Back to energy again, Charles Krauthammer talks about energy independence. You can just hear the annoyance in his prose. While I am not crazy about $4.00 per gallon gas, he is rock solid in his thinking.
I made a point last April about the silliness of the energy debate and even linked to another Krauthammer article. The energy "problem" is solvable and, compared to other problems, relatively easily. There is simply no will to do it.
Cowards.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
2.02.2007
1.31.2007
Global Swarming
Okay, I am really having a hard time with this "global warming" "debate." Joe over at Dartblog seems to get the tone right. The sheer politics of the subject matter completely overwhelms all reason.
I do not think anyone disagrees with the main premise: that the earth average global temperature has been rising in recent history. But where that leads us and what we should do about it is very much in doubt. The Kyoto Protocol is worse then useless for at least two reasons. First, it exempts China and India. If you really want to save the world, you need everyone's cooperation and exempting the two fastest growing economies is absurd. Second, the Protocol is, from a practical perspective, impossible to achieve and has no teeth for punishment. So, why bother.
And by talking about "average" global temperature, you ignore the reality. In fact, the earth is warming in a very un-uniform manner. The Northern Hemisphere seems to be warming, but the Southern Hemisphere, in particular Antarctica, is cooling. What does this mean?
Also, how confident are we that this is a trend that needs addressing? In the 1970's, there were claims we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Given how accurate that was, should we be rushing to impose new regulations at enormous cost? The claim is that humans are to blame and that changing human activity will solve the problem, but is that true? I believe the scientists are not sure.
Finally, there is the "so what?" response. Okay, the sea levels will rise if the Arctic ice melts, but the Antarctic ice is increasing so shouldn't that mitigate this? Even if it doesn't, so what? Not to be Johnny Raincloud, but I just do not see how any of this will be catastrophic? At least in the sense of a sudden, horrific change. Humans and the ecosystem will adapt and no one is claiming otherwise, as far as I am aware.
Let's be clear: reducing greenhouse gas is a good thing. The less polluting the better. But the answer is not to ban Al Gore's private jet or to outlaw Hummers or to convert to ethanol. The answer lies in finding a clean, renewable source of power to provide electricity. We do not have an energy problem; we have an electricity problem. Solve the electricity problem and you will save the world.
UPDATE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now said they are 90% sure there is a link between humans and CO2 emissions. Glenn Reynolds has the right level of angst. But see Iain Murray's comments to the effect of "what are humans doing in specific to cause this?" A necessary question to figure out what behavior to change.
I do not think anyone disagrees with the main premise: that the earth average global temperature has been rising in recent history. But where that leads us and what we should do about it is very much in doubt. The Kyoto Protocol is worse then useless for at least two reasons. First, it exempts China and India. If you really want to save the world, you need everyone's cooperation and exempting the two fastest growing economies is absurd. Second, the Protocol is, from a practical perspective, impossible to achieve and has no teeth for punishment. So, why bother.
And by talking about "average" global temperature, you ignore the reality. In fact, the earth is warming in a very un-uniform manner. The Northern Hemisphere seems to be warming, but the Southern Hemisphere, in particular Antarctica, is cooling. What does this mean?
Also, how confident are we that this is a trend that needs addressing? In the 1970's, there were claims we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Given how accurate that was, should we be rushing to impose new regulations at enormous cost? The claim is that humans are to blame and that changing human activity will solve the problem, but is that true? I believe the scientists are not sure.
Finally, there is the "so what?" response. Okay, the sea levels will rise if the Arctic ice melts, but the Antarctic ice is increasing so shouldn't that mitigate this? Even if it doesn't, so what? Not to be Johnny Raincloud, but I just do not see how any of this will be catastrophic? At least in the sense of a sudden, horrific change. Humans and the ecosystem will adapt and no one is claiming otherwise, as far as I am aware.
Let's be clear: reducing greenhouse gas is a good thing. The less polluting the better. But the answer is not to ban Al Gore's private jet or to outlaw Hummers or to convert to ethanol. The answer lies in finding a clean, renewable source of power to provide electricity. We do not have an energy problem; we have an electricity problem. Solve the electricity problem and you will save the world.
