Welcome to terrycan debate energy.
What action you like to see that will get America closer to energy independence?
We want to hear about positive steps we can take in that direction.
What type of energy company would you be willing to invest your own money in?
Wind, Solar, Hydro, Corn, Sugar Cane, Natural Gas are all options.
Last but not least my favorite.... nuclear power.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bravo, Terry ! Hope we get more people adding to the conversation--> you've done a great start to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteIn analyzing the problem, it may be useful to map out a few things. What are the goals of energy? What are the various options ? How do these options meet our goals ?
Here are some goals of energy that I'd like to propose.
A good energy system,in order of importance must :
1)Be clean,non-polluting,environmentally friendly throughout its entire product cycle.
2)Be inexpensive
3)Be abundant
4)Be reliable
5)Be easily transferable (like electricity)
Brief explanations of these goals :
1) If an energy source kills us,makes us sick,destroys the environment,reduces our food/water supply,or kills off any species it is unusable. The entire life cycle of the energy product must be considered: from concept to final disposal/closure.
2)Inexpensive :to aid the growth of the economies of the U.S. and impoverished nations
3)Be abundant: energy should be available for the entire world.
4)Reliable: To enable growth, long-term planning and security; the energy must be available when needed. If the energy source is not consistant, then it needs to be storable; available for use whenever needed.
5)Transferability : we need energy for a variety of uses:transportation,light,heat,work -in our businesses and homes. A standardized form of energy (like electricity) would enable efficiency of production,and easy transfer of power.
Any comments, additions to the goals of an energy systems ? How about the order (weighting) of these goals ?
The first step is easy -> CONSERVE.
ReplyDeleteBeware the messaging from the mega-corporations that make $ trillions from our wasteful use of energy.TV ads and think-tanks funded by Chevron only represents thier reality, based on profits.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteThanks for contributing to the blogs. Feel free to invite people into the conversation.
Your goals 1 thru 5 are reasonable and necessary. In reply.
1) Any time we use technology be it stone age or the most advanced there will be risks involved. It is an effective use of government to monitor the energy producers and enforce worker and environmental safety laws and codes.
2) Inexpensive: The private sector is the best at this. No one benefits from people in poverty.
3) Be abundant: Absolutely yes. A surplus of energy will result in an increased standard of living. However individual countries, states, counties even small communities should be responsible for their own energy production.
4) Reliable: Again the private sector does this best. Capitalism rarely repeats failure. Failure is repeated by organizations that spend other people’s money and are not held accountable for their results. AKA government.
5) Transferability: “A standardized form of energy” I really like this one. In the manufacturing sector the “COPY EXACTLY” approach will help greatly.
“The first step is easy -> CONSERVE”
Yes. Conserve through increased efficiency. If company A’s car out performs, consumes less energy, and is more reliable it than company B’s car. Company A will out sell Company B if the government does not interfere.
COPY EXACTLY
ReplyDeleteThe CE approach is proven to work. Let’s take an example most people can support.
Natural Gas Electric Plants are a proven and reasonably clean option. We have a surplus of natural gas. Mexico our largest foreign supplier of oil burns NG to dispose of it.
Some government involvement could be used here. Government could select a standard NGEP manufacturer from the lowest bidder.
The winning company could build a series of identical plants across the country. The hardware, software, and people would be interchangeable.
A worker in Maine would be qualified to work in California and any where in between.
Improvements and would be discovered and be installed locally and leading to nation wide. When a fault is discovered the solution could be easily shared with the other plants.
Hey Terry, I'll try to invite some people to join our discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou've brought up the theory of private vs public a few times.I don't think I can really accept a statement that one is better tan the other.
Government has trouble in many areas, but the Post Office,Medicaire,National defense, The VA, Utilities etc are examples of imperfect, but working public sector entities.
In the private market, one needs look no further than the Savings & loan crisis and out current financial mess to question the perfection of capitalism. Enron, Union Carbide,Love Canal, Tylenol,Merck(Vioxx) all exemplify some of the many failures of the private sector.
Perhaps with strong government oversite and the ability to litigate, the private sectors' greed can be kept from harming the public while still can flourishing.
Please keep in mind that laws of supply & demand are thwarted when we talk about pushers and addicts. They also run askew if a company is a monopoly, or supplies a life & death product : food, water, health care. Then the buyer is at the mercy of the seller-- this is where we the people utilize a government to supply us our needs that don't fit well under a capitlist model.
There are also many things that we need in our society, that don't necessarily create a profit. What is the profit in clean air or water ? A safe work environment? Spending time raising ones children? Where was the profit of sending a man to the moon ?
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteThe evidence of that the private sector out performs the public sector is overwhelming. Simply compare the standard of living in the USA with Russia or China.
Our Government does some things very well. I believe the government should deliver the mail, defend the country, build and support the infrastructure, and get out of the way.
Occasionally some one is dishonest and steals money from decent trusting people. This is not a reason to abandon capitalism. The thieves should be punished.
“Money demands that you sell not your weakness to a man’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason.” (Atlas Shrugged)
Clean air, water, and safe work environment result in better health, increased productivity, fewer industrial injuries. This is very profitable. Government enforcement is a good thing.
In the 1970’s I worked next to men missing fingers and eyes. The “evil private insurance company” required we use safety glasses or they would drop us as clients. The profit motive worked.
