Energy Independence Bites Back
Conservatives have been talking nonsense about energy policy for weeks and John McCain seems ever-more-invested in it. But when you hear something dumb like this there’s something that should be kept in mind:
Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power, but Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet.
What you’re hearing here is, in part, a bit of political opportunism from progressives coming back to blow up in our faces. Energy independence was simply never the real issue. Canada has many fewer people in it than the United States has, but it produces more hydropower than we do:
Under the circumstances, there’s no reason we should aspire to become “independent” of Canadian electricity. And, indeed, since many parts of the United States are quite a bit closer to Canada than they are to Texas or Alaska there’s no reason to think that energy autarky would or could ever be an efficient way to allocate resources. There’s nothing wrong with importing clean energy when doing so is economically reasonable, and there’s nothing good about domestic production of dirty energy. But “energy independence” and the insidious “foreign oil” polled better than did more serious talking points so the rhetoric of energy autarky got a ton of validation. And then along comes the folks who want to say we need to “drill here, drill now” and it’s probably true that insofar as you think, wrongly, that the nationality of our energy resources is the main issue that domestic exploration is part of the solution.
56 Responses to “Energy Independence Bites Back”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 5th, 2008 at 8:26 am
What the hell? I distinctly remember Obama mentioning nuclear power in his DNC speech.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I was a bit concerned for John McCain going into this speech that the chorus of “Drill Here; Drill Now” and “Drill Baby Drill” (later simplified to someone in the TX delegation rearing back and just yelling “OIL!” during Sarah Palin’s speech… no shit!) would complicate McCain’s generally clearheaded rhetoric on climate change. Democratic policies re: energy independence generally dovetail smoothly with their policies re: clean energy. Apparently, McCain isn’t remotely phased by the incongruity of advocating for an energy independence strategy that’s largely based on domestic oil and gas production as a climate-change-prevention strategy.
I don’t think I can overstate how severely the GOP is overplaying its hand on this drilling business. It’s one thing to highlight the real policy contrast in speeches, etc. It’s another thing to show thousands of old, white men, many of them in cowboy hats, on the convention floor in Minneapolis trying their damnedest to do their best Daniel Plainview impression.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I would bet you that most people don’t include Canada among nations whose energy supply role they wish to be “independent” from. I think most people think of, you know, cartoon sheikhs and Hugo Chavez. I think that’s fairly taken for granted. Just saying. Technically not true, but I’ve never heard anyone, anyone, talking ’bout how they’re tired of those damn Canadians yanking us around etc. etc.
Secondly, that was the argument for the massive recent increase in gifts to the agroindustrial corn lobby for corn ethanol — it wasn’t about leaving fossil fuels, it was about “independence”.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am
That’s a nice strawman, Matt.
You know as well as I do that no one is interested in being “independent” of Canadian power sources (or Western Hemisphere ones in general). That rhetoric is all about middle eastern oil. The opposition to nuclear power on the left, and the fantasizing about non-viable (in the large) sources like wind mean that the left will make us poorer, more dependent on middle eastern sources, or both.
Let me know when the Left sheds the energy fantasists, and we can have a real conversation.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
@Joshua
Claiming that Obama is simply against nuclear power has been a facet of all of McCain’s speeches and townhalls since a couple weeks back when he announced his plan to have 45 nuke plants by 2030 (actual numbers might not be exactly right, there).
I was disappointed that Obama didn’t respond to McCain’s nuke speech by pointing out that proper tire inflation would save us roughly as much energy as 45 nuke plants would likely generate.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I suspect that the volatility of oil-producing countries will begin to affect prices even more than it currently does as scarcity increases (perhaps this is why Obama called for independence specifically from Middle Eastern oil in 10 years). There are many reasons to diversify the energy supply portfolio and avoiding monopolistic concentrations of resources is an important one.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I say protect our strategic Alaskan and offshore oil reserves for the coming day when the oil runs out. I want to be the last country with oil in the ground because if there ain’t an alternative I want it to be American fighter jets still in the air against Russian blimps and not the other way round
September 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Oil is a global market. The US doesn’t get first dibs and a special deal from Exxon if they happen to have pumped their oil from Alaska as opposed to Saudi Arabia. The US gets a cut of the base price as the counry of origin, but that doesn’t translate into a lower price at the pump for Alaskan oil.
The price for oil is what it is (taking into account different grades, etc.) Transport costs make up a miniscule amount of the price of gas at the pump. The whole idea that there’s something magically beneficial about pumping oil from the gulf, as if we achieve “energy independance” if the US produces as much oil as we consume, is simply wrong.
