Archive for the ‘Future Fuel’ Category
July 14th, 2009
Sarah Palin has written an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about why she thinks Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan is bad for our economy. Responses to the piece range from the ridiculous (some folks are complaining to the ombudsman that she must not have written the article) to the fairly moderate (some people aren’t fans of Palin but aren’t fans of cap-and-trade either).
I consider myself to be a moderate environmentalist; meaning, I am pragmatic and think we need to compromise in order to achieve things. I always felt that Palin was a somewhat moderate conservative – while she’s not a proponent of global warming, she has seemed all too willing to try to reach out and say, “hey, let’s come up with solutions we can all benefit from.”
This is why I never got the extreme animosity towards Sarah Palin by many people on the left. I believe a lot of it is sheer sexism (she’s pretty, doesn’t speak like an Ivy-League snob, and must therefore be a moron), a good portion of it is outright hate towards anyone labeling themselves conservative, and then the rest is classism. (She’s a “snowbilly” and eats mooseburgers instead of tofuburgers.)
So that said, I’d like to take a look at precisely what it is that Palin is proposing, without resorting to knee-jerk reactions. I’ll comment on a few excerpts from her piece:
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
This is true, our prosperity has been built upon cheap oil. Without cheap energy, we would not have the lavish lifestyles we do.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
I have to admit, I am not happy at the prospect of paying more for my electricity. It is already my most expensive utility bill. And as a small business owner, I have seen – much more so than my friends with steady jobs – how bad the economy truly is. It is very bad out there. So I am concerned about cap-and-trade causing inflation at a time where we really can’t afford it. This is where my environmental pragmatism comes in – yes, we should cut carbon emissions, but if it ends up stalling our economy and creating havoc in people’s lives, maybe we should find another way to do it? Or a better time to do it?
I’m one of those folks who feels that environmental awareness is a by-product of prosperity. In other words, it’s my richer friends who have the luxury of shopping at Whole Foods. Poor people with no jobs aren’t going to be buying the more expensive recycled toilet paper. They aren’t going to be buying organic vegetables that sometimes cost twice as much when they are short on cash and have to feed their kids. Now, I have no statistics to back this up, but my feeling is, the more people struggle, the less time, energy and money they have to live a more “sustainable” lifestyle.
In other words, the only people I know with solar panels on their homes are rich people. Deepening a severe recession and putting people out of work just ends up creating tent cities – where people are using ravines as toilets. Not good for the environment.
Let’s continue:
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.
Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.
I am all for the natural gas pipeline…I think it is a good idea, and I’m glad she’s pushed for it. I am not a fan of off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR. I would like to see Palin push more for alternative energy sources. That said, my pragmatism tells me that we might need to engage in off-shore drilling and whatnot because we’re on our way to a peak oil catastrophe. America turning into a post-apocalyptic Mad Max world of energy wars is certainly not going to help the environment either. We may need to drill. It’s either that or we could see the collapse of Western Civilization as we know it.
As for coal and nuclear energy…I’m not a fan of either (and my grandfather was a coal miner!). But considering Obama’s EPA allowed more than 40 mountain-top removal permits for mining, I really don’t think he’s going to be protecting us from the environmental impact of coal mining too much. So same difference there.
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.
My pragmatism comes up here and I will agree with her – I think it is probably better that Americans drill for oil here in a more environmentally controlled environment than simply purchase oil from other countries that might not be so mindful. Let’s not forget the human cost of the wars going on in the Middle East because we need to secure our oil supply!
If you had a choice – America fully out of Iraq and the Middle East, but that meant we had to engage in off-shore drilling here, which would you choose? And let’s say, we set up guidelines to make sure the drilling here had the least amount of impact on the environment as possible? I’d say, take us out of Iraq and drill, baby, drill.
See, these questions aren’t so cut and dry in my mind.