Sending a man to the moon showed the USSR that we were capable of accomplishing complex and difficult tasks quickly.
Years later when Reagan proposed building a space based defense system they knew we could do it. Shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed. This was the greatest event of the 20th century.
Back to energy.
Today we have the technology to build a space based solar electric power grid. This would be an effective use of government. Such a project is very long term. Twenty years of investment would be required before we see a return. A very hard sell.
Such a system would make oil obsolete as an energy source. Oil’s primary use would be for lubrication. The Middle East would become bankrupt and irrelevant. Electric cars would make LA a really nice city.
Hi Terry,
ReplyDeleteI sure appreciate the discussion- very enlightening.
I agree that the private sector is usually more efficient and profitable than the public sector. My point is that capitalism, as good as it is, is not perfect. It takes a degree of rules and enforcement, by the government, to counter-balance some of the inherent dangers of capitalism. Just because we need to tweak the capitalist system does not mean that we throw it out. Imperfect as it might be, I don't know of any better economic system.
"Occasionally someone is dishonest..."
While your statement is true by itself, my point is that there are much greater abuses of corporate power that are threatening our democracy-> those abuses need to be recognized, dealt with and steps taken to avoid future abuses.
A few examples:
The financial sector caused a near crash of the world economy last year. This cost almost $ 14 trillion world-wide.This was not good-- we need to look at the cause of this disaster and take steps to prevent it from reoccuring. Seems like a no brainer-- but to date, nothing has been done. In fact, the financial firms have consolidated, grown bigger, and continued the unsupervised,hidden derivative trading and massive leveraging that earned them huge profits and almost crashed the world economy.
"One man, one vote". Unfortunately, your vote counts for a lot more if you have lots of money behind it. In 1998 lobbyists spent $1.44 billion to sway congress' decsion making. In 2009 it had ballooned to $ 3.18 billion. The leading sectors are Finance,Health,Business,Communications and Energy. Because of thier money, thier influence is much greater than the number of votes represented by the number of people working for them ( who probable have little say in thier lobbying/investment decisions anyway).
Bottom line= our government should be making decisions in the best interests of the citizens. Decisions made to soley benefit corporations, may not be what is best for the majority of Americans.
"Clean air, water, and safe work environment result in better health, increased productivity, fewer industrial injuries. This is very profitable."
NOT for the coal fired power plants-> controlling thier pollution reduces the company profits, but is better for the people having to breath the mercury-laden air downwind. Yes, government enforcement is needed here.
Good point on the safety glasses. Also true with charging more on health premiums for smokers,etc. But not covering pre-existing conditions, while profitable, can leave people to simply go bankrupt and die.
I have my doubts that Reagans' "Star Wars" caused the Soviet economic collapse. It never worked and was unaffordable. We are still working to develop a technology to intercept missile reliably. Didn't Reagan feel that government doesn't work ? "The seven scariest words is 'I'm from the gov't'", etc ? It seems that there are politicians today that are following a self-fullfilling prophecy by stopping everything gov't even attempts.
Some paradigms we Americans might be wise to reconsider;
Can everything be evaluated by money ?
Who / what is more important : citizens or corporations ?
Should money and business have a greater swa on our government than the voices of ordinary citizens ?
Anyway, we're both drifting in our discussion. Back to energy !
I hadn't heard of the space grid- sounds interesting. Is that using carbon nano-tubes to relay the electricity to the ground ? ( The space elevator stuff?)
ReplyDeleteWe are becoming paralyzed into only thinking of the short term. It amazes me how people are complaining that, after only one year, the economy isn't fixed and jobs plentiful. We must start addressing these long-term issues and not be so myopic. The selfishness of our generation is very sad, indeed. I take back most of the things I ever said about my parents' generation,LOL !
I also like the idea of natural gas. All of the alternative energy ideas are years away from being even remotely viable.The hole we're in is just way too massive. So we need to somehow stop the bleeding while we develope other energy sources.
If coal can indeed by made clean, this could also be considered. At this point, the technology of "clean coal" is fiction. We should research this.
Nuclear is only clean during a short fragment of it's lifespan. Developing tons of radioactive wase to be dealt with by our grandkids is wholly irresponsible.Also needs mor research to see if there are ways to make it safe.
Summary :
The byproducts of our consumption is on a deadly,unsustainable trajectory. From energy to product consumption we are creating toxic pollution, depleating the oceans of food, causing extinctions, eliminating rain forests, affecting the climate, changing the very DNA of our food supply, endagering impoverished populations and much more.
With only 2 billion of the 7 billion people on Earth following the high energy, high consuming, waste producing ways of 'civilization' it's bad enough. But the remaining 5 billion want the same lifestyle as us. Imagine if they achieve it, without addressing the deadly by-products of this ever-consuming lifestyle, without first making it sustainable for life ?
Then there's population growth.....
Mark
ReplyDeleteI’m really enjoying these discussions. Conservatives and liberals generally want the same goals. The argument begins about how to accomplish the goals.
So, on to energy.
The space based grid has been researched since the 70’s.
A brief description. A photo voltaic grid on the moon or in a geosynchronous orbit can produce the electricity that is converted to microwaves.
The microwaves can be sent to a remote area on earth. At this collection point the microwaves can be used to produce electricity.
