I have never been a Democrat. Now I must wonder if I am a Republican. Both parties are behaving like idiots. Uppermost in my mind : The energy problem
( soon to be a crisis ).
There are about ten easy steps to be taken that will solve the problem. I will list a few of them (You all know them unless you are a congressman)
1) Remove all the restrictions on drilling for our oil. This includes the East Coast and the West coast as well as Alaska. The shale oil and tar sands should be developed at once. The environmental impact of this is very small. The petroleum industry has new methods for clean drilling.
2)Get started at once building more nuclear power plants. We have 108 of them at present and they are old but reliable. We could use 100 more. Modern designed plants will be more efficiet and even safer.
3)Shoot the enviromentalist. ( Just kidding ). What I really mean is, the wild eyed ones that are obstructist should be ignored.
There are many more things that need to be done but the above have a wonderful
simplicity and a huge advantage. They would cost the Government nothing. Private industry would gladly do it all at their own expense. We, the struggling public would benefit with lowered gasoline prices.
Unforunately, these measures would take time, years and years. Why didn't we get started ten years ago ? Ask your congressman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As a wild-eyed obstrutist, may I respectfully suggest that we might consider changing our lifestyles so that we are less dependant on oil production. The responsibility for solving the energy crisis begins at home.
There are lots of comments one could make. I will try a different tack that does not try to address a solution.
My feeling is that there are few people in government minding the store.
The question is this:
How is it possible for our elected (and presumably intelligent) officials to NOT see this oil crisis coming?
If I am a "business", I need to keep an eye out for supply/demand, changing market conditions, etc., or I will be out of business real quick.
Energy policy is not a new thing. Our government is failing us time and again with miopic short-sightedness and moral terpitude.
Yes, I must say, I side more with Holly here.
A very well known energy expert, Amory Lovins, is fond of saying, "The cheapest energy is the energy you don't have to produce."
Without utilizing energy strategies that focus on conservation, we are missing one of the big points of progressive policy: increasing efficiency.
I might have at one time argued against nuclear power, but I am coming around a little these days.
What I will say is that increasing production of petroleum is the least efficient means by which we can mitigate a crisis. Increasing efficiency and substitution technology is preferable to increased drilling/tar sand use/etc.
I can back this up with the currency of hard data, if you like. All you have to do is consider the ratio of inputs to outputs if you want to better understand energy efficiency.
It requires so much net energy to produce things like oil from tar sands or ethanol from corn that the product is simply not cost effective without subsidies.
If we stripped away all of the subsidies from the petroleum industry, we would be paying close to $10.00 per gallon.
Nobody wants that, obviously.
Except Big Oil. Nothing increases revenue and profit margins in the energy industry like a crisis.
Remember Enron? You should.
I agree that people need to alter the way they live. But---
We should be trying to avoid the crisis. Maybe my suggestions are not the ultimate answer, just a start.
In a future blog I will discuss some of the many band aids that, taken together would make a huge difference.
Charles Krauthammer's column
which was published in the Houston Chronicle today ( SundayJune 1st )
expresses my thoughts in a much more professional manner than I ,
your humble scribe ever could.
Shoot! You're right, that is an awfully good column.
I just heard a figure the other day discussing how if inputs of (petroleum based) fertilizer were reduced on the major crops in America, corn and wheat, the net affect on emissions would be equal to that of removing ALL of the vehicles on the road in the USA, Germany, and some other country.
Pretty impressive, though I don't know how we could manage agriculture on the scale we do without all the fertilizer.
I don't think there is ever going to be enough data to satisfy both sides of the debate.
So yes, maybe we should stop debating and start doing something about the coming crisis.
Francis, I heard that too! About the fertilizer and its net impact.
Sadly, where I heard it, it was in reference to Genetically Modified Crops - ones that would be twice as efficient at pulling out nitrogen from the ground.
Not sure quite why - maybe I have watched too many Sci-Fi movies, but the prospect of people tinkering with bits and pieces of DNA without understanding the "big picture", tends to scare me.
One day we will tinker with the wrong things and have hell to pay with the consequences.
Yes! We heard the exact same story, on NPR.
I agree that genetically modified crops are scary, and not the way to do it. But we do need to start thinking of doing something differently.
I have this fantasy about generating heavy lightning over agricultural areas. Did you know that lightning actually deposits large amounts of nitrogen onto land, by converting inorganic atmospheric nitrogen into an organic, earthbound version?
If I was a genius, I would be working on this, right now.
Why don't we just help Mexico drill more oil and buy it all from them. We would make them incredibly wealthy and might even make some headway on the illegal immigration problem.
Post a Comment