on the dollar, claiming damage to people's homes came from flood damage instead of wind. State Farm no longer writes home insurance policies in Mississippi. You think people wouldn't understand that?
I have made some investments in companies like Ballard who are working on fuel cells and Deere which is involved in wind energy and biofuels. This is mostly due to talks I've had in the past with one of my father's past physics students than anything. He does research physics work in areas such as power generation and tech and holds several patents. His most high profile experiment was a tethered power array on a couple of shuttle missions. I do see 2 major hurdles yet for wider use of fuel cells in vehicles though. One, they tend to have major longevity issues with rough roads and two they freeze up in cold climates. But, I know some progress has been made by Ballard in both respects.
I suspect those being affected by the loss of insurance see it more immediately as a pocketbook issue rather than as an environmental one. I know it for a fact it is here since we've gone through similar issues in the state due to hail and wind events. Especially following events such as one we experienced a couple of years ago where we had a hailstorm of baseball to softball sized hail hit town for over 30 minutes. Nobody looked at the insurance companies that left the state as doing so due to environmental climate shifts but as simply an economic one. Still, that is an example of weather, Katrina as well, rather than climate.
Environmental changes are discussed frequently at meetings I attend for public health. Especially at the state level during the last couple of years. Due to the small climactic changes we've had in Nebraska, we are now considered to be within the range for the spread of Dengue. A disease which previously was deemed only able to move as far north as Texas.
It's both - economic and environmental.
ML S: "Still, that is an example of weather, Katrina as well, rather than climate."
Weather, to be sure. Climate - a little more complicated. No one can say for sure if these events are contributed to by climate change. Statistical references are not valid for specific events. What has been said, though, is that such events are more likely due to climate change. So climate considerations are pertinent, and the insurance industry certainly has been looking at it with regard to risk assessments.
ML S: "Environmental changes are discussed frequently at meetings I attend for public health."
I'm glad to hear that! I've argued for a long time that our energy policy is the core issue of our current politics. It affects nearly every other issue - including environment and public health. The others are foreign policy and mideast "resource" wars, the economy and jobs, and climate and quasi-natural disasters.
You bet! You too!