If the US produced as much oil as we consumed, this would do absolutely nothing to insulate us from price shocks. In case of a massive glabal war that disrupted shipping, it would be important. But if that happens, we’ve got much bigger problems than $4/gallon gas.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
@felipe
I’ve been disappointed that the Dems haven’t framed opposition to increased domestic oil production as a national security issue. We’ve got comparatively little proven oil reserves. Dem support of tapping the strategic reserve complicates this argument, unfortunately.
It’s a simple argument:
1. Oil is a commodity; in the absence of nationalizing domestic oil production, refinement, and distribution, tapping domestic supply will only increase global supply which won’t do much to lower prices.
2. Oil is a nonrenewable natural resource; tapping our national supply puts us at an even greater risk to foreign interference in the future.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Dunno… it seems people have Middle Eastern oil in mind when they hear energy independence. And the GOP could be opportunistic and hollow in policy rhetoric no matter what the position of the Dems.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Yeah, given that every nuke plant ends up being nearly entirely subsidized, going gigantically over budget, take far longer to come on line, require massive reworking after ‘completion’, and take far, far longer to begin working than the early happy times estimates we always get from the nuke lobby industry (and this is simply ignoring questions of waste storage & saftey) yeah, yeah, it’s “the left” which is naive.
Remember, the government is always wrong and it is our problem, unless it comes to giving gigantic amounts of money to industries conservatives back.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Matt, the best way I’ve heard phrased what you are talking about is that we should strive for energy security, not energy independence. Energy independence is unrealistic and a crock. Energy security, producing enough of our own so we can get by without being dependent on the Middle East, is not.
On another point, the Democrats have done a horrible job explaining why they are against more offshore drilling. I have a vague notion that it is bad for the environment, that’s it. Sure, it won’t do much to help, but what’s the harm in it? That’s a question Democrats haven’t answered effectively yet.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
That’s because Obama is opposed to nuke power. He claims to support it if all of the “problems” can be solved. Apparently, he – and the left – believe that Europeans are just way smarter than us, since they’ve figured it all out.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
What’s that I spot, up in the air? Oh, it’s the point, flying over your head.
Independence from middle eastern oil can’t be economically distinguished from independence from oil even a little bit because oil markets are world markets in a fungible resource. Similarly for substitutes for oil. “Energy independence” either means the ability to produce enough energy domestically so that we can continue to produce what we need even if we’re cut off from world markets in an emergency, or it’s an empty slogan. Even if “energy independence” is the former, it’s still largely nonsense, because being completely cut off from world energy markets also almost certainly means being cut off from other international markets as well, a fact that would greatly reduce our quality of life as well as our energy needs.
I cringe every time a Democrat talks about energy independence. I really would like to have economically literate people willing to press for sensible policy in charge for a change.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I for one would like to be free of MY dependence on oil, no matter where it comes from. So instead of drilling for more oil in my backyard, I’m all for more buses, bicycles and walking shoes. Because it’s our current dependence on oil for transportation in the U.S. that’s the issue, not where the oil comes from.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
1) Does anyone think the voters give a hairy rat’s ass about trivial, hair-splitting gotchas??
2) Democrats need to FOCUS on the MAIN FUCKING POINTS:
Which are:
a) We have had a major problem with dependency on imported oil for 30 years, McCain was in the Senate for 24 of those years, and McCain has done NOTHING to address the problem.
b) Bush/Cheney/McCain have spent probably close to $1 Trillion — and 4100 plus lives –trying to gain and keep control of Middle Eastern oil. during that same period, Bush /Cheney/McCain have not spent shit on energy research and development of new energy sources. Do you see millions of college students hitting the books to become Energy Development Engineers or Energy Entrepreneurs?
c) McCain is a fucking liar. If he was serious about accomplishing ANY of the things he’s promising, why did he NOT do so in the previous 24 years? WHEN has his Senate RECORD shown him putting this country first?
3) This is so infuriating.
By any objective measure, The American people should be ready to hang every fucking Republican leader from a lamppost at this point. But they are not.
Because our limpwristed, chickenshit leaders are fleeing the battlefield — we are seeing another John Kerry dive. No one in the party will stand up and confront the Republicans.
Because that might require someone to have enough of a spine to stand up and fucking LEAD.