“We are becoming paralyzed into thinking of the short term.” Investors expect a return in a reasonable amount of time. I believe a small percentage of our efforts should be looking as far as 20 years out.
A natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the south 48 states is under construction. Well done Governor Palin.
Our government stated “talking” about clean coal over ten years ago. We have yet to make the first demonstration plant. It is likely that our first clean coal plants will built under license from Chinese technology.
Nuclear waste is an issue. There is no chemistry to make the waste clean. The research has been done. Nuclear waste can only be stored. Whether we pursue nuclear or not the existing waste must be dealt with. The Yucca Mountain Repository is ready to accept nuclear waste. The well intended environmentalists (Who I believe are wrong.) continue to get in the way. Much the current nuclear waste is still in need of permanent storage site.
Our US Navy powers the carrier and submarine fleet with nuclear power. If people were being hurt and environmental damage occurring. It could not be kept a secret. Even with Bush as President.
“Summery” Any living being will have an impact on the environment. I do not believe our growth is unsustainable.
Can you name a resource modern man has exhausted? Historically a resource may become in short supply and innovation produces a better cleaner replacement.
For example we burned wood, then coal, then oil, harnessed nuclear, and tapped solar. America has more trees today than 100 years ago. We are not running out of oil or coal and solar energy will be available longer than man will exist.
Our yield of food per acre continues to increase. We use less land to farm and feed more people. We produce so much food that a many poor people in America are overweight.
“Population growth” deserves it own blog. I will start one!
We are absolutely imprisoned by our short-term thinking. In addition,we constantly ignore critical costs that should be factored into our decision analysis. (pollution,etc) It's hard to even discuss potential solutions if we ignore the facts of the problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that nuclear waste, unless made safe, is a deal breaker. There is nothing known to man that can outlast this deadly material and store it. Transporting it is a prime target for terrorists and accidents. We have had many rail accidents over the years, toxic chemical clouds drifting into towns-- imagine if that train was carrying nuclear waste. When teaching my kids how to drive, I tell them to NEVER pull out when you can't see what's coming: you'd be gambling your life. Similar with nuclear power, where we know there is a problem. Just who are the NON-environmentalists that think it's ok to gamble with the life of others ? Let's keep looking at it - but don't start building reactors across the country until we can do it safely.
Do you really believe that the gov't couldn't keep an environmental problem a secret ? How long before we learned the truth about the gulf of tonkin incident ? Did the German people know that 6 million people were being slaughtered in WW II by thier government ? Coverups of all types happen constantly.
Summary.There is a synergestic relationship between all creatures and their environment. One creatures waste becomes anothers food (ie the CO2 / O2 respiration between animals and plants).
But we humans are producing wastes that kill life- and in our exponential growth we continue to create more and more waste and use more and more resources. Most indiginous cultures, arguably living the most sustainably of all humans,are seeking to become just like we civilized people. This growth alone will be a disaster for us and our planet.
The advances in agriculture and energy uses were brought to us through science. Today, this same science is now loudly shouting that we have a series of deadly problems that must no longer be ignored :
Oceans : acidification, dead zones,dying reefs, dwindling fish supplies,algae blooms
Conservation : extinction rates 1000 times normal background,less biodiversity, invasive species,pollinator decline(honey bees)
Air Quality : global warming, perclorate in breast milk,BPA, mercury,toxic metals
Land :desertification,runoff,deforestation,
erosion
Overpopulation : 1st billion in 1800,2nd 1920, 3rd by 1960, 4th by 1970,5th by 1984,6th by 2000, 7th projected by 2010
The list is longer and more detailed than we have space for.
The resources are not ALL gone yet.The beauty of the human mind is it's ability to extrapolate, to map out where the path of data is leading us. The bees have all but dissappeared, Atlanta almost ran out of water just last year, California & Australia are having severe droughts and fires. A 2003 study published by Nature & National Geographic reported that 90% of large fish species are gone (tuna,marlin,cod,halibut,flounder)- owed to overfishing.
There are entire books detailing the rapid destruction of the environment and resources by humans. Global warming may be the lease of our worries if we continue growing at the same speed, in the same destructive ways.
We need a paradigm shift in our attitudes as a species. Whatever we do, we must include the rest of the planet in out analysis of how to live. It's not all about us--wasn't it Muir that said ;
“Tug on anything in nature and you will find it connected to everything else.”
We would be wise to see ourselves as parts of the world and not the masters of it. We cannot fix everything that we break.
Out of coffee-- talk to you later !
Well we can’t agree on every issue.
ReplyDeleteThe nuclear waste simply can’t be made safe. There is no chemistry to do this. The existing waste must be dealt with.
Storage is the safest option.
As far as government keeping a secret most events eventually are revealed. What happens in combat is difficult to judge. Vietnam was a battle against Communism that we lost. Today the Germans are aware of what happened. I have worked with people that were members of Hitler’s Youth Movement. The way they spoke of Jews leads me to believe they approved of the policy. Lucky for the world they lost. The Left continues to ignore the mass murders done by Stalin and Mao to there own people.
Global Warming? The science shows warming and cooling to be a normal cycle. We appear to be near the peak of a warming trend. Ten years of declining temperatures is hard to ignore. Al Gore has done well with it.