UPDATE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now said they are 90% sure there is a link between humans and CO2 emissions. Glenn Reynolds has the right level of angst. But see Iain Murray's comments to the effect of "what are humans doing in specific to cause this?" A necessary question to figure out what behavior to change.
4.28.2006
Gas Bags
$3.13 for gas. Whoa. Get the posse rounded up.
Heads should roll, but not the oil company heads. Gas is a commodity and behaves according to the fundamental laws of economics. Shooting the oil companies will not changes this. There are two big reasons the price has increased: the demand is high and the supply is low. The US has made fundamentally stupid choices that have affected each.
1) Demand is High. Okay, China and India are starting to drive up demand, but we have not helped by rejecting alternatives that would ease the demand pressures in the US, primarily making sure not one watt of electricity requires oil to produce. We need to invest in alternatives (nuclear if you ask me) in driving down that part of the demand. But this is a temporary fix, our flawed policies have really focused on lack of supply.
2) Domestic Production of Oil. Open ANWR and the continental shelf for drilling. Start developing the 1 TRILLION barrels of oil field in Colorado (oil shale). Don't like to do that? Then shut the f*** up about high prices.
3) Refining Capacity. Has not increased since the 70s. If 100 billion barrels of oil were available for free, it would not do us any good. We need to add refinery capacity to get it to the pump.
BUT, if we tripled refinery capacity, that would not help. The government requires oxygenates in the gasoline, currently MTBE or ethanol. The tort bar is suing the MTBE manufacturer and the government (bought by the ethanol lobby) refused to help. So now MTBE is out of the picture. But there is not enough ethanol. Ooops. That is wrong, there is plenty of ethanol available from abroad, but there is a very expensive tariff on its import (guess who got that through).
Finally, normally we could take the excess supply from one region and use it in another. (You can see this coming.) BUT, there are 17 different state mandated formulations of gasoline, so you can't simply take the supply from Oklahoma and ship it to Georgia.
Still upset. Well, oil company profits from a gallon of gas run about $0.09-$0.10. Local, state and federal TAXES run $0.45 per gallon.
See the picture that is emerging? By all means, put a bullet in the heads of the CEOs of Exxon and Chevron, just don't be surprised when the price of gas remains the same.
UPDATE: I swear I did not read Charles Krauthammer prior to writing this post.
Heads should roll, but not the oil company heads. Gas is a commodity and behaves according to the fundamental laws of economics. Shooting the oil companies will not changes this. There are two big reasons the price has increased: the demand is high and the supply is low. The US has made fundamentally stupid choices that have affected each.
1) Demand is High. Okay, China and India are starting to drive up demand, but we have not helped by rejecting alternatives that would ease the demand pressures in the US, primarily making sure not one watt of electricity requires oil to produce. We need to invest in alternatives (nuclear if you ask me) in driving down that part of the demand. But this is a temporary fix, our flawed policies have really focused on lack of supply.
2) Domestic Production of Oil. Open ANWR and the continental shelf for drilling. Start developing the 1 TRILLION barrels of oil field in Colorado (oil shale). Don't like to do that? Then shut the f*** up about high prices.
3) Refining Capacity. Has not increased since the 70s. If 100 billion barrels of oil were available for free, it would not do us any good. We need to add refinery capacity to get it to the pump.
BUT, if we tripled refinery capacity, that would not help. The government requires oxygenates in the gasoline, currently MTBE or ethanol. The tort bar is suing the MTBE manufacturer and the government (bought by the ethanol lobby) refused to help. So now MTBE is out of the picture. But there is not enough ethanol. Ooops. That is wrong, there is plenty of ethanol available from abroad, but there is a very expensive tariff on its import (guess who got that through).
Finally, normally we could take the excess supply from one region and use it in another. (You can see this coming.) BUT, there are 17 different state mandated formulations of gasoline, so you can't simply take the supply from Oklahoma and ship it to Georgia.
Still upset. Well, oil company profits from a gallon of gas run about $0.09-$0.10. Local, state and federal TAXES run $0.45 per gallon.
See the picture that is emerging? By all means, put a bullet in the heads of the CEOs of Exxon and Chevron, just don't be surprised when the price of gas remains the same.
UPDATE: I swear I did not read Charles Krauthammer prior to writing this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)