My biggest beef with Palin is that she has not latched onto alternative energy sources. But given that we as of yet have no alternative source that can replace cheap oil, I do think an “all of the above” approach may be our only energy option for the foreseeable future.
My hope is that, instead of extremism on the right and left causing us to fight over these issues without giving some thought to compromise, we can find a middle ground that works for America. The fact is, most Americans are going to care more about their wallets more than the environment. I know, I grew up in the Midwest. I get where average people are coming from. If you push them too hard and too fast on environmental laws that hurt their wallets too much, then people are going to backlash. And then going green could be as “out” as pet rocks.
June 26th, 2009
I was having a conversation with a friend today who was saying that the lifecycle of a Prius was actually worse than that of a Hummer due to the batteries. He cited a nickel mine where nothing grew for miles around due to the toxicity. I have yet to look this up to substantiate his claims, but what do you think? Do you think the environmental benefits of better gas mileage are outweighed by the toxic batteries in electric or hybrid cars?
June 10th, 2009
There’s a lot of resistance to San Francisco’s new recycling law:
Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco, and could even lead to a fine.
The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 Tuesday to approve Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country. It’s an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020.
My question is: Is it in anyway feasible to send “nothing” to landfills? Seems like a pipe dream to me. I would actually prefer that cities put energies into reclaiming methane gas from landfills as a viable alternative fuel source. If that were done with all landfills, there would be no need to sort out organic waste from the trash. Why waste a good fuel source?
May 26th, 2009
The thing that really ticks me off about Obama is that he’ll say or do one thing that will make liberals really happy (like announcing better fuel standards for cars) and then when you’re not paying as close attention, try to swindle some piece of crap under your nose. In an extremely egregious example, last week the EPA approved 42 our of 48 mountaintop removal permits, more than in the entire history of two terms of G.W. Bush! These mountaintop removals are extreme forms of strip-mining as a means of accessing coal. Coal? Why coal? Where’s our solar power? Where’s our wind power?
From the Huffington Post:
Have 42 out of 48 permits for mountaintop removal — the process of blowing up our nation’s oldest and most diverse mountains, razing historic communities, poisoning watersheds, and causing massive erosion and flooding, which Vice President Al Gore has termed “a crime, and ought to be treated as a crime” — cleared as “environmentally responsible” by the Obama administration’s EPA?
Since President Barack Obama has taken office, an estimated 300 million pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosives have been detonated across our American mountains.
In effect: Residents in the mountaintop removal areas have been subjected to a kind of waterboarding environmental policies.
Here is another article on the subject:
‘Appalachian Apocalypse’: Obama Permits Mountaintop Removal Mining
All I have to say is, environmentalists need to keep a strict eye on the Obama administration. Environmental platitudes sent out in the form of headline-making press releases do not equate to a real commitment to the environment or solving our energy problems as cleanly as possible. Shame on them for actually making Bush look better when it comes to this issue.
April 12th, 2009
I always find the concern over farm animals creating global warming to be a curious one. The latest screaming headline out is “Cows With Gas: India’s Contribution to Global Warming” We read a lot about how these cows can’t be stopped from putting methane into the air because giving them better feed or medicine to stop the methane release is beyond the reach of poor farmers. It is not until the end of the article that we read:
One long-running project has been biogas production – cow dung is utilized to make biogas for use in kitchens and even compressed biogas for use in vehicles. “Biogas plants have been very successful,” says R.K. Rajeshwari, a fellow at TERI, “Farmers are able to use biogas in their kitchens, to light lamps and to even drive vehicles.” Such projects, she says, have been particularly successful at gaushalas, cow shelters supported by donations from the devout and by government grants, of which there are 4,000 across India now. Most gaushalas are for abandoned, dry and aged cattle, of which there are many since killing cows is illegal in all but two states (the communist-ruled West Bengal and Kerala). “This way they are put to some use at least,” says Rajeshwari, “And by replacing conventional sources of energy, they help prevent global warming.”