There is evidence of the planet being warmer around 1200AD. What is today Scotland had a climate similar to the Napa Valley of today. There are records of grapes being grown and commerce in wine at that time.
The primitive indigenous people are responsible for many extinctions and environmental damage. Some examples The Mauire of New Zealand clubbed the wingless birds to extinction. The People of Easter Island destroyed their own trees.
There is a romantic myth about these cultures. The Native Americans are very overrated. The Europeans discovered a Stone Age culture in North America. They had no written language, mathematics, chemistry or had even invented the wheel. They weren’t sustainable. They were stuck and South America was going backwards a long before the white man arrived
We seem to agree on Space Based Solar Power. I don’t believe the Environmentalists are stupid. I believe they have been lied to.
Today's AP headline : "LEAKS OF RADIOACTIVE TRITIUM FOUND AT 27 NUCLEAR REACTORS".
ReplyDeleteIn weighing any proposal, we must consider the pros and cons of it and give a weight to each point. If one of the cons to a proposal is "creates tons of the deadliest poison known to man, to which we have no antidote, lasts forever and is highly dangerous to transport",
then IMHO , we need to move on to something less deadly.
Not sure who on the left ignore the atrocities of Mao, Stalin and Mussollini. Ahmadinajahd denies the holocaust.
Well, I'm not a climatologist, but when thousands of them across the world all say that we have a major,major problem, I do take notice. Scientist never agree on everything- but the concensus on GW is overwhelming.I have read a lot on the subject and it, unfortunately, makes a lot of sense. These same scientists pointed out the problems with the ozone layer, which we addressed and it is fixed. For decades people of certain ideologies denied ANY global warming. Once ice sheets started falling off in chunks the size of Rhode Island, they finally accepted it-- but insisted that it wasn't man-made, just a normal occurance. Well, the scientists have created ever-accurate climate models that show that observed data (CO2, ocean temps, salinity,etc) could not naturally occur, and never has, in so rapid a time span, in over 600,000 years. The bigger problem with their models is that their predictions are coming true a lot faster than they thought.
You mentioned Al Gore. He has been giving a slide show on this subject for decades. I'm sure he made some money on the book and the Nobel Peace prize, which I think he donated.
But think of who stands to lose money if the world decides to combat "Global Wierding". Obviously the Big Oil, OPEC, Coal & Mining industry, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
Do any of these industries have a stake in convincing the American public that Global Warming is just some myth made up by Al Gore to make a buck ?
Of course, they ALL do. In addition, with the possible acception of Iran, they ALL give heavily to the Republican party. The Republican party then, en masse , crow that Global Warming is a myth and they filibuster any legislation that attempts to address the issue.
The obvious patterns here are linked by money. H
So who do we believe - the vast majority of the worlds' scientists or the companies that make a fortune off of greenhouse gas emmitting substances ?
Hmmm....
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteSaw the news about the tritium leaks. This is a problem. I see two options after a clean up.
A) Repair if possible and if not shut it down.
B) Replace it
I suspect these are older plants and should be replaced. We probably half agree on this one
Many of our children’s text books ignore the crimes against humanity by Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini. Anita Dunn (former white house communications director) mentioned Mao in a speech before high school students (June of 2010) She described him as one of her favorite political philosophers.
Expanded on his military genius and fails to mention the millions of Chinese who starved to death or were executed under his policies.
Michael Moore the Director of Fahrenheit 911 describes Cuba as better place to live than America. Castro a brutal dictator who has modeled Cuba after Stalin’s USSR. Moore ignores their crimes against humanity and assails them for their “free health care.”
To learn about the man made global warming myth go the URLS below. They explain it faster and better than I can.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Though I profess to not know a lot about MAO, I remember having "the little red book" as a teenager. I took away some sayings that still seem to hold some good philosophies, such as :
ReplyDelete"The tongue is soft and remains; the teeth are hard and fall out"
I would like to see our children be taught how to think for themselves. The should be exposed to a variety of ideas and encourage to research and question everything. Censorship and indoctrination to any ideology teaches our kids to be midless sheep. I have no problem with Anita Dunn speaking to a HS, but it should have been followed up with a panel discussion or something to bring out the points you mentioned. That encourages critical thinking.
Moore has many good points, but also sells inflammatory rhetoric, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Randi Rhodes, etc. I'm sure there are good and bad things about Cuba, not with-standing the atrocities of a now feeble old man when he was young.
Imagine if we still held such contempt for Germany or Japan based on WWII ? America too, has caused death and destruction across the world. We cannot hold ourselves up as saints while vilifying everyone else.
I've saved the link and will watch the film soon. There are many other sites that contradict the proposals mad in the film, of course. Haven't yet been able to track the funding, though. (Follow the money is one of my mantras, before listening to an opinion).
"The Independent" has an article about the film that states:
" A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors".
I look forward to watching the film, however, as I also have watched "An inconvenient truth" and read articles in National Geographic,Scientific American, etc.
The science of climatology is far too complicated for most people to grasp, without a degree. Unfortunately, most people form opinions based on many rationals that rarely include facts. The scientific method of analysis is rarely used by many people(isolate your variable, double-blind studies,re-create the results etc).