As opposed to making snide, timid criticisms from the sidelines and assuming that if you hang around long enough, the Republicans will step in shit and the voters will anoint you because they have no other fucking choices.
Newsflash: If you don’t have any spine during a campaign, voters decide that you wouldn’t have any as President.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“Let me know when the Left sheds the energy fantasists, and we can have a real conversation.”
Don’t you mean the right?
It’s the right that believes more offshore drilling will significantly reduce oil prices. It’s the right that think selling offshore leases will result in near term drilling.
Nobody is going to put up the investment to erect an expensive offshore oil platform while prices are rising. Once you lay down the money to drill, you have to drill and sell the oil to defray the opportunity costs. It is more profitable to wait.
It is currently more profitable to purchase a lease and leave it undeveloped. The value of the oil in the ground will increase at a rate high enough to defray investment in the lease. Doing so is more profitable than expending money for exploitation of the field and selling the oil. This situation is only going to change when the future price of oil is perceived to be flat for a prolonged period. Since supply is decreasing and demand is increasing, oil prices will generally rise until other energy sources make significant inroads into oil’s share of the energy market.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am
1) The Alaskan oil was a Naval Petroleum Reserve, put aside as an emergency reserve in case we got in a war and Middle Eastern supply lines were cut.
2) We have wasted 30 years that we should have spent on developing alternative energy supplies. Our last three Republican Presidents have laid $8 Trillion of Debt on us with their personal signatures. So we don’t have much capital for Energy development.
3) We need Alaska as emergency reserves for when Peak Oil hits. But just as the Republicans have looted Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds they want to grab out last remaining national resources.
After all, when disaster hits us in 20 years, they will have their bags of gold stored overseas –in Swiss bank accounts and elsewhere. They can skip gaily off –some are already renouncing their American citizenship. We, the common citizens, will be left holding a bad of shit –poor and facing a life of eternal poverty like the Mexicans.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I don’t think Europe & Japan are any smarter than us, nor do I think their nuclear power industries are free of serious problems. But maybe they are somewhat fortunate in having a nuclear power industry relatively free of the U.S. Republican Party and U.S. nuclear industry lobbyists.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I say protect our strategic Alaskan and offshore oil reserves for the coming day when the oil runs out.
You know, this is a damn good point. Indonesia followed the “drill now!” advice in the 1980’s and 1990’s…and they’re tapped out.
This is economics 101. With a worldwide shortage of oil coming, we should not be selling our meager reserves to the highest bidder. Reserves in Alaska are worth more to the US than reserves anywhere else in the world–because in a time of shortage, these are probably the only reserves we don’t have to mount a huge and expensive (and potentially unsuccessful) war to gain exclusive control over. For the same reason, these reserves are worth less to everyone else in the world than they are to us. So selling them may be good for Alaska (oil revenue checks from the government! Woohoo!) but for America, it is just dumb.
We’ve always known that, sooner or later, the oil would run out. “Drill now” is like selling your family’s emergency storehouse of food on the open market when there’s a crop failure. It’s dumb–adding your family’s little pantry to the food supply ain’t gonna lower prices, and it’s not going to make you enough money to buy food when winter comes. In the face of a famine, you keep the pantry full until there’s no food left to buy. THEN you go in, and you use it to carry you over for the transition to the next season.
Alaska & offshore is the strategic petroleum reserve. We should be treating it that way.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The main political point is the high price of gas; therefore the tact that needs to be taken is that getting rid of obscene big oil profits & speculation will bring the price of gas down further & faster than drilling ever could; & that McCain should be happy to do before the election for the average American what Sara did for the average Alaskan- put a windfall profit tax on big oil & rebate the money to all taxspayers making less than $200,000.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Also, the point needs to be made that opening up off-shore drilling is a giveaway to big oil, republicans making their payoff before the election; & that big oil will sit on the leases (as they have with the other leases they have) until they can sell at an obscene profit to whoever will pay the most- including the Chinese.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
It’s too late now, Matt, to try to convince the American people that they don’t really want energy independence. The term “energy independence” stands for the aspiration to be free of the entanglements in foreign sources of energy that the public quite sensibly understands have brought us expensive wars like Iraq, and will bring other wars in the future. They also understand that petroleum wealth is a source of global power for self-promoting, overseas loud mouth demagogues they don’t like, like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
The support for the independence aspiration is broad and bipartisan, and is an awesome political opportunity. Americans will get right behind a president who launches a major national project to transform our domestic energy system and economy. Don’t look this gift horse in the mouth by getting fussy about whether we should call what we are after “independence” or something else. Yes, obviously, nobody cares about eliminating a healthy energy trade relationship with friendly Canada. But people aren’t really working with that kind of pedantic hyper-literalism when they talk about independence.