I mean, yeah, hello, we’re facing a worldwide energy shortage soon and we’re trying to stop methane gas from being produced? We should be finding ways to harness all this cow flatulence! (Humane ways, of course.) I recently saw something on TV where cows would wear something around their necks that would collect their methane breath. Why not find a way to collect methane from the air around farms? Cow flatulence as fuel, why not? Just think – natural gas will have a brand new meaning some day.
January 28th, 2009
The sheer size of the proposed economic stimulus package scares me – I simply don’t think America can afford it. We’re in too much debt as it is. I’m also dubious that the stimulus package will actually stimulate anything except for some excessive back-patting on the parts of smug Democrats. The tiny glimmer of hope in the massive bill appears in the form of some money earmarked for green initiatives.
From the Wall Street Journal: the bill would add “$400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects”; renewable energy funding will receive $8 billion and mass transit $6 billion.
But for me, spending $800+ billion and using only 10% of that to fund renewable energy is exceptionally disappointing. I am not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination but I did agree with John McCain’s assessment that energy independence was critical to U.S. security. Or, to turn that around for you doves out there, energy independence is one sure fire way to keep America from meddling in the Middle East.
To me, if you are going to blow $800 billion dollars, you should just go full force and throw the entire kit and kaboodle on our energy problem. Create green jobs like Hillary Clinton said. Invest in companies developing green technology. Get us off of not only foreign oil, but oil for good.
That just might be a stimulus package I could get excited about. Otherwise, all this other pork – $650 million for digital TV conversion coupons? $6 billion to subsidize university building projects? When you compare that second number to the number spent on renewable energy ($8 billion), it shows that renewable energy is really not that big of a priority in the grand scheme of the bill.
The Democrats have an opportunity right now to show real environmental leadership, not just cheap talk, so let’s see if they actually accomplish anything of real substance with their new-found power. The last two years the Democrats spent running Congress didn’t seem to do much for the country, so I’m personally keeping my expectations wayyyy low.
December 16th, 2008
The trendy Mercedes-Benz of the future may well end up being electric. Daimler has begun work on developing advanced batteries to fuel electric cars in partnership with Evonik. This is only a first step, however. Once stronger batteries are developed, what will power them? Will the trophy wives of Beverly Hills and their having-a-mid-life-crises husbands want solar panels replacing their sun roofs? Perhaps, if the current eco-trendiness continues, such green luxury cars will be seen as the status symbols of the future.
September 9th, 2008
If you’ve been watching cable news at all lately, you’ve probably seen the T. Boone Pickens ads for the “Pickens Plan” promoting wind power and natural gas as a way to American energy independence.
The way the ads were running, it seemed like Mr. Pickens was running for office. But he’s not. Who is this guy? Well, according to Wikipedia (which, we know, isn’t always 100% accurate but it’s a good place to start), Pickens is a Republican who made his fortune with oil.
I don’t really care which party someone comes from if they are making sense. While I may not agree with everything Pickens suggests, at least the guy is putting his money where his mouth is. For far too long our leadership has done nothing on the issue of oil dependency. (more…)
September 4th, 2008
A theme at the Republican convention was offshore drilling. “Drill, Baby, Drill” was the mantra. I’m not a fan of drilling, but I have some mixed feelings on it. I don’t think it’s fair for environmentalists to expect the average American household to suck up $10/gallon gas in the name of protecting the environment. When people have a choice between spotted owls and putting food on the table, they’ll choose food first. So I believe the Democrats will also end up drilling too, simply because the outcry from average American will be too strong if gas goes up anymore.
Is there a way to minimize the environmental impacts of drilling? I think environmentalists need to find a way to compromise on this issue.
One positive note: At least both parties are discussing energy independence and alternate fuels.
July 8th, 2008
Interesting article from BBC News about America’s oil addiction, quite critical of the American way of life, and yet strangely optimistic. “We will be recharging our car batteries much as we recharge our phone batteries” – I hope so.