IF the most profitable companies and countries in the world weren't threatened by an acceptance of Global Warming, perhaps we could all have a more rational discussion of what the majority of scientists are trying to tell us. As is, it is difficult to track whether a contrary viewpoint is scientifically sound, or merely an effort of the oil or coal industries to protect future profits.
It's a shame that our discussions of many crucial issues today are being clouded by big money interests.
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteMost countries with histories over 200 years have dark times that they wished had never happened.
Back to energy.
I understand you do not support nuclear power and don’t expect to change your mind.
This blog has a new post that may bring some more people into the discussion. Check it out!
I believe the Tritium leak is probably being made a bigger deal than it really is. Tritium is Hydrogen-3. Its very difficult to keep hydrogen contained in the first place because of its low density. It tends to diffuse right through tank materials. When it does, it goes straight up (hydrogen is lighter than air) until it reacts with Oxygen to form heavy heavy water. H-3 has a half-life of about 12 years, decaying to He-3 via beta decay. He-3 is stable (not radioactive) Tritium is fairly harmless externally and although not a healthy thing to ingest, it does not bioaccumulate.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power in general:
The military has proven that small reactors can be operated in a safe and reliable manner. We have learned alot from past mistakes and the behavior of nuclear materials inside the reactor is much better understood today than it was during the time of three mile island and other similar accidents. Nuclear waste is a problem but its not terribly difficult to contain. I don't know the latest on the project, but there was a vitirfication plant being built at Hanford to make glass blocks out of radioactive waste. The idea is that glass will contain the materials in a permanent way that prevents leaching into the environment. I perfer the idea of glass blocks out in the open where they can be monitored and accounted for rather than burying the materials in a salt mountain to disappear forever only to be dug up accidentally in 3000 years. We may also find a need to use these materials in the future as technology advances.
Resources: Where have the resources gone? Other than the materials we have launched into space and the atmosphere that the solar wind steals from us, all the materials we had 1000 years ago are still here. Perhaps not as concentrated or easily obtained but its still here on the planet. The issue is the energy necessary to recover those materials or transform the elements into the form that we need them. We won't run out of anything, it will just get very expensive. Prices self regulate in a capitalist free market when suppliers are allowed to compete.
Pollution: We need to be very careful about how the government gets involved here. Without a doubt we have messed up our environment with our wastes. Much of it was during the industrial revolution and we didn't have the forsight to see what we were doing. Now we see, now we're more careful. Many huge companies have gone out of business paying for the messes they have made in the past. Most companies are very aware of the financial risk of being careless with hazardous chemicals. The problem we have is that the regulatory agencies have become a political weapon. For instance, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a product of combustion. It is a part of the carbon cycle. It is a vital part of the natural system of concentrating energy harvested from the sun for storage. I have seen no credible proof that our planet's ecosystem is not self regulating. The fact that it still sustains life after millions and millions of years and numerous catstrophic encounters with meteors is pretty hard evidence that it is very self regulating. As far as needing a degree to be able to understand climatology, any climatologist who claims to understand the climate is lying. They don't understand how even the most significant variables interact, much less the literally billions of other variables. They don't know what is happening if anything. There is not enough data collected directly to even begin to plot any sort of trend. This is more-so true when the climate models they do have can't even predict short term trends. They don't truely know anything about what happened before data began to be collected directly. Estimation of statistical data from the distant past to any degree of accuracy when you don't even have a working model of how the system works now is futile. Whithout a doubt, many highly intelligent people are working in the study of this subject. The true scientists are using the scientific method and not saying anything because there is no conclusion to be drawn as of yet. A number of the "leading experts" have been revealed to have fraudulently altered data. These are not scientists. These are grandstanding frauds looking to make a name for themselves and to gain favor and fortune in an area of science that is generally reserved for nameless and dedicated researchers that spend their lives in the persuit of truth and knowledge at a student's salary. For our leaders to create this panic and insist upon sweeping changes to our lifestyle without proof that a problem truely exists is irresponsible at best but likely criminal in some cases. People talk about "following the money" Lets really follow the money. Who stands to get rich from the proposed carbon emission trading schemes and so called "green energy"?
ReplyDeleteCommunists, socialists, nazis, dictators, marxists, collectivists, etc.:
ReplyDeleteSame concept as Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola, Shasta Cola, Tab. All a little different but pretty much the same.
These political systems have three types of participants:
1. The true believers who visualize the perfection of society and mankind.
2. The dictator that claims to offer the path to achieving the perfection of society and mankind.
3. The hard working person who didn't really concern themself with perfecting anything or pay much attention to those who wanted to perfect things.
This is how the story generally goes.
1. The true believers start talking up the idea of perfecting things. They get politically active and start pushing for action against things they see as imperfect.
2. A fast talking power hungry egomanic monster appears on the scene and sees an opportunity to be large and in charge. He tells the true believers what they want to hear, fires them up, gets them sweaty and frothing and talks them into giving him ultimate authority.
3. Perfection does not occur as promised. The fast talking, power hungry, egomaniac monster turned dictator needs an excuse. He blames the hard working person who was busy watching football, washing his car, mowing his lawn, and taking the kids to the ballgame that really didn't enjoy politics. The dictator now starts squeezing that hard working guy hard finacially. Perfection is expensive. True believers are ok with the financial squeeze because its for the good of everyone. Hard working guy grumbles but really hasn't got time to get involved because he's got to take a second job to make the house payment and maintain his standard of living.