The debate now is all about who has got the best overall, long-term plan for energy independence, not whether energy independence is a good thing. Fox viewers and Glenn Beck viewers and Limbaugh listeners have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the view that the problem is that left-wing tree-huggers refuse to harvest the domestic resources we already have, and their views have gained some traction. Obama needs to fight back gently against that kind of fool’s gold. But his chief message should be to inspire people with a larger positive vision of the kinds of changes he will bring, changes that go beyond more oil wells, and to let them no where we should be putting the bulk of our public investments, and what kinds of private enterprise changes we should be encouraging.
On the “drill everywhere” front, he needs to sell the message that we shouldn’t be wasting our efforts on boosting the industries that have a stake in the dying past, and need to focus much more attention on developing the industries that are going to be vital to the future, and that will enable us to be a global energy leader, rather than a dependent follower. There just isn’t enough oil in the US to bring energy independence for any significant amount of time, and every investment we make that ties us to a petroleum economy is an investment that ties us to global energy dependency.
The anti-environmental, drill everywhere folks are like people in 1900 telling us that the problem with the American transportation system is that municipal and state governments have created excessive restrictions on stables, watering troughs, and horse farms, and that we need to boost domestic horse production. They are tied to the dying past.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Obama mentioned nuclear power and, shudder, even clean coal in his speech.
My local electric and natural gas utility, Puget Sound Energy, has apparently been sold to a group of Canadian and Australian investors, the Macsquarie Consortium. Though I’m having a hard time actually tracing that ownership, the sale was announced in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer story last year.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The Obama campaign needs to do a better job making the case that renewables like wind and solar are not fantasies, but, in fact, viable future sources of a significant chunk of our energy. Just as there is some environmental dogma hampering the left on energy issues, the right has their own baggage, including the belief that renewables are just toys. But above all, if Obama really wants to speak truth to power (which he probably doesn’t) he needs to tackle the belief held by people like Palin that when it comes to oil “we’ve got plenty of it.” Uh, no, actually we don’t.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Re Dan Kervick’s comment “The anti-environmental, drill everywhere folks are … tied to the dying past.”
————-
True –but they are also tied to Big Oil’s campaign donations , grants, sinecures, etc. And the last time I checked , that pot of money was NOT running dry.
Big Oil will fight the transition to alternative energy sources tooth and nail –because it hurts their profits and dooms their future. They LIKE high oil prices.
Bush/Cheney/McCain appointed the former CEO of EXXON to in charge of federal research to develop alternative energy. Somehow, I suspect he hasn’t discovered anything yet.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
The problem with the “drill here, drill now” approach is that the US is chock full of places where oil companies can do just that but are not doing so. For the most part, it is not economical to drill for oil in the United States, as compared to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Outside of Alaska, we sucked all the easy oil out of the ground 50 years ago. We drank our own milkshake. The oil that’s left is relatively expensive to get out of the ground. Saying that oil companies can save us by drilling more wells when they’re not even drilling all the leases they already hold is the real fantasy here.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
McCain tells a lie (again):
“Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power,”
Obama’s website: “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power as an option.”
September 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Lets not get too excited about HydroPower. India has done it as the expense of displacing MILLIONS of people, and utterly disregarding the environment. The floods now happening that have displaced millions are a result of a broken dam.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
If the US were to actually achieve “energy independence” then no matter how much oil we were domestically producing, we’d necessarily be using a tremendously larger percentage of clean energy sources than we are now. Therefore, if the right is offering a trade of more drilling for an eventual ban on energy importation, and I was concerned about carbon emissions, I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I don’t have the polling on this, but I bet that when people say energy independence they don’t think that means no energy from Canada. There are national security benefits to alternative energy. We are only going to be able to prevent climate change if we can combine that goal with other popular goals. I am against subsidizing any kind of energy beyond having a good cap and trade system. That said we likely will subsidize some kinds of energy and I would rather the subsidies went to Nuclear Power than to Coal and oil.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Matt’s point about Canadian energy sources etc. does indeed seem to confuse the issue.