4. Time passes, perfection is still not obtained. Lot of complaining about eachother among the true believers and hard working guy.
5. Hard working guy gets tired. Sells or looses house to bank and gets an apartment. True believers are starting to question the ability of the dictator to provide perfection.
6. Dictator's ego is damaged by the questioning of his ability. Silences any questioning. Hard working guy is wondering why he's standing in line to get food. True believer is keeping his mouth shut because he doesn't want anyone to know it was his idea and its just not a good idea to criticize the dictator.
7. Hard working guy has spend the time in the food line contemplating what has happened and he is quite angry. True believers are doing one of three things. A. standing in line with hard working guy whispering that something just isn't right. B. Standing tall and proud along side their hero the dictator, praising him on the perfection he has achieved. or C. Have left the country because conditions have deteriorated to the point where its just not conducive to achieving perfection.
8. Hard working guy stops his hard work.Demands answers and for things to go back to how they were. Dictator and his band loyal true believers slap down the hard working guy for his insolence. Pointing guns at hard working man to force him back to work or be executed.
9. Dictator kicks back with his feet up on his desk admiring his freshly shined shoes and gold watch. Hard working person hunches over an old barrel with the flickering flames of the fire he built with the wood from the couch he used to sit and watch football on. No one believes in perfection anymore. Its only a matter of staying alive or staying in the good graces of the dictator or his appointed authoritarian deputy that you answer to.
Welcome to tyrany.
This has been the history of the world over and over. I really don't see where there are any good points to this system of government. Even the dictator isn't free. He must remain constantly vigilant. Any moment of weakness could result in a coup that would likely end his life and those of his family and friends.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThat is good that Tritium is not as dangerous as many other leakable artifacts from nuclear power.
However, it was something that escaped from the plants despite the best efforts of the scientists and
Engineers that built the plants. If Tritium leaked, what else could also leak out ? A simple question
we should ask ourselves, “Would we want our children to drink the water outside a nuclear plant ?”
Often our instincts provide more clarity in areas that are so complex and politically charged.
We have to look at the entire life of any product, including nuclear power. Granted, during it’s
Operational phase, there may be few by-products other than heated water.
A recent article on Chernobyl states :
“The Ukraine has an issue where authorities have encased the disastrous Chernobyl reactor in a concrete casing
and have abandoned the nearby city and region. Nuclear radiation has helped destroy the casing, and a new concrete
tomb is planned. The entire region of Chernobyl is now threatened by fuel buildup on the forest floor. A forest
fire would pump huge amounts of radiation into the air, which would cross national boundaries. Again, this
storage problem's carbon footprint is low, simply because in case of a fire much of the isotope radiation would
blow into some other country.”
I’m open to new ideas and research, but we should not rush into something until we have answered our own
questions, as a society, as to it’s safety. We are just now learning about addressing product life spans, carbon
footprints and global warming. Obviously, NOW is not the pinnacle of human knowledge, even though every
generation thinks that it is. Look at the damage we caused in the past when we thought that things like tobacco,
DDT, CFC’s, PCB’s and now, Bisphenol A . When our own governmental scientists’ issue reports on the dangers
of global warming, only to have the report altered by politicians – we are deceiving ourselves.
Truly said, the resources are still here, as per the first law of thermodynamics and the profound implications
within E=mc2 . I agree with your statement and prices will go up as supply goes down.
However, the true and complete costs of a product, including energy, must be attached to that product. This is not an
Insignificant point. If there are government subsidies, than the cost is not accurately born by the product. Such is the case
In the huge agricultural subsidies and the annual tax credits our government gives to the oil companies: some of the
Most profitable businesses in human history. If the cost of pollution is not attached to the price of energy from a coal
Fired power plant, that cost, instead, is born by the people down wind, the fishermen down river or the forest suffering from
Acid rain.
For capitalism to work, these costs must be attached and born by the manufacturer of the product and reflected in it’s selling price.
Brian (Part II),
ReplyDeletePollution : While I agree with you about how we have messed up our environment, I must say, pollution is still going on today. We are still choking streams by tearing off mountaintops in search of coal and
(yes) clumping kitty litter. The EPA is just beginning to look at the years of data regarding affects of things like BPA, human Growth hormones and fertilizer runoff. Monsanto, in an effort to make more money, has changed the very DNA of almost 90% of the soy worldwide—resistant to roundup, which they also sell. They are now attacking corn in much the same way. Irradiated foods, they tell us, are fine – just like we were once told that DDT was fine.(And CFC’s , Vioxx, red dye 3, lead in paint, radium on watches—the list is enormous and growing daily).
So, I would suggest that we be very careful, and conservatively assume that anything produced is unsafe until proven otherwise. Who among us wants to ingest something that hasn't been proven safe?
Companies pay for the messes they have made, only when forced to by the government. Even then….
Your statement that CO2 is not a pollutant is more political in nature than scientific and flies in the face of the EPA and thousands of scientists around the world. It is very simplistic to look at a chemical and say that it is safe, simply because under a certain set of circumstances it is. People can die from drinking too much water (hyponatremia).You can suffocate in a room filled with CO2. Fecal material is not a pollutant, until it contaminates the drinking water. The dangers of many things depends on the circumstances- I hope we can agree on that much. CO2 is a by product Of combustion but none of us like to stand downwind of our campfire. The coughing is a clue.
We have seen that the planet stores and moves carbon in the oceans and land masses as part of a self-regulating mechanism. With higher sea waters & less land mass, more life appears(like plankton) in the oceans. As temperatures cool, ice masses are formed, sea levels lower, land is exposed and carbon is trapped in the lands bio mass. An awesome process indeed.
Brian (Part II B)
ReplyDeleteWhat man has done, is take the carbon that has been trapped in the ground from eons of dead dinosaurs ,plants & forests, and we
have released it into the air through the combustion of wood,coal and oil. The Earth, self-regulating (as we both agree) will,and is, already measurably reacting to this.
As the temperature heats up from the heat- trapping properties of the air-borne CO2, ice masses melt, sea levels rise and the oceans will absorb the excess CO2 through many means, including more life. The process continues ad infinitum.
However, in our arrogance, we humans tend to think that we are not animals, that we are somehow not natural; beyond the laws of
Nature that we observe around us. Oddly enough, on one hand we think that we are unaffected by nature; that we can solve any problem that we might create. On the other hand, we say that we are insignificant, that our actions couldn’t possibly affect something as Grand and immense as the Earth itself. To plug any holes in these mutually exclusive paradigms, we create religions, telling ourselves that we humans
are at the center of existence ; created in god’s image to serve him. The concept of us causing our own extinction doesn’t even enter our minds. After all, we have the creator on our side.
So, while I agree with you about Earth being self regulating and life continuing, I must point out that this life does not have to
Include mankind.
Brian (Part II C)
ReplyDeleteScience has brought us most of the comforts of our modern world ; electricity, modern medicine, engineering marvels, space travel,Agriculture, computers and so much more. Why now, when so many scientists worldwide are sounding a very loud alarm—do we turn on them
And refuse to objectively listen to what they’re saying ? Could we indeed be denying the conclusion of the evidence simply because it's inconvenient and difficult to fix ?
Like almost any scientific fact, even gravity or evolution, there are those that don’t buy into the consensus opinion. This is healthy and a part of how we learn. This group of deniers is made up of three subsets : those qualified scientists that look at the data and reach a different conclusion, those scientists that are paid by companies & countries that stand to lose billions if global warming is accepted ( Oil, Coal, Saudi Arabia,etc) and, finally,those unqualified masses that simply follow their own preconceptions and political ideologies as truth, rather than look at the science. Only the scientists that,after reviewing the data, disagree with the conclusion of global warming should be listened to. But there will never be 100% consensus on this or any other scientific “fact”. We all must weigh the potential risks and the preponderance of evidence to come up with a plan of action.
Our leaders have not created this panic. Indeed, for the past 30 years, while more and more scientists were saying that humans were causing a deadly warming of the planet, our leaders (except for maybe Jimmy Carter) denied and ignored that there was any global warming. The conservative republican Bush administration killed funding for a satellite to be sent up to monitor the planet. When a report from their own EPA scientists said that humans were causing global warming, they covered it up, denied it and removed any mention of it in the report. It had to go to the supreme court to be exposed. This is not the way humans should exercise their intelligence. You can’t change reality just because you don’t want it to be a certain way. This is delusional and can have deadly consequences.
Finally, I am with you in your suspicion of cap and trade. On the surface, it could a method to coax the free market to move
Towards self-regulation of emissions, without gov't imposed regulation. But, alas, just like what we’re seeing in the areas of health care and financial reform, the proposal is being distorted so that a number of players can make money out of the system. What a travesty- we must deal with the facts and not see everything through the prism of profit. The Earth doesn’t give a damn about our politics or mega-corporations. We must look at the science and not distort the results based on money.
When you follow the money, I hope that you are also looking at the people that are already making hundreds of billions of dollars from the
System staying the way it is. While you are worried about a speculative future of carbon trading and green energy profits, don’t forget the 100+ years of REAL history of incredible profits made by the Oil, Gas, Coal, Mining, as delivery and transportation sectors; as well as the petro dictator countries like Saudia Arabia, that have brought us radical wahabi Islam and most of the 911 hijackers. These companies and countrys have already funded much propaganda to deny global warming, as detailed in an expose by Nation magazine and others.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteTyranny :
I don't like dictatorships either. Although they may be efficient in some ways, they do not have as thier focus, the happiness and well being of it's citizens.
No system of governance has lasted forever-- we are still experimenting. But some form of organization seems to benefit more people than if it was 'each man for himself'. We have formed tribes and communities since the days of cavemen. We are social animals and instinctively form groups to better accomplish our individual needs. A society is a group of people that agree on certain norms,mores, economic systems and sets of rules under which they interact. A government should be the reflection and embodiment of these agreements. A goal of democracy in particular, is to give voice to the individuals by reflecting thier desires and goals in the government representing them. An ideal, arguably not yet achieved. Unlike some members of the supreme court, I believe that, like society, our constitution should be viewed in light of the society of today. 1776 was very different from 2010.
Our founders recognized the selfish nature of man and created a system with 3 equal branches to balance out each others pursuits of self-interest. A brilliant concept of self regulation.
However, the selfish nature of man has led to some people figuring out ways of circumventing the balance of power built into our democracy.