Some people above (e.g., James Robertson) are the people locked in fantasies and have no grasp of the problem facing us. There is no way that we can drill our way out of this–no way at all, and nuclear power won’t make up the difference either. The economy needs to structured around consuming less energy and alternative sources must be tapped. (See lastoilshock.com)
How aggressively existing resources should be pursued is a relatively minor question (it will take years and years to, relatively speaking, get a trickle) which needs to be pursued on its merits but it will not solve or even make a dent in the economic/security problems.
Joe Biden’s (amnd Matt’s) interest in Transit is far more pertinent than the (natural) Alaskan instinct to drill, drill and drill.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’d avoid putting hydroelectric power in the “clean” energy category as it usually comes with a very large environmental cost in the form of destroyed habitats and watershed destruction.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I bet McCain isn’t really going to support nuclear energy in the long-run.
Will wrote:
I’d avoid putting hydroelectric power in the “clean” energy category as it usually comes with a very large environmental cost in the form of destroyed habitats and watershed destruction.
That’s a good point, but in the long run we may end up having to often prefer it to some things we’re using now.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This McCain insistence on nuclear power is a tad disconcerting. Not that I’m all that against it as a power source, but what to do with the waste? Not one state will take it. McCain wants nuclear power, but he famously didn’t even want the waste driven through his state on the way to be dumped in another state. So, could he possibly mention where he’s want to put it?
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Dan Kervick,
Yes, obviously, nobody cares about eliminating a healthy energy trade relationship with friendly Canada. But people aren’t really working with that kind of pedantic hyper-literalism when they talk about independence.
Matthew engaging in pedantic hyperliteralism to try and score cheap political points against McCain? You don’t say!
As you suggest, the point is not to be literally entirely independent of all foreign sources of oil and energy, but to reduce or eliminate our dependence on oil from the middle east and other unstable or unfriendly nations or regions. The Department of the Interior estimates total recoverable U.S. conventional oil reserves at 134 billion barrels. We currently consume about 20 million barrels per day. We have enough oil to greatly reduce our dependence on oil from the middle east, and make up the difference with increased production of domestic oil, for a period of many decades, as we transition to other sources of energy. But to do that we need to drill, drill, drill.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Jeff Boghosian
McCain tells a lie (again): “Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power,” Obama’s website: “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power as an option.”
Given that “energy independence” and “aggressive climate goals” are two completely different things, you have demonstrated not that McCain was lying but that you are illiterate. Well done.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Building 45 nuclear plants in 22 years would, at best, displace coal burning power plants. Nuclear power is only good for providing baseload power supply. The only things we use now for baseload supply are nuclear, coal, and wind. Building nuclear plants won’t reduce oil or gas consumption at all.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
And if Matthew thinks “energy independence” is an undesirable or unimportant goal, he should be attacking Obama, who lists “energy independence” (and “strengthen[ing] our oil security”) as one of the three basic goals of his energy policy. Obama explicitly links energy independence and “oil security” to a reduction in imports of foreign oil.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “This McCain insistence on nuclear power is a tad disconcerting. Not that I’m all that against it as a power source, but what to do with the waste?”
——–
The plan for the past 25 years has been to dump it in Yucca Mountain –i.e., in Harry Reid’s back yard. McCain says that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The bottom line is that the USA’s energy needs have grown greatly and will continue to grow greatly.
Given that the Democratic Party has staked its future on pandering to the Hispanic (and Roman Catholic ) lobbies — i.e., to increasing the US population by over a MILLION/year via both legal and illegal immigration — the Democratic leaders are being two-faced and hypocritical when they speak of energy conservation as a solution.
The critics of nuclear power are being similarly hypocritical. Nuclear is the only plausible source of emissions-clean ,large scale energy. I agree that it has its problems but many of those problems could be solved if we hung the anti-nuclear protesters and diverted a small portion of what we are spending on Middle East military operations into fixing nuclear energy.
NO political group will survive if its policy is based on inflicting misery on the American people via mindless obstruction and deceit in the policy forums. I realize fission is dirty and I think we should have poured a lot more money into research and development of nuclear fusion.
But at the end of the day, critics have to put up or shut up. If not nuclear, what do they propose?
September 5th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
As a lifelong democrat ad writer on science issues, I am completely dismayed by
the lack of informed comment on climate from Tv newsreaders to Obama on down to you.