1)Mass media dominates todays political discourse. By buying and controlling radio, TV and publications, those with money can alter the perceptions of the citizens.
2)By having lengthy and expensive elections, Politicians are more motivated by money in order to get re-elected. Those with money can now sway the decisions made by politicians.
3) By targeting the senate, which gives great power to the minority (even just 1 senator), it takes a relatively small investment to influence laws.
Most of the things that conservatives today are railing about (Deficits, government intrusion into our private lives,redistribution of wealth, special intrust influence, corrupt politicians )--> I have been railing about for years. It now seems very obvious that these problems are not confined to any one party or ideology.
It comes from the influence of money upon our political process. When a new party takes power, large corporations simple change who they pay the money to-- either way,they win. Sprinkle this with a heavy dose of religious fervor, call it 'faith based initiatives', spread the word that we are a 'christian nation' and foment in-fighting among the citizens by replacing news with hate filled radio/tv commentators that always blame "the other side"---> now you have a corporatocracy, very akin to the dictatorship you fear.
While you and I see similar problems, we currently see differant causes. If people like us stop fighting and start to recognize a common enemy to OUR government, then real change will happen. Us talking rationally, right here and now, is part of a begining that is being reflected all around the country.
Beware- the big money powers that control so much, will encourage more and more hate-filled speech- socialist, communist, muslim, marxist, destroyer of the country, liberal--- meanwhile our very government slips more and more into the control of a small group of people that hold over 90% of sll the wealth and influence in this country. We all must be smarter than them and join in what is a common battle for the rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.
Sunday article in the British newspape, "The Independent" :
ReplyDeleteThink-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html
Yes it makes sense that the target (oil companies)of the radical environmentalists (socialists) would respond.
ReplyDeleteThe environmentalists take tax payer money to create panic with bad data. As the truth comes out the money will dry up. They got an expensive ride at tax payer expense. Expect it to end soon.
Most environmentalists are decent people. They are not stupid. They have been lied too by the extreme left.
Terry-- what's with all the "radical environmentalist socialist" jazz ? Why, those damn hippies ! The extreme left ? Like a consiprracy of world-wide scientists ? Please. That talk makes you sound like an old fart-- since we're the same age, I know you're not an O.F. !
ReplyDeleteThe oil companies, like the tobacco companies, were not a target at all--until it was discovered that their products were causing damage to society.
Socialist is a hot-button word to many conservatives. Environmentalists are not socialists. Aspects of socialism pervade our society: the gov't, the VA, police departments, Defense dapartments,Medicare,Soc. Sec'y,Hwy Dept,etc. I don't see any problems with them, do you ?
The truth is that many large corporations are dominating our politics through money : lobbyists,campaign contributions,domination of the national media and $$$$$. While you're worried about "Socialism", the Supreme Court is allowing corporations to spend unlimited funds on campaigns and issue ads.The battles over Financial Reform, Health Care,Energy are dominated by corporate spending. Then there's the Federal Reserve. But I digress.
Does the 'bad data' you mention include the ozone layer, acid rain, DDT,Love Canal,TVA coal/ash ponds, perchlorate in breast milk,acidification of oceans,Bopol India,BCB in plastics and cans,etc ? Or is the inconvenient truth of global warming the problem.
And who are the extreme left ? The 1000's of scientists that met in Copenhagen ? The scientists that informed us of CFC's relation to the shrinking ozone layer ? ( Which was apolitical and we fixed, BTW).
Just why would "radical environmentalists" take tax payer money to perpetuate a lie ? Are they making huge sums of money off this lie ? How does this money balance against the $$ billions made by the Oil companies and the oil-producing nations of the middle east ? I think that they have a bigger reason to fight the idea that thier product is harming the planet.
When the vast majority of scientists, who tend to be apolitical, warn us of incredibly dire consequences if we keep doing something -- Perhaps, being intellectually honest, we should listen to them. Yes, listen to the (albeit few)scientists who disagree, and take any actions that may be needed to avert disaster.
But to DISREGARD these scientists and hold the propoganda of Oil companies and Petro dictatorships as gospel is like listening to the Tobacco companies tell us that smoking is healthy.
When your favorite ski slope is melting from global warming and the trees dying from acid rain (as in parts of NY state)-- THEN , perhaps you will become a radical environmentalist. But then it will be too late to make a difference.
Billionaire David Koch has spent nearly $48 million since 1997 to fund groups that question global warming.
ReplyDeleteKoch also funded the fight agains regulating acid rain, placed numerous anti-EPA lobbyists in the Bush administration, funded Dick Armeys' Tea party group and continues to funnel millions into convincing the public that Global Warming is just a hoax.
Koch Industries is the worlds largest privately held Oil company, soley owned by brothers David and Charles-both multi billionaires.
Exxon Mobile also funnels millions to organizations that deny global warming.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
UK Panel Clears “Climategate” Scientists
ReplyDeleteIn related news, a British parliamentary panel has looked into the so-called “Climategate” controversy and found no evidence to support the charge that a prominent British research center misrepresented data related to global warming. Last year hackers broke into the computer system of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and then released emails from the center’s top scientists. Deniers of global warming had claimed the stolen emails provided evidence of an effort to silence academics who have questioned or downplayed human-driven climate change.
WHO employed THESE HACKERS, BTW ?