Global warming is not what’s happening in our world and you can’t call me a flat-Earther for saying so. Al Gore ad his AGW hysterical followers have attempted to create a religion by which they can mold mass behavior. This is a huge threat to our freedoms and ways of life. It’s time for bloggers and legislators and journalists to get informed. CO2 is not the enemy of life on this planet;just the opposite, in fact. The Hockey stick graph of Al Gore’s AGW hype machine is nothing but propaganda, with no good science behind it. The sun is the big kahuna of our climate; man’s activity has minimal effect. This may not suit politicians who need to pander for votes, but this is what’s happening and there is no way to deny it, scientifically.
It’s bad enough that journalists with no education in the sciences, like Tom Friedman and Margaret Carlson pop off about gobal warming as if they know something. It’s worse when bloggers like you do it.
Get yourself informed! Go visit websites like icecap.us or wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com and get another POV. As it is, I will not vote for Obama in the general election even though I gave him my vote in the California primary; the issues are too important to rely on Al ( I play a scientist on TV) Gore, as climate straw-man in chief. McCain isn’t much better on this either. I am going to vote for gridlock in the best interests of my country and planet!
It’s far more likely, due to our minimal sunspot activity cycle and recent oceanic decadal oscillations, that we will experience a continued cooling trend for years and we will not need expensive carbon sequestration schemes at all. In fact they will only do harm. Ethanol too, does great harm. 30% of our corn production goes to ethanol, which is nothing but a scam. It is not a good fuel and costs more to make than it’s worth. People around the world will starve because of the greed to get government subsidies.
“There is something happening here but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?” Bob Dylan’s Ballad of a Thin Man.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“Ad writer on scientific issues?”
Mind if I ask who you’re writing ad copy for? Are you, perhaps, dependent on the fossil fuel industry for your livelihood?
September 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“…As a lifelong democrat ad writer on science issues…”
This has got to be one of the lamest appeals to authority that I’ve ever heard. “Trust me, I’m in advertising.”
September 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Crazy man T. Boone Pickens made a very easy to understand argument about oil independence.
We import 12 million barrels of oil per day. Saudi Arabia exports 9 million/day.
So unless we suddenly discover a Saudi sized oil field, drilling isn’t going to do very much.
All of Alaska amounts to less than 1 mil/day of production.
So we need 12 Alaska sized reserves somewhere, probably something larger than the entire area of the US.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:14 am
They finally are getting it right. We must do it all!
It is fine to import a little electricity from Canada. We all know that is not the issue. The issue is imported oil from unstable and/or unfriendly sources. As a former DOE technology manager I am very pleased to see most everyone on all sides coming to the same and the proper conclusion: We must pursue,in random order, wind, conservation solar, hydro, CNG, nuclear, ofshore, ANWR, coal, etc. The marketplace will sort out the winners and the losers. The government should allow for all to be pursued and just make sure they are pursued responsibly and safely. I must also comment on the previous post regarding global warming. Just take a plexiglass box in the lab and fill it with 80 %nitrogen and 20% oxygen. Shine a light on it and measure the temp. start oozing in tiny amounts of carbon dioxide and watch the temp. Science says the temp will go up, and it will. Then ooze in a bit of methane and the temp will go up even faster. I feel the issue isn’t whether we are having global warming, we are; the issue is what do we do about it.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Of course nuclear can displace oil and gas, electric cars and plug in hybrids, and electrolysis to hydrogen for use in fuel cell cars.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The US consumes one third of the worlds fossil fuels, each and every person needs to take it upon themselves to become less dependant on these resources. We are killing our planet by draining its resources. Wind, water, and solar energy can be used in replacement of our fossil fuel usage. Stop global warming by using more enviromentaly safe products.
http://www.goliath0825.com
September 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Matt,
I think you’re mistaking the notion of independence for the idea of eliminating foreign trade entirely. The U.S. will be sufficiently “energy independent” if a system of rationing would allow it to get by with its own energy production regardless of the state of global markets.
The problem is not that there is something wrong with Canada exporting energy to the U.S. or the U.S. importing it from Canada. The problem is that there is nothing wrong with Canada agreeing to sell it to China at a higher price than the U.S. is currently paying and the U.S. doesn’t have a back-up plan in the event Canada makes that decision. In particular, the U.S. would be totally screwed if there were a sudden shortage of imported oil for any reason.
Current U.S. energy policy is based on the idea that Canada (or any other country) would be nuts to ignore the U.S. market. How long do you expect it to stay that way?
March 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Hi all. It is not enough to do good; one must do it the right way.
I am from Israel and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Electronic travel auction launches a business that allows consumers to bid for airline seats, hotel rooms, cruise berths and other travel related products.”
Best regards 8), Aspasia.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Incredible site!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra