I had to save this opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. I'll come back to it.
Peter
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
OCTOBER 20, 2008
Obama's Carbon Ultimatum
The coming offer you won't be able to refuse.
Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming "solution." But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama's energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail -- or rather, greenmail -- Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.
AP
Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama's key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.
Well, well. For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.
The EPA hasn't made a secret of how it would like to centrally plan the U.S. economy under the 1970 Clean Air Act. In a blueprint released in July, the agency didn't exactly say it'd collectivize the farms -- but pretty close, down to the "grass clippings." The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of "lawn and garden equipment" as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers.
These costs would far exceed the burden of a straight carbon tax or cap-and-trade system enacted by Congress, because the Clean Air Act was never written to apply to carbon and other greenhouse gases. It's like trying to do brain surgery with a butter knife. Mr. Obama wants to move ahead anyway because he knows that the costs of any carbon program will be high. He knows, too, that Congress -- even with strongly Democratic majorities -- might still balk at supporting tax increases on their constituents, even if it is done in the name of global warming.
Climate-change politics don't break cleanly along partisan lines. The burden of a carbon clampdown will fall disproportionately on some states over others, especially the 25 interior states that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal. Rustbelt manufacturing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will get hit hard too. Once President Bush leaves office, the coastal Democrats pushing hardest for a climate change program might find their colleagues splitting off, especially after they vote for a huge tax increase on incomes.
Thus Messrs. Obama and Grumet want to invoke a political deus ex machina driven by a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act to force Congress's hand. Mr. Obama and Democrats can then tell Americans that Congress must act to tax and regulate carbon to save the country from even worse bureaucratic consequences. It's Mr. Obama's version of Jack Benny's old "your money or your life" routine, but without the punch line.
The strategy is most notable for what it says about the climate-change lobby and its new standard bearer. Supposedly global warming is the transcendent challenge of the age, but Mr. Obama evidently doesn't believe he'll be able to convince his own party to do something about it without a bureaucratic ultimatum. Mr. Grumet justified it this way: "The U.S. has to move quickly domestically . . . We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus."
Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It's another example of "change" you'll be given no choice but to believe in.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
How To Restore Health To The American Economy: Produce More Oil and Gas
How can we restore the health of the American economy? A good place to begin would be producing more oil and gas here in the United States. This would create jobs, keep our dollars here in America rather than sending them to foreign countries, and generate much-needed revenue for Federal, State and local governments. It can be done.
Peter
Why We Need to Add to Production
(source)
In an energy interdependent world, we need common sense energy policies that provide access to conventional energy supplies, encourage energy efficiency, and promote continued development of new energy technologies. Common sense dictates that increasing our ability to produce energy from American resources – including crude oil and natural gas -- must be part of the mix. If energy companies are prevented from exploring for and producing oil and natural gas here at home in the United States, they face stiff competition overseas from national oil companies for untapped resources.
We currently import more than 60 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products we use. U.S. oil and natural gas companies don’t set crude oil prices -- the world market does. While we should not expect to be able to generate all the energy we need from within our own borders, each unit of energy we produce here at home is one we do not have to import. In particular, as long as demand for clean burning natural gas continues to increase, we will need access to new supplies of natural gas. We are fortunate to have considerable natural gas resources in the United States and elsewhere in North America. Federal lands are estimated to hold an estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to heat 60 million homes for 160 years (60 million homes in the United States are heated by natural gas).
If we stopped drilling new wells, U.S. production would fall rapidly and likely cease altogether within 20-25 years. As old wells reach the point where they are no longer economic to produce, they have to be replaced by new ones. This makes it important that we continue to explore for oil and gas, adding new production sources to those that are already on their inevitable decline. Without new wells adding to U.S. supplies, our volume of imports will have to continue to increase to make up the shortfall.
A report prepared in July 2000 by the Energy Information Administration titled Accelerated Depletion: Assessing Its Impacts on Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Prices and Production remains very relevant today. This report explains why we have to work harder just to stay even when it comes to oil and gas production:
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) report was designed to examine the trend of accelerated depletion and its impacts. Accelerated depletion means that resources found today tend to have much steeper (rapid) decline curves than those found 20 years ago. After a detailed analysis of various alternative scenarios, EIA underscored the importance and interplay of two factors: technology and access to resources on government lands. The EIA report indicates that, for at least the next two decades, the potential negative effects from the accelerated depletion of existing reserves could be offset by an increase in the rate at which new technologies are introduced in the oil and gas industry and by a relaxation of restrictions on drilling on federal [government] lands.
Federal restrictions -- including the decades-old Outer Continental Shelf leasing moratoria lifted Oct. 1, 2008 - have kept significant volumes of our oil and natural gas resources off-limits. These are vital resources that Americans rely upon for our economy and our way of life. Even where leases are granted, restrictions on how those leases are developed essentially preclude development of the resources. We can no longer afford to place off-limits access to vast federal oil and natural gas resources.
Although “energy independence” may not be possible, “energy interdependence” is a reality, and producing more oil and natural gas resources within our borders will be the key to enabling us to maintain a healthy economy in an interdependent world.
Peter
Why We Need to Add to Production
(source)
In an energy interdependent world, we need common sense energy policies that provide access to conventional energy supplies, encourage energy efficiency, and promote continued development of new energy technologies. Common sense dictates that increasing our ability to produce energy from American resources – including crude oil and natural gas -- must be part of the mix. If energy companies are prevented from exploring for and producing oil and natural gas here at home in the United States, they face stiff competition overseas from national oil companies for untapped resources.
We currently import more than 60 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products we use. U.S. oil and natural gas companies don’t set crude oil prices -- the world market does. While we should not expect to be able to generate all the energy we need from within our own borders, each unit of energy we produce here at home is one we do not have to import. In particular, as long as demand for clean burning natural gas continues to increase, we will need access to new supplies of natural gas. We are fortunate to have considerable natural gas resources in the United States and elsewhere in North America. Federal lands are estimated to hold an estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to heat 60 million homes for 160 years (60 million homes in the United States are heated by natural gas).
If we stopped drilling new wells, U.S. production would fall rapidly and likely cease altogether within 20-25 years. As old wells reach the point where they are no longer economic to produce, they have to be replaced by new ones. This makes it important that we continue to explore for oil and gas, adding new production sources to those that are already on their inevitable decline. Without new wells adding to U.S. supplies, our volume of imports will have to continue to increase to make up the shortfall.
A report prepared in July 2000 by the Energy Information Administration titled Accelerated Depletion: Assessing Its Impacts on Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Prices and Production remains very relevant today. This report explains why we have to work harder just to stay even when it comes to oil and gas production:
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) report was designed to examine the trend of accelerated depletion and its impacts. Accelerated depletion means that resources found today tend to have much steeper (rapid) decline curves than those found 20 years ago. After a detailed analysis of various alternative scenarios, EIA underscored the importance and interplay of two factors: technology and access to resources on government lands. The EIA report indicates that, for at least the next two decades, the potential negative effects from the accelerated depletion of existing reserves could be offset by an increase in the rate at which new technologies are introduced in the oil and gas industry and by a relaxation of restrictions on drilling on federal [government] lands.
Federal restrictions -- including the decades-old Outer Continental Shelf leasing moratoria lifted Oct. 1, 2008 - have kept significant volumes of our oil and natural gas resources off-limits. These are vital resources that Americans rely upon for our economy and our way of life. Even where leases are granted, restrictions on how those leases are developed essentially preclude development of the resources. We can no longer afford to place off-limits access to vast federal oil and natural gas resources.
Although “energy independence” may not be possible, “energy interdependence” is a reality, and producing more oil and natural gas resources within our borders will be the key to enabling us to maintain a healthy economy in an interdependent world.
Global Warming In The Recent Past
The following article presents convincing, scientific evidence that the climate in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic was warmer than today, as little as 6,000 years ago. Whatever caused this warming was obviously not man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide. CO2, as we all know is being blamed for "global warming" and catastrophic climate change.
It makes no sense that the natural forces (solar energy) which controlled climate in the past are not at work in the same way today. The fear of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is unfounded. Another thought, how did the polar bears, and other species, survive this past warming? Do the global warming alarmists pay any attention to facts and real world observations? It seems clear they do not.
Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
Open sea
”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says.
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
Inuit immigration
The mapping at 82 degrees North took place in summer 2007 as part of the LongTerm project, a sub-project of the major International Polar Year project, SciencePub. The scientists also studied ruined settlements dating from the first Inuit immigration to these desolate coasts.
The first people from Alaska and Canada, called the Independence I Culture, travelled north-east as far as they could go on land as long ago as 4000-4500 years ago. The scientists have found out that drift ice had formed on the sea again in this period, which was essential for the Inuit in connection with their hunting. No beach ridges have been formed since then.
”Seals and driftwood were absolutely vital if they were to survive. They needed seals for food and clothing, and driftwood for fuel when the temperature crept towards minus 50 degrees. For us, it is inconceivable and extremely impressive,” says Eiliv Larsen, the NGU scientist and geologist.
It makes no sense that the natural forces (solar energy) which controlled climate in the past are not at work in the same way today. The fear of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions is unfounded. Another thought, how did the polar bears, and other species, survive this past warming? Do the global warming alarmists pay any attention to facts and real world observations? It seems clear they do not.
Obviously, sea level was higher 6,000 years ago, there was far less sea ice in the Arctic, and humans lived in areas that became uninhabitable to them because of cooling, not warming. Climate scientists must address the causes of the climate changes of the recent past before spreading fear about carbon dioxide emissions. It has warmed and cooled many times, long before humans could possibly have had any impact. Blaming our current climate change on carbon dioxide emissions simply makes no sense, nor does it explain verifiable, real world observations as reported in the following article.
Peter
Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
BEACH RIDGE: The scientists believe that this beach ridge in North Greenland formed by wave activity about 6000-7000 years ago. This implies that there was more open sea in this region than there is today. (Click the picture for a larger image) Photo: Astrid Lyså, NGU
PACK-ICE RIDGE: Pack-ice ridges form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Shore features
Together with her NGU colleague, ICE COVER: Today, at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGUEiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
Together with her NGU colleague, ICE COVER: Today, at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGUEiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced SETTLEMENT: Astrid Lyså in August 2007 in the ruined settlement left by the Independence I Culture in North Greenland. The first immigrants to these inhospitable regions succumbed to the elements nearly 4000 years ago, when the climate became colder again. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGUits formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså tells me.
Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
Open sea
”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says.
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
Inuit immigration
The mapping at 82 degrees North took place in summer 2007 as part of the LongTerm project, a sub-project of the major International Polar Year project, SciencePub. The scientists also studied ruined settlements dating from the first Inuit immigration to these desolate coasts.
The first people from Alaska and Canada, called the Independence I Culture, travelled north-east as far as they could go on land as long ago as 4000-4500 years ago. The scientists have found out that drift ice had formed on the sea again in this period, which was essential for the Inuit in connection with their hunting. No beach ridges have been formed since then.
”Seals and driftwood were absolutely vital if they were to survive. They needed seals for food and clothing, and driftwood for fuel when the temperature crept towards minus 50 degrees. For us, it is inconceivable and extremely impressive,” says Eiliv Larsen, the NGU scientist and geologist.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Carbon Dioxide Sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery
I think the problem with this idea is the capture and transport of carbon dioxide to use in enhanced oil recover is prohibitively expensive. Any comments?
Peter
News Media Contact(s):Craig Stevens, 202/586-4940
For Immediate ReleaseMarch 3, 2006 (source)
New CO2 Enhanced Recovery Technology Could Greatly Boost U.S. Oil
WASHINGTON , D.C. – The Department of Energy (DOE) released today reports indicating that state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery techniques could significantly increase recoverable oil resources of the United States in the future. According to the findings, 89 billion barrels or more could eventually be added to the current U.S. proven reserves of 21.4 billion barrels.
“These promising new technologies could further help us reduce our reliance on foreign sources of oil,” Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said. “By using the proven technique of carbon sequestration, we get the double benefit of taking carbon dioxide out of air while getting more oil out of the earth.”
The 89 billion barrel jump in resources was one of a number of possible increases identified in a series of assessments done for DOE which also found that, in the longer term, multiple advances in technology and widespread sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide could eventually add as much as 430 billion new barrels to the technically recoverable resource.
If the 89 billion barrels in resources is converted to reserves, the U.S. would be fifth in the world behind Iraq with 115 billion barrels, and an additional 430 billion barrels would make it first, ahead of Saudi Arabia with 261 billion barrels.
Next-generation enhanced recovery with carbon dioxide was judged to be a “game-changer” in oil production, one capable of doubling recovery efficiency. And geologic sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide in declining oil fields was endorsed last year as a potential method of reducing greenhouse base emissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The assessments looked at maximizing oil production and accelerating the productive use of carbon dioxide in all categories of petroleum resources, including as-yet undiscovered oil and the new resources in the residual oil zone. The findings are consolidated in the February 2006 report Undeveloped Domestic Oil Resources: The Foundation for Increasing Oil Production and a Viable Domestic Oil Industry.
The 430 billion barrel potential was identified in increments of up to 110 billon barrels from applying today's state-of-the-art enhanced recovery in discovered fields – 90 billion in light oil, 20 billion in heavy oil; up to 179 billion barrels from undiscovered oil – 119 billion from conventional technology, 60 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 111 billion barrels from reserve growth – 71 billion from conventional technology, 40 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 20 billion from tapping the residual oil zone with enhanced recovery; and, another 10 billion from tar sands.
The separate assessments and reports contributing to the total resource estimate are: Basin Oriented Assessments, ten assessments of producing U.S. basins and the potential of state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery; Stranded Oil in the Residual Oil Zone (ROZ), five reports looking at new resources in the residual oil zone; and, Evaluation of the Potential for "Game-Changer" Improvements in Oil Recovery Efficiency for CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, a report on next-generation technology. They were prepared by Advanced Resources International and Melzer Consulting.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.
Peter
News Media Contact(s):Craig Stevens, 202/586-4940
For Immediate ReleaseMarch 3, 2006 (source)
New CO2 Enhanced Recovery Technology Could Greatly Boost U.S. Oil
WASHINGTON , D.C. – The Department of Energy (DOE) released today reports indicating that state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery techniques could significantly increase recoverable oil resources of the United States in the future. According to the findings, 89 billion barrels or more could eventually be added to the current U.S. proven reserves of 21.4 billion barrels.
“These promising new technologies could further help us reduce our reliance on foreign sources of oil,” Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said. “By using the proven technique of carbon sequestration, we get the double benefit of taking carbon dioxide out of air while getting more oil out of the earth.”
The 89 billion barrel jump in resources was one of a number of possible increases identified in a series of assessments done for DOE which also found that, in the longer term, multiple advances in technology and widespread sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide could eventually add as much as 430 billion new barrels to the technically recoverable resource.
If the 89 billion barrels in resources is converted to reserves, the U.S. would be fifth in the world behind Iraq with 115 billion barrels, and an additional 430 billion barrels would make it first, ahead of Saudi Arabia with 261 billion barrels.
Next-generation enhanced recovery with carbon dioxide was judged to be a “game-changer” in oil production, one capable of doubling recovery efficiency. And geologic sequestration of industrial carbon dioxide in declining oil fields was endorsed last year as a potential method of reducing greenhouse base emissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The assessments looked at maximizing oil production and accelerating the productive use of carbon dioxide in all categories of petroleum resources, including as-yet undiscovered oil and the new resources in the residual oil zone. The findings are consolidated in the February 2006 report Undeveloped Domestic Oil Resources: The Foundation for Increasing Oil Production and a Viable Domestic Oil Industry.
The 430 billion barrel potential was identified in increments of up to 110 billon barrels from applying today's state-of-the-art enhanced recovery in discovered fields – 90 billion in light oil, 20 billion in heavy oil; up to 179 billion barrels from undiscovered oil – 119 billion from conventional technology, 60 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 111 billion barrels from reserve growth – 71 billion from conventional technology, 40 billion from enhanced recovery; up to 20 billion from tapping the residual oil zone with enhanced recovery; and, another 10 billion from tar sands.
The separate assessments and reports contributing to the total resource estimate are: Basin Oriented Assessments, ten assessments of producing U.S. basins and the potential of state-of-the-art enhanced oil recovery; Stranded Oil in the Residual Oil Zone (ROZ), five reports looking at new resources in the residual oil zone; and, Evaluation of the Potential for "Game-Changer" Improvements in Oil Recovery Efficiency for CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, a report on next-generation technology. They were prepared by Advanced Resources International and Melzer Consulting.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.
The "Green Movement" Hurts the Poor
The so-called "Green Movement" which supposedly seeks to stop global warming and control climate change by limiting carbon dioxide emissions, or more specifically the use of "fossil fuels", (coal, oil, and gas), is hurting and will harm the poorest people first. These efforts raise the cost of everything we use, and everything we do. The world's poor will of course suffer first, and to a greater degree than anyone. Consider the following article. It really has nothing to do with "race", it is about politics, ideology, and the economy. Think carefully about who you vote for.
Peter
It Takes Green to Go Green
Are liberal environmental policies hurting poor black communities? Conservatives think so!
MSNBC.com
Updated: 6:29 PM ET Oct 7, 2008 (source)
Oct. 8, 2008--Failing schools, crime and single-parent households are just a few of the challenges facing urban communities. Now, thanks to radical environmentalists and their supporters, a bunch I like to call "Club Green," they must face soaring energy as well.
"Club Green" enthusiasts are everywhere these days; their ideology is part of the liberal orthodoxy, and I, for one, want nothing to do with them. They are against oil exploration in Alaska and off our coasts. They took a hit last month when Congress voted to end a moratorium on offshore drilling, ending a 26-year ban on new leases. But this boon to domestic energy production could be fleeting, according to House Appropriations Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin, who told reporters, "This next election will decide what our drilling policy is going to be."
Environmentalists and their liberal backers are also blocking the construction of new coal-fired power plants that produce electricity. Plans for 59 coal-based power plants were canceled in 2007, and plans for 50 others are now being challenged.
All this leads to higher energy prices and pain in the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it—poor, black people living in struggling neighborhoods.
According to the Census Bureau's 2007 American Community Survey, the annual median black household income was $34,001 and $40,766 for Hispanics—well below the $50,740 national median. Additionally, 24.7 percent of blacks and 20.7 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty. As energy prices climb, they lose a higher percentage of their take-home pay to increased energy costs—leaving less for things such as savings, education and health care.
Seeking empathy may be asking too much.
Al Gore, the environmentalists' spiritual leader, lectured in Washington, D.C. in July about phasing out fossil fuels. Despite his righteous talk about stopping the "catastrophic" effects of global warming, Gore can't seem to walk the walk.
He flies in private planes, and his Tennessee mansion surely uses much more energy than the average American home. As Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, pointed out in a recent blog post, Gore was chauffeured to his July speech in a gas-guzzling motorcade of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV. There's nothing wrong with enjoying one's wealth, but it's hypocritical when Gore asks others to sacrifice their standards of living but does not seem to do the same.
Powerful special interests such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund—with operating budgets in the tens of millions of dollars paying for lobbying, ads and grassroots organizing—also part of the "Club Green" phenomenon. They are joined by celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crow.
Businesses are also joining in, and sometimes for less than altruistic reasons. General Electric, for instance, makes wind turbines. It's therefore no surprise that GE subsidiary NBC Universal promoted environmental policies during its "Green Week" earlier this year by encouraging "…viewers and fans to go green with green-themed programming across all of its channels and affiliates aimed at entertaining, informing and empowering Americans to lead greener lives."
Despite the hype about wind power and boasts about other renewable energy sources, 85 percent of our nation's energy comes from fossil fuels. Energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar only currently provide about 7 percent of our power and cannot replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
In its September 2008 report, the federal Energy Information Agency predicteda 25 percent rise in heating oil prices and a 17 percent rise in natural gas prices this winter as well as a 9.5 percent projected increase in electricity costs in 2009. Adding to that, gasoline still hovers near $4 a gallon, and the public demands more domestic energy production. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 67 percent supported new offshore fossil fuel exploration.
Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resources. The problem is that Congress, at the demand of Club Green, blocks access to these resources at the peril of families.
What's disturbing is that, like Gore, many of Club Green's leaders are among the elite. They are the wealthy, famous, politically-connected and largely immune to the sticker shock of high energy costs.
Something is terribly wrong because the wealth and the political access of a few are being used to dictate how everyone should live.
Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21, a national network of black executives.
Peter
It Takes Green to Go Green
Are liberal environmental policies hurting poor black communities? Conservatives think so!
MSNBC.com
Updated: 6:29 PM ET Oct 7, 2008 (source)
Oct. 8, 2008--Failing schools, crime and single-parent households are just a few of the challenges facing urban communities. Now, thanks to radical environmentalists and their supporters, a bunch I like to call "Club Green," they must face soaring energy as well.
"Club Green" enthusiasts are everywhere these days; their ideology is part of the liberal orthodoxy, and I, for one, want nothing to do with them. They are against oil exploration in Alaska and off our coasts. They took a hit last month when Congress voted to end a moratorium on offshore drilling, ending a 26-year ban on new leases. But this boon to domestic energy production could be fleeting, according to House Appropriations Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin, who told reporters, "This next election will decide what our drilling policy is going to be."
Environmentalists and their liberal backers are also blocking the construction of new coal-fired power plants that produce electricity. Plans for 59 coal-based power plants were canceled in 2007, and plans for 50 others are now being challenged.
All this leads to higher energy prices and pain in the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it—poor, black people living in struggling neighborhoods.
According to the Census Bureau's 2007 American Community Survey, the annual median black household income was $34,001 and $40,766 for Hispanics—well below the $50,740 national median. Additionally, 24.7 percent of blacks and 20.7 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty. As energy prices climb, they lose a higher percentage of their take-home pay to increased energy costs—leaving less for things such as savings, education and health care.
Seeking empathy may be asking too much.
Al Gore, the environmentalists' spiritual leader, lectured in Washington, D.C. in July about phasing out fossil fuels. Despite his righteous talk about stopping the "catastrophic" effects of global warming, Gore can't seem to walk the walk.
He flies in private planes, and his Tennessee mansion surely uses much more energy than the average American home. As Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, pointed out in a recent blog post, Gore was chauffeured to his July speech in a gas-guzzling motorcade of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV. There's nothing wrong with enjoying one's wealth, but it's hypocritical when Gore asks others to sacrifice their standards of living but does not seem to do the same.
Powerful special interests such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund—with operating budgets in the tens of millions of dollars paying for lobbying, ads and grassroots organizing—also part of the "Club Green" phenomenon. They are joined by celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crow.
Businesses are also joining in, and sometimes for less than altruistic reasons. General Electric, for instance, makes wind turbines. It's therefore no surprise that GE subsidiary NBC Universal promoted environmental policies during its "Green Week" earlier this year by encouraging "…viewers and fans to go green with green-themed programming across all of its channels and affiliates aimed at entertaining, informing and empowering Americans to lead greener lives."
Despite the hype about wind power and boasts about other renewable energy sources, 85 percent of our nation's energy comes from fossil fuels. Energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar only currently provide about 7 percent of our power and cannot replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
In its September 2008 report, the federal Energy Information Agency predicteda 25 percent rise in heating oil prices and a 17 percent rise in natural gas prices this winter as well as a 9.5 percent projected increase in electricity costs in 2009. Adding to that, gasoline still hovers near $4 a gallon, and the public demands more domestic energy production. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 67 percent supported new offshore fossil fuel exploration.
Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resources. The problem is that Congress, at the demand of Club Green, blocks access to these resources at the peril of families.
What's disturbing is that, like Gore, many of Club Green's leaders are among the elite. They are the wealthy, famous, politically-connected and largely immune to the sticker shock of high energy costs.
Something is terribly wrong because the wealth and the political access of a few are being used to dictate how everyone should live.
Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21, a national network of black executives.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Very Bad Idea: Following Europe's Lead On Climate Change
These are dangerous economic times. I hope we don't make things worse by following Europe's example of trying to control "global warming" and climate change. Consider the following:
Peter
Following Europe's Lead on Climate Change
Paul Driessen Saturday, October 11, 2008 (source)http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2008/10/11/following_europes_lead_on_climate_change?page=1
Environmentalists, journalists and politicians say tough climate legislation is a moral imperative. Global warming science is settled, the United States is out of step with other nations, America must follow Europe’s lead to prevent climate chaos.
It’s great rhetoric. But which European lead should we follow? And how is it morally responsible to enact climate legislation that kills jobs and punishes families and businesses, to reduce global temperatures by perhaps 0.2 degrees?
There is no “consensus” on the “problem” or “solution.” Over 32,000 scientists, including hundreds of climate scientists, vigorously disagree with the assertion that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause a climate cataclysm.
Long ago ice ages and interglacial periods, the Sahara’s shift from verdant valleys to parched desert, and protracted droughts in the Yucatan and American Southwest had nothing to do with humans, they note. Sunspot counts are now at a 50-year low, indicating reduced solar activity and possibly explaining why planetary temperatures haven’t risen in a decade, despite soaring CO2 levels, say solar experts. Some computer models predict major climatic shifts, but they don’t include solar and other natural factors.
Hydrocarbons provide 85% of all US energy. They are the foundation of an economy that has been shaken to its core and may be entering a recession. Wind and solar represent less than 0.5% – and provide only intermittent auxiliary power. The new “Lights out in 2009?” study warns that the United States “faces potentially crippling brownouts and blackouts,” beginning in 2009, especially in regions that experience prolonged hot spells during summer months, due to insufficient generating capacity.
A bank that wanted to install solar panels found it would cost $850,000 – but would cut only 12% off its electricity bill. That meant it would take 90 years to pay off panels would last only 30 years. Fiscal and technological realities must remain the foundation of “social responsibility.”
House Democrats are nevertheless promoting new cap-and-trade legislation that could be even more punitive than Warner-Lieberman, which even sponsors admitted would cost nearly $7 trillion. They oppose oil and gas drilling, and new coal, nuclear and hydroelectric plants. Many want to “transform” our energy and economic system – from one that works to one based on heavily subsidized technologies that aren’t ready for prime time, and may not exist for decades.
We have to do our part, they insist, and join other nations in “saving the planet.” But which “responsible” leaders should we follow?
* Countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels? Or those whose actual emissions are well above their Kyoto targets: eg, Portugal 12% above, Italy 17% above, Spain 22% above, Denmark 25% above, Canada 27% above?
* A European Union that solved this predicament by agreeing to slash emissions 20% by 2020 – and presumably 30% by 2030 (or 40 by 40) when this new promise also proves too difficult or painful?
* Angela Merkel 2006, who promised to eliminate coal and nuclear power in Germany – or the chancellor of today, who wants to build new coal-fired power plants and shield chemical, steel, manufacturing, cement and automotive industries, by reducing emission goals or providing free cap-and-trade permits.
* Poland and other former Eastern Bloc nations, which intend to block a new EU climate change agreement, because they depend on coal for up to 90% of their electricity and on Russia for up to 97% of their natural gas, were held back for 50 years under Communist dictators – and now are loathe to be kept from developing by dictates from Brussels?
* EU companies that received “climate care” plaudits a few years ago – but now threaten to move jobs overseas, unless they receive preferential treatment under onerous emission controls?
* Britain, where politicians are being pummeled because climate taxes and skyrocketing energy prices have forced 5.5 million households to live in “fuel poverty”?
* Canada, where 78% of the citizens feel they have been mislead about the costs and benefits of Kyoto, and want fair and objective information from the media and politicians?
* The Australia of 2007, which supported taking action on climate change by a 55% margin? Or the Down Under of 2008, which opposed such action by 55% before the global financial meltdown?
* China and India, which put reducing rampant poverty, with its high human and environmental costs, ahead of the speculative effects of future climate change – and say they will be better able to adapt to climate changes (natural or human) if they are rich and technologically advanced?
* Countries that want to help impoverished nations develop abundant, reliable, affordable energy to reduce lung and intestinal disease and death, by bringing prosperity, safe water, refrigeration and modern hospitals? Or those that tell African and other destitute countries they must be satisfied with pitiful amounts of intermittent energy from “sustainable” sources like wind and solar?
* Al Gore, the prophet of ecological doom? Or Al Gore who flies only private jets, owns a fancy houseboat, and uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year?
* Bureaucrats, scientists and politicians who seek open, robust, honest debate on climate change? Or those who use global warming hysteria to secure research grants, control every aspect of our energy and economic lives, and attend conferences at four-star resorts in Bali?
* Or perhaps three Italian ministers, who called the EU climate action plan “politically correct garbage” that “would kill any economic improvement” and “achieve very modest environmental benefits,” in a period of international economic difficulties that call for prudent decision-making?
California gets much of its electricity from coal-fired power plants located 600 miles from Los Angeles – enabling it to claim it’s “a leader” in curbing carbon dioxide. (It also gets substantial electricity from a nuclear power plant in Arizona, and most of its oil from Alaska.) Utah, on the other hand, generates most of its electricity from coal-fired plants within the state.
How many states can outsource their power and pollution? Which ones have more affordable electricity and gasoline, enabling poor families to live better on lower incomes – and still have money left for college, retirement, healthcare and charity? Which states are the more socially responsible leaders?
Morality, environmental justice and corporate social responsibility are too often defined by narrowly-focused environmental ideologies. They are too often winner-takes-all contests, pitting rich countries and eco-elites against poor families and nations that must worry more about immediate life-or-death concerns than speculative human-caused climate chaos. They too often replace rough-and-tumble debate over science and economics with intimidation and dogmatism.
We need to protect our economies, jobs and planet. We need conservation and all forms of energy – whatever works best, at lowest cost, for particular cities, states, regions and nations.
Will we follow politicians and activists who offer fear-mongering and utopian promises, as they lead us lemming-like off an economic cliff? Or will we follow leaders who offer honest, unflinching analysis and sound judgment – and stop us short of the precipice?
Peter
Following Europe's Lead on Climate Change
Paul Driessen Saturday, October 11, 2008 (source)http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2008/10/11/following_europes_lead_on_climate_change?page=1
Environmentalists, journalists and politicians say tough climate legislation is a moral imperative. Global warming science is settled, the United States is out of step with other nations, America must follow Europe’s lead to prevent climate chaos.
It’s great rhetoric. But which European lead should we follow? And how is it morally responsible to enact climate legislation that kills jobs and punishes families and businesses, to reduce global temperatures by perhaps 0.2 degrees?
There is no “consensus” on the “problem” or “solution.” Over 32,000 scientists, including hundreds of climate scientists, vigorously disagree with the assertion that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause a climate cataclysm.
Long ago ice ages and interglacial periods, the Sahara’s shift from verdant valleys to parched desert, and protracted droughts in the Yucatan and American Southwest had nothing to do with humans, they note. Sunspot counts are now at a 50-year low, indicating reduced solar activity and possibly explaining why planetary temperatures haven’t risen in a decade, despite soaring CO2 levels, say solar experts. Some computer models predict major climatic shifts, but they don’t include solar and other natural factors.
Hydrocarbons provide 85% of all US energy. They are the foundation of an economy that has been shaken to its core and may be entering a recession. Wind and solar represent less than 0.5% – and provide only intermittent auxiliary power. The new “Lights out in 2009?” study warns that the United States “faces potentially crippling brownouts and blackouts,” beginning in 2009, especially in regions that experience prolonged hot spells during summer months, due to insufficient generating capacity.
A bank that wanted to install solar panels found it would cost $850,000 – but would cut only 12% off its electricity bill. That meant it would take 90 years to pay off panels would last only 30 years. Fiscal and technological realities must remain the foundation of “social responsibility.”
House Democrats are nevertheless promoting new cap-and-trade legislation that could be even more punitive than Warner-Lieberman, which even sponsors admitted would cost nearly $7 trillion. They oppose oil and gas drilling, and new coal, nuclear and hydroelectric plants. Many want to “transform” our energy and economic system – from one that works to one based on heavily subsidized technologies that aren’t ready for prime time, and may not exist for decades.
We have to do our part, they insist, and join other nations in “saving the planet.” But which “responsible” leaders should we follow?
* Countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels? Or those whose actual emissions are well above their Kyoto targets: eg, Portugal 12% above, Italy 17% above, Spain 22% above, Denmark 25% above, Canada 27% above?
* A European Union that solved this predicament by agreeing to slash emissions 20% by 2020 – and presumably 30% by 2030 (or 40 by 40) when this new promise also proves too difficult or painful?
* Angela Merkel 2006, who promised to eliminate coal and nuclear power in Germany – or the chancellor of today, who wants to build new coal-fired power plants and shield chemical, steel, manufacturing, cement and automotive industries, by reducing emission goals or providing free cap-and-trade permits.
* Poland and other former Eastern Bloc nations, which intend to block a new EU climate change agreement, because they depend on coal for up to 90% of their electricity and on Russia for up to 97% of their natural gas, were held back for 50 years under Communist dictators – and now are loathe to be kept from developing by dictates from Brussels?
* EU companies that received “climate care” plaudits a few years ago – but now threaten to move jobs overseas, unless they receive preferential treatment under onerous emission controls?
* Britain, where politicians are being pummeled because climate taxes and skyrocketing energy prices have forced 5.5 million households to live in “fuel poverty”?
* Canada, where 78% of the citizens feel they have been mislead about the costs and benefits of Kyoto, and want fair and objective information from the media and politicians?
* The Australia of 2007, which supported taking action on climate change by a 55% margin? Or the Down Under of 2008, which opposed such action by 55% before the global financial meltdown?
* China and India, which put reducing rampant poverty, with its high human and environmental costs, ahead of the speculative effects of future climate change – and say they will be better able to adapt to climate changes (natural or human) if they are rich and technologically advanced?
* Countries that want to help impoverished nations develop abundant, reliable, affordable energy to reduce lung and intestinal disease and death, by bringing prosperity, safe water, refrigeration and modern hospitals? Or those that tell African and other destitute countries they must be satisfied with pitiful amounts of intermittent energy from “sustainable” sources like wind and solar?
* Al Gore, the prophet of ecological doom? Or Al Gore who flies only private jets, owns a fancy houseboat, and uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year?
* Bureaucrats, scientists and politicians who seek open, robust, honest debate on climate change? Or those who use global warming hysteria to secure research grants, control every aspect of our energy and economic lives, and attend conferences at four-star resorts in Bali?
* Or perhaps three Italian ministers, who called the EU climate action plan “politically correct garbage” that “would kill any economic improvement” and “achieve very modest environmental benefits,” in a period of international economic difficulties that call for prudent decision-making?
California gets much of its electricity from coal-fired power plants located 600 miles from Los Angeles – enabling it to claim it’s “a leader” in curbing carbon dioxide. (It also gets substantial electricity from a nuclear power plant in Arizona, and most of its oil from Alaska.) Utah, on the other hand, generates most of its electricity from coal-fired plants within the state.
How many states can outsource their power and pollution? Which ones have more affordable electricity and gasoline, enabling poor families to live better on lower incomes – and still have money left for college, retirement, healthcare and charity? Which states are the more socially responsible leaders?
Morality, environmental justice and corporate social responsibility are too often defined by narrowly-focused environmental ideologies. They are too often winner-takes-all contests, pitting rich countries and eco-elites against poor families and nations that must worry more about immediate life-or-death concerns than speculative human-caused climate chaos. They too often replace rough-and-tumble debate over science and economics with intimidation and dogmatism.
We need to protect our economies, jobs and planet. We need conservation and all forms of energy – whatever works best, at lowest cost, for particular cities, states, regions and nations.
Will we follow politicians and activists who offer fear-mongering and utopian promises, as they lead us lemming-like off an economic cliff? Or will we follow leaders who offer honest, unflinching analysis and sound judgment – and stop us short of the precipice?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Smug Alert!
Smug Alert! is episode 1002 of South Park. It first aired on March 29, 2006, as a send-up of the environmental movement, hybrid cars, their celebrity proponents and the superficial feel-good nature of all involved. Gerald Broflovski buys a hybrid vehicle and buys into the whole progressive movement, becoming an evangelist, moving his family out of South Park, disturbing a delicate equilibrium and indirectly causing an environmental disaster along the way.
[edit] Plot
Kyle's father Gerald buys a new hybrid car, a Toyonda Pious, and drives around showing it off to everyone. He begins an unwelcomed campaign to convert the other townspeople to environmentally friendly vehicles. This behaviour annoys his friend Randy, who complains that Gerald now preachily talks with his eyes closed, and that he almost likes the smell of his own farts. Deciding that they cannot live among such backward, unsophisticated folk, Gerald decides to move his family to San Francisco.
Stan is horrified that his best friend is leaving South Park, but Gerald informs him that he will not be returning until everyone feels the same way as him about the environment.
Cartman is joyous over Kyle's leaving and, after holding a farewell party for Kyle that everyone but Kyle is invited to attend, not celebrating Kyle, but the fact that Kyle is leaving. He decides to fill the void by ripping on Butters, whom he now calls a "stupid Jew". Stan coldly predicts that, without Kyle around to rip on, Cartman's life will be empty.
After the Broflovskis leave, Stan writes a repetitive song about the importance of hybrid cars, which finds its way onto the radio and, incredibly, causes everyone to drive hybrids — and act as smugly as Gerald. Stan is praised for opening everyone's eyes but soon bumps into Ranger McFriendly, protector of the environment, who surprisingly criticises what he has done: although smog rates are down, people who drive hybrids create a toxic gas in the air called "smug", and South Park now has the second-highest levels in the country, after San Francisco.
In San Francisco, Kyle's father is glad to meet like-minded "progressive" people, who, in mid-conversation, fart loudly, bend over and inhale with pleasure, before resuming discussions of their philosophies. Kyle finds it difficult to fit in with the other kids, who take drugs to deal with their parents' "smugginess". Kyle refuses the offer of acid but, after seeing that his dad is even more arrogant than before (sniffing his own fart), asks for "maybe just half a hit," while his brother Ike takes three.
The cloud of smug forms over South Park and begins to combine with that of San Francisco. In a series of scenes parodying the film The Perfect Storm, McFriendly reveals that the cloud of smug from George Clooney's 78th Academy Awards acceptance speech (which claimed that Hollywood was "ahead of the curve" on social issues) will soon drift into the center of the "super cell" and create "the perfect storm of self-satisfaction", which will heavily damage South Park and completely destroy San Francisco, much to Stan's dismay.
Cartman, meanwhile, finds Butters too nice and, due to his lack of self-esteem, unwilling to defend himself as Kyle did, quickly loses patience and wishes that Kyle would return, fulfilling Stan's prediction. To top it all off, Butter states that he is really not a Jew at all, much to Cartman's irritation.
While Stan is forced into helping the town to eliminate hybrid cars, Cartman, desperate to get Kyle back so that he can resume hating him, secretly goes to San Francisco with Butters, planning to infiltrate the city and rescue his foe. Afraid of San Francisco's lesbian and hippie movements (which he hates), Cartman wears an "anti-smug suit" (connected to a hose with an air supply managed by Butters). Just as the storm hits, Cartman finds the Broflovskis in their house, completely stoned on acid and smug.
The storm destroys thousands of homes in South Park, while San Francisco disappears "completely up its own asshole", leading everyone to think that Kyle's family is dead. The Broflovskis reappear, though, explaining that they awoke mysteriously on a bus, and thank a "guardian angel", unaware that it was Cartman who saved them. Even though Butters knows about this, Cartman convinces him to keep quiet, not wanting Kyle to know.
With all their cars destroyed, the townspeople vow never again to buy hybrids. Kyle points out that hybrids really are a good thing; the people who drive them should just not be smug about it, or act as if they are above everybody else. The people, however, are not ready to drive them without being smug — "it's simply asking too much" — so they return to SUVs and other high-fuel-consumption vehicles.
Cartman talks to Kyle, saying that everything is back to normal; Kyle agrees. Cartman then calls him a 'sneaky Jew rat'; Kyle retorts by dubbing him a fatass and storming away. Cartman smiles at this, relieved to have the status quo returned.
[edit] Production
According to the commentary, this episode came directly from the creators' annoyance at people in California with the same attitudes as the people in the episode. One instance in particular involved Trey Parker's mother getting a smuggy compliment one day after receiving a hybrid car from her son as a gift. All quotes from the Clooney acceptance speech are the real words he used, although it is Trey Parker saying them rather than actual audio of the speech.
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Smug Alert!
Teaser Video Clip on SouthParkStudios.com
[1]
San Francisco values
[edit] Plot
Kyle's father Gerald buys a new hybrid car, a Toyonda Pious, and drives around showing it off to everyone. He begins an unwelcomed campaign to convert the other townspeople to environmentally friendly vehicles. This behaviour annoys his friend Randy, who complains that Gerald now preachily talks with his eyes closed, and that he almost likes the smell of his own farts. Deciding that they cannot live among such backward, unsophisticated folk, Gerald decides to move his family to San Francisco.
Stan is horrified that his best friend is leaving South Park, but Gerald informs him that he will not be returning until everyone feels the same way as him about the environment.
Cartman is joyous over Kyle's leaving and, after holding a farewell party for Kyle that everyone but Kyle is invited to attend, not celebrating Kyle, but the fact that Kyle is leaving. He decides to fill the void by ripping on Butters, whom he now calls a "stupid Jew". Stan coldly predicts that, without Kyle around to rip on, Cartman's life will be empty.
After the Broflovskis leave, Stan writes a repetitive song about the importance of hybrid cars, which finds its way onto the radio and, incredibly, causes everyone to drive hybrids — and act as smugly as Gerald. Stan is praised for opening everyone's eyes but soon bumps into Ranger McFriendly, protector of the environment, who surprisingly criticises what he has done: although smog rates are down, people who drive hybrids create a toxic gas in the air called "smug", and South Park now has the second-highest levels in the country, after San Francisco.
In San Francisco, Kyle's father is glad to meet like-minded "progressive" people, who, in mid-conversation, fart loudly, bend over and inhale with pleasure, before resuming discussions of their philosophies. Kyle finds it difficult to fit in with the other kids, who take drugs to deal with their parents' "smugginess". Kyle refuses the offer of acid but, after seeing that his dad is even more arrogant than before (sniffing his own fart), asks for "maybe just half a hit," while his brother Ike takes three.
The cloud of smug forms over South Park and begins to combine with that of San Francisco. In a series of scenes parodying the film The Perfect Storm, McFriendly reveals that the cloud of smug from George Clooney's 78th Academy Awards acceptance speech (which claimed that Hollywood was "ahead of the curve" on social issues) will soon drift into the center of the "super cell" and create "the perfect storm of self-satisfaction", which will heavily damage South Park and completely destroy San Francisco, much to Stan's dismay.
Cartman, meanwhile, finds Butters too nice and, due to his lack of self-esteem, unwilling to defend himself as Kyle did, quickly loses patience and wishes that Kyle would return, fulfilling Stan's prediction. To top it all off, Butter states that he is really not a Jew at all, much to Cartman's irritation.
While Stan is forced into helping the town to eliminate hybrid cars, Cartman, desperate to get Kyle back so that he can resume hating him, secretly goes to San Francisco with Butters, planning to infiltrate the city and rescue his foe. Afraid of San Francisco's lesbian and hippie movements (which he hates), Cartman wears an "anti-smug suit" (connected to a hose with an air supply managed by Butters). Just as the storm hits, Cartman finds the Broflovskis in their house, completely stoned on acid and smug.
The storm destroys thousands of homes in South Park, while San Francisco disappears "completely up its own asshole", leading everyone to think that Kyle's family is dead. The Broflovskis reappear, though, explaining that they awoke mysteriously on a bus, and thank a "guardian angel", unaware that it was Cartman who saved them. Even though Butters knows about this, Cartman convinces him to keep quiet, not wanting Kyle to know.
With all their cars destroyed, the townspeople vow never again to buy hybrids. Kyle points out that hybrids really are a good thing; the people who drive them should just not be smug about it, or act as if they are above everybody else. The people, however, are not ready to drive them without being smug — "it's simply asking too much" — so they return to SUVs and other high-fuel-consumption vehicles.
Cartman talks to Kyle, saying that everything is back to normal; Kyle agrees. Cartman then calls him a 'sneaky Jew rat'; Kyle retorts by dubbing him a fatass and storming away. Cartman smiles at this, relieved to have the status quo returned.
[edit] Production
According to the commentary, this episode came directly from the creators' annoyance at people in California with the same attitudes as the people in the episode. One instance in particular involved Trey Parker's mother getting a smuggy compliment one day after receiving a hybrid car from her son as a gift. All quotes from the Clooney acceptance speech are the real words he used, although it is Trey Parker saying them rather than actual audio of the speech.
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Smug Alert!
Teaser Video Clip on SouthParkStudios.com
[1]
San Francisco values
Thursday, October 2, 2008
T. Boone Pickens and His Cloak Of Green
The following is an article exposing the flaws and deception behind T. Boone Pickens' plan to produce large amounts of electricity from wind turbines. The physical difficulties and the cost of converting wind energy into electricity simply do not add up; they do not make economic sense. The public is being deceived by the cloak of "green" environmentalism. Beware.
Peter
T Boone Pickens’ cloak of green
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, October 1, 2008
US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Slim Pickens was a cowboy and actor, but a slim picking is not the adjectival phrase for T Boone Pickens and his wealth. One of his books is titled. “The First Billion is the Hardest: Reflections on the Life of Comebacks and America’s Energy Future.” He is busily making the second and likely the third billion much easier. His plan uses the combination of wind power with energy sufficiency and independence for the US.
Initially, his advertisements put wind power front and center. In doing so, he put on the cloak of green, a phrase I co-opted from Elaine Dewar’s wonderful book of the same name. I’ve used the phrase to describe what many politicians feel forced to do. They understand the real science of climate change, but dare not appear opposed to protecting the environment.
Pickens uses wind power as his cloak of green to buy credibility and time to make natural gas the primary power for vehicles and develop nuclear and coal sources. He throws in other alternative energies as a lining to the cloak. I’ve advocated natural gas for vehicles and nuclear and coal for electricity for many years. Oil will serve the petrochemical industry and produce aviation fuels. Reduced demand for oil means that even current reserves will last for a very long time.
So what concerns me about Pickens proposals? Initially it was the wind power proposal, which clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the severe limitations of that energy. More recently, it is the advertisement of a natural gas company spokesperson talking about his “good friend” Mr. Pickens. I am not opposed to capitalism or profit; however, I am opposed to achieving the latter with deception. Mr. Pickens folksy manner and financial success are used to convince people wind power can provide 20% of US energy. He appears on television programs selling his proposal to a public and political leaders desperate for solutions.
Pickens’ facade of being knowledgeable with a clear solution is quickly dispelled with a few facts about wind power. Like all alternate energies it is not a panacea. He needs to spend his money on accurate cost benefit analyses of all alternate energies. He should urge government to do the same thing before he takes a penny of the massive government subsidies that are seriously distorting analysis of alternative energies.
What are the problems with wind power?
Demand for electricity varies from hour to hour, but there is a basic demand all the time. Slow fire up time means conventional power stations can’t respond to fluctuating demands so must maintain a steady base load. Wind power is only produced when the wind blows in a relatively narrow range, therefore the availability to the electrical grid surges. Conventional power stations cannot respond to the surges and must produce to meet the demand whether the wind blows or not.
It is difficult to determine when wind speed is going to be strong enough to drive the turbine. It also takes considerable wind to start the turbine turning; so many are kept rotating by drawing power from the grid. A rapid wind speed increase causes a power surge and potential widespread damage to the grid. Conventional power stations maintain a level known as spinning standby to meet fluctuating demand. Most systems have other power stations operating on spinning standby to deal with a supply failure. Wind farms increase the risk of supply failures, which increases significantly with the percentage of power they contribute. Many countries limit the percentage of power from wind usually to about 12 to 14%.
Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per square mile. 1700 600 KW turbines over 200 square miles are required to equal the output of a 1000 MW power station. The 600 KW output is with wind speeds between 30 and 40 mph. This reduces to 124 KW at 15 mph, which is below the average wind speed for the US. A wind speed of 15 mph would need 8,500 turbines covering 1000 square miles to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. Source
Most wind turbines are only safely operated at low wind speed where they are inefficient. It is estimated an average wind speed of 14 mph is required to produce energy competitive with conventional sources. Average wind speed for the continental US is 10 mph. There are regions down the center of the country where the average is higher and where Pickens wants to place most of his turbines.
Birds and wind turbines are a lethal combination. European estimates claim losses up to 35 million birds a year. It’s reported that a wind farm at Altamont Pass, California kills thousands of birds a year, including an average of 1,000 raptors. Understandably, wind farm companies challenge the numbers and downplay the dangers. It’s a conflict for environmentalists who want wind power but don’t want to kill birds. However, there is no doubt they kill birds. Pickens’ main region for best wind speed potential coincides with the major flyway of migrating birds. Here are diagrams of the Mississippi and Central Flyways illustrating the problem. (see attached) It is a natural route for the birds, which my research shows fly 88% of the time with a tail wind. They migrate north with the southerly winds in spring and south with northerly winds in Fall.
Other environmental problems include noise pollution downwind and subsonic noise reportedly causing health problems in humans and other animals. Many consider them unsightly and even ardent environmentalist Robert Kennedy opposed tower construction near Cape Cod for that reason.
There are concerns about the tracts of land needed for extensive transmission lines over great distances, but there is a more important issue. Many potential power sites such as hydroelectric or tidal exist but they are unusable because they are remote. Line loss puts an economic limit to the distance you can transmit electricity. Loss is higher for alternating current (AC) then direct current (DC), so in some cases they produce AC, convert to DC for transmission and reconvert to AC for the grid. This is only possible with low production costs.
The need to maintain more conventional power plants for spinning standby coupled with the high construction, maintenance and operating costs of wind farms mean they do not save money or reduce conventional sources of pollution.
Richard Courtney has summarized wind power as follows; “ Wind farms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce negligible useful electricity but threaten electricity cuts.” Source
Even crude analysis of the costs of wind power shows it is an expensive and essentially useless alternative, incapable of producing 20% of US energy as Pickens claims. Rudimentary research reveals this information, which Pickens either ignored or did not do. Regardless, it must put his credibility and/or his real objective in question.
Others confirm the concerns about the Pickens plan beyond the wind power issues. Epstein and Ridenour title their paper “The Pickens Plan: Questions Unanswered.” Amy Ridenour, President of the National Center for Public Policy Research, says, “On the surface, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens appears to be a man with all the energy answers” then asks, “But would the Pickens plan really work? What would it cost taxpayers? Do parts of it raise Constitutional questions? And would private parties-including Mr. Pickens himself - benefit financially?” As Ridenour notes, “The fine print must be examined. In this case, the fine print reveals the Pickens Plan requires billions in government subsidies and the widespread use of government eminent domain powers. It also would further enrich Mr. Pickens.” Source
Making money is fine and I generally agree with his proposals for natural gas, nuclear power and the need for US energy independence. What I object to is deception, especially using wind power as a cloak of green. Apparently Pickens doesn’t know or want to acknowledge the serious limitations of wind power. Finally, he wraps his cloak of green in the national flag. As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Joe Biden says paying more taxes is "patriotic"?)
Pickens has committed $58 million to sell his plan, which is a bizarre mixture of hucksterism and advocacy that will enormously benefit Mr. Pickens. Haven’t we had enough of this kind of deception from Enron through the current financial crisis and many points in between? Pickens and the public should heed Milton Friedman’s observation, “There is only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits without deception or fraud.” Source
Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.â€
Peter
T Boone Pickens’ cloak of green
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, October 1, 2008
US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Slim Pickens was a cowboy and actor, but a slim picking is not the adjectival phrase for T Boone Pickens and his wealth. One of his books is titled. “The First Billion is the Hardest: Reflections on the Life of Comebacks and America’s Energy Future.” He is busily making the second and likely the third billion much easier. His plan uses the combination of wind power with energy sufficiency and independence for the US.
Initially, his advertisements put wind power front and center. In doing so, he put on the cloak of green, a phrase I co-opted from Elaine Dewar’s wonderful book of the same name. I’ve used the phrase to describe what many politicians feel forced to do. They understand the real science of climate change, but dare not appear opposed to protecting the environment.
Pickens uses wind power as his cloak of green to buy credibility and time to make natural gas the primary power for vehicles and develop nuclear and coal sources. He throws in other alternative energies as a lining to the cloak. I’ve advocated natural gas for vehicles and nuclear and coal for electricity for many years. Oil will serve the petrochemical industry and produce aviation fuels. Reduced demand for oil means that even current reserves will last for a very long time.
So what concerns me about Pickens proposals? Initially it was the wind power proposal, which clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the severe limitations of that energy. More recently, it is the advertisement of a natural gas company spokesperson talking about his “good friend” Mr. Pickens. I am not opposed to capitalism or profit; however, I am opposed to achieving the latter with deception. Mr. Pickens folksy manner and financial success are used to convince people wind power can provide 20% of US energy. He appears on television programs selling his proposal to a public and political leaders desperate for solutions.
Pickens’ facade of being knowledgeable with a clear solution is quickly dispelled with a few facts about wind power. Like all alternate energies it is not a panacea. He needs to spend his money on accurate cost benefit analyses of all alternate energies. He should urge government to do the same thing before he takes a penny of the massive government subsidies that are seriously distorting analysis of alternative energies.
What are the problems with wind power?
Demand for electricity varies from hour to hour, but there is a basic demand all the time. Slow fire up time means conventional power stations can’t respond to fluctuating demands so must maintain a steady base load. Wind power is only produced when the wind blows in a relatively narrow range, therefore the availability to the electrical grid surges. Conventional power stations cannot respond to the surges and must produce to meet the demand whether the wind blows or not.
It is difficult to determine when wind speed is going to be strong enough to drive the turbine. It also takes considerable wind to start the turbine turning; so many are kept rotating by drawing power from the grid. A rapid wind speed increase causes a power surge and potential widespread damage to the grid. Conventional power stations maintain a level known as spinning standby to meet fluctuating demand. Most systems have other power stations operating on spinning standby to deal with a supply failure. Wind farms increase the risk of supply failures, which increases significantly with the percentage of power they contribute. Many countries limit the percentage of power from wind usually to about 12 to 14%.
Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per square mile. 1700 600 KW turbines over 200 square miles are required to equal the output of a 1000 MW power station. The 600 KW output is with wind speeds between 30 and 40 mph. This reduces to 124 KW at 15 mph, which is below the average wind speed for the US. A wind speed of 15 mph would need 8,500 turbines covering 1000 square miles to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. Source
Most wind turbines are only safely operated at low wind speed where they are inefficient. It is estimated an average wind speed of 14 mph is required to produce energy competitive with conventional sources. Average wind speed for the continental US is 10 mph. There are regions down the center of the country where the average is higher and where Pickens wants to place most of his turbines.
Birds and wind turbines are a lethal combination. European estimates claim losses up to 35 million birds a year. It’s reported that a wind farm at Altamont Pass, California kills thousands of birds a year, including an average of 1,000 raptors. Understandably, wind farm companies challenge the numbers and downplay the dangers. It’s a conflict for environmentalists who want wind power but don’t want to kill birds. However, there is no doubt they kill birds. Pickens’ main region for best wind speed potential coincides with the major flyway of migrating birds. Here are diagrams of the Mississippi and Central Flyways illustrating the problem. (see attached) It is a natural route for the birds, which my research shows fly 88% of the time with a tail wind. They migrate north with the southerly winds in spring and south with northerly winds in Fall.
Other environmental problems include noise pollution downwind and subsonic noise reportedly causing health problems in humans and other animals. Many consider them unsightly and even ardent environmentalist Robert Kennedy opposed tower construction near Cape Cod for that reason.
There are concerns about the tracts of land needed for extensive transmission lines over great distances, but there is a more important issue. Many potential power sites such as hydroelectric or tidal exist but they are unusable because they are remote. Line loss puts an economic limit to the distance you can transmit electricity. Loss is higher for alternating current (AC) then direct current (DC), so in some cases they produce AC, convert to DC for transmission and reconvert to AC for the grid. This is only possible with low production costs.
The need to maintain more conventional power plants for spinning standby coupled with the high construction, maintenance and operating costs of wind farms mean they do not save money or reduce conventional sources of pollution.
Richard Courtney has summarized wind power as follows; “ Wind farms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce negligible useful electricity but threaten electricity cuts.” Source
Even crude analysis of the costs of wind power shows it is an expensive and essentially useless alternative, incapable of producing 20% of US energy as Pickens claims. Rudimentary research reveals this information, which Pickens either ignored or did not do. Regardless, it must put his credibility and/or his real objective in question.
Others confirm the concerns about the Pickens plan beyond the wind power issues. Epstein and Ridenour title their paper “The Pickens Plan: Questions Unanswered.” Amy Ridenour, President of the National Center for Public Policy Research, says, “On the surface, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens appears to be a man with all the energy answers” then asks, “But would the Pickens plan really work? What would it cost taxpayers? Do parts of it raise Constitutional questions? And would private parties-including Mr. Pickens himself - benefit financially?” As Ridenour notes, “The fine print must be examined. In this case, the fine print reveals the Pickens Plan requires billions in government subsidies and the widespread use of government eminent domain powers. It also would further enrich Mr. Pickens.” Source
Making money is fine and I generally agree with his proposals for natural gas, nuclear power and the need for US energy independence. What I object to is deception, especially using wind power as a cloak of green. Apparently Pickens doesn’t know or want to acknowledge the serious limitations of wind power. Finally, he wraps his cloak of green in the national flag. As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” (Joe Biden says paying more taxes is "patriotic"?)
Pickens has committed $58 million to sell his plan, which is a bizarre mixture of hucksterism and advocacy that will enormously benefit Mr. Pickens. Haven’t we had enough of this kind of deception from Enron through the current financial crisis and many points in between? Pickens and the public should heed Milton Friedman’s observation, “There is only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits without deception or fraud.” Source
Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.â€
Global Warming Alarmism Must Be Challenged
The following article sums up why I and too few other scientists oppose the spread of the myth of man-caused global warming. We see the bigger picture, the cost to America's and the world's economies, the great harm this is doing and will do to people all over the world, AND as Mr. Vaclav Klaus says, it is a grave danger to our very freedom.
Peter
Vaclav Klaus is the current President of the Czech Republic. He gave this speech at the Hilton Hotel in Portland, Oregon on September 30, 2008
Global Warming Alarmism is Unacceptable and Should be Confronted
Written by Vaclav Klaus, Hawaii Reporter
Wednesday, 01 October 2008
Many thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to be here with all of you. I have visited the U.S. many times since the fall of communism in November 1989 when – after almost half a century – traveling to the free world became for people like me possible again, but I’ve never been to this beautiful city and to the state of Oregon before. Once again, thank you very much.
I am expected to talk here about global warming today (even though I don’t really feel it, especially not in this room) and my address will be devoted mostly to this issue. As you may expect Oregon is – for me – in this respect connected with the well-known Oregon petition which warned and keeps warning against the irrationality and one-sidedness of the global warming campaign. Rational people know that the warming we experience is well within the range of what seems to have been a natural fluctuation over the last ten thousand years. We should keep saying this very loudly.
Before I start talking about this issue, I would like to put the topic of my today’s speech into the broader perspective. During my visits in the U.S. in the last 19 years, I made speeches on a wide range of topics. There has, however, always been a connection between them. They were all about freedom and about threats endangering it. My today’s speech will not be different. I will try to argue and to convince you that even the global warming issue is about freedom. It is not about temperature or CO2. It is, therefore, not necessary to discuss either climatology, or any other related natural science but the implications of the global warming panic upon us, upon our freedom, our prosperity, our institutions and our legislation. It is part of a bigger story.
At the time that followed immediately after the fall of communism, I spoke here about my (and our) experience with the dismantling of this tragic, irrational, repressive and inefficient system, about the experience with the rather complicated transition from one social system to a radically different one and with the intricacies of building a free society and market economy. We had learnt some useful lessons and they should not be forgotten. This is not an issue in my country anymore now, it is all over there, even though it continues to be relevant in other places of the world.
There are other phenomena that should be discussed and warned against now. I very carefully watch and study the situation on the European continent. Applauding the end of communism is not sufficient. I am more and more nervous about the developments that followed. I have always tried to explain to the Americans the meaning and substance of the European integration process and especially the undergoing shift from evolutionary and more or less natural (or genuine) integration, based on opening up, on liberalization, on elimination of various protectionist barriers, towards politically and bureaucratically organized unification. We are close to the formation of a supranational entity called the European Union, resulting in the weakening of democracy and free markets in Europe.
To be correctly understood, I am not against my country’s EU membership (by the way, it was me who handed in the formal application to enter the EU in 1996 when I was prime minister of the Czech Republic), because regretfully there is no other way to go in Europe these days. The recent developments in the EU are, however, very problematic: we see and feel less freedom, less democracy, less sovereignty, more of regulation, and more of extensive government intervention than we had expected when communism collapsed.
As if this wasn’t enough, in the recent years we came to witness yet another major attack on freedom and free markets, an attack based on environmentalism and – in particular – its global warming variant. The explicitly stated intentions of global warming activists are frightening. They want to change us, to change the whole mankind, to change human behavior, to change the structure and functioning of society, to change the whole system of values which has been gradually established during centuries. These intentions are dangerous and their consequences far-reaching. These people want to restrict our freedom. It is our duty to say NO.
As I said at the beginning, the current world-wide panic as regards dramatic, in the past allegedly unknown global climate changes and their supposedly catastrophic consequences for the future of human civilization must not remain without a resolute answer of the more or less silent majority of rationally thinking people.
After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.
It is important to demonstrate that the global warming story is not an issue belonging to the field of natural sciences only or mostly, even though Al Gore and his fellow-travelers pretend it is the case. It is again, as always in the past, the old, for many of us well-known debate: freedom and free markets vs. dirigism,
(Dirigisme (from the French) (in English also "dirigism" although per the OED both spellings are used) is an economic term designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence.)
political control and expansive and unstoppable government regulation of human behavior. In the past, the market was undermined mostly by means of socialist arguments with slogans like: “stop the immiseration of the masses”. Now, the attack is led under the slogan: stop the immiseration (or perhaps destruction) of the Planet.
This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.
Feeling very strongly about this danger and trying to oppose it was the main reason for my writing the book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” (2) with its hopefully sufficiently understandable subtitle “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?”. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City in September 2007. (3)
I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians, who privately express similar views, are more or less publicly silent. We keep hearing one-sided propaganda regarding the greenhouse hypothesis, but we are not introduced to serious counter-arguments, both inside climatology, and in the field of social sciences.
We, economists, owe the society a lot. We did not succeed in explaining the practical inexhaustibility of resources, including energy resources (on condition they are rationally used, which means with the help of undistorted prices and well-defined property rights). We did not come up with simple, well-argued and convincing studies about the costs and benefits of the currently proposed “green” measures and policies and about many other things.
I feel very strongly about it. I used to live in a world where prices and property rights were made meaningless. It gave me the opportunity to see how irrationally the economy was organized and how damaged the environment was as a result. This experience tells me that we should not let anyone play the market again and dictate what to produce, how to produce it, what inputs to use, what technologies to implement. This would result in another disaster and in the true “immiseration of the masses”, especially in developing countries. We already see some evidence for this now.
We should also speak about the convincing human experience with technological progress and give reasons for our justified belief not only in its continuation but very probable acceleration in the future. It is rational to expect that technological changes will be more important than any potential climate changes. There is no need for technologic skepticism and no reason to expect that we will enter a stationary world – unless the environmentalists win the debate and stop human progress. (4)
The economists should also discuss very relevant future shift in the structure of demand which will be based on the so called income or wealth effect. With higher income and wealth, people demand more of environmental protection which is a classic luxury good. It is, therefore, not necessary to radically decrease today’s consumption by coercion, because the much more affluent people in the future will have enough time to make rational consumption and investment decisions without our today’s “quasi-help”. Economic growth and the accumulation of wealth do not lead to deterioration of the environment. The empirical work in the field of the environmental Kuznets curves gives us reassuring arguments about it.
We should also explain to the non-experts the idea of discounting as the only rational basis for intergenerational comparisons, and for our today’s decisions about the future. Everyone who wants to protect future generations should express his or her presumptions about this intergenerational relationship and to clarify how he or she sees the future and what weight and importance he or she attaches to it. The environmentalists assume that no matter how distant the future is, it is of equal importance as the present, which is against human nature and experience. The objectively existing preference of rational human beings of the present over the future is traditionally discussed by means of the term discount rate. To defend this position is neither shortsightedness nor ignorance on our side. The models of the environmentalists produce strange results mainly because they consider the “social discount rate” to be zero or close to zero.
Another issue is the rational or irrational risk aversion. Every rational human being minimizes risks – but not at all costs. The precautionary principle, this dogma of environmentalists, leads to an unjustifiable maximization of risk aversion, which can in the end succeed in blocking and prohibiting almost everything. The environmentalists systematically overestimate the negative impacts of human activities and forget the positive ones. Such approach cannot bring good outcomes. We should offer standard cost-benefit analysis instead.
Even more frustrating is the fact that the economists do not pay sufficient attention to the abuse of the words “market” and “price” by the global warming alarmists. They want nothing else than to tax us, but instead speak about market-friendly “emissions trading schemes”. We have to tell them that the emissions licenses are implicit taxes and that playing the market is impossible. The economists convincingly argue that tax changes have very large effects. Recent U.S. study (5) shows that “an exogenous tax increase of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 per cent.” It works mostly through the strong response of investment to tax changes. And the environmentalists keep advocating large tax increases under the disguise of the “price of carbon”.
The global warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These rent-seekers profit
- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;
- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;
- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);
- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.
These people represent a strong voice in the global warming debate. They are not interested in CO2, freedom or markets, they are interested in their businesses and their profits – “produced” with the help of politicians.
With all my criticism, I hope it is evident that I am not speaking against paying due attention to the environment and to environmental protection, because that’s another story. I would also like to stress that I don’t oppose the claim that the climate-anthropogenic carbon dioxide nexus justifies watching and research, but I am convinced that the existing evidence does not justify the currently proposed expensive, economy and society disrupting and probably useless and ineffective measures.
As I said many times before: the current world-wide dispute is not about environment, it is about freedom. And I would add “about prosperity and living conditions of billions of people.” To avoid a disaster, “we should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution of human society, not in the virtues of political activism.”
Vaclav Klaus is the current President of the Czech Republic. He gave this speech at the Hilton Hotel in Portland, Oregon on September 2008
1 - Portland Speech, Cascade Policy Institute luncheon address, Hilton Hotel, September 30, 2008.
2 - Published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., May 2008 (originally in Czech language under the title Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta by Dokorán, s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 2007). The German, Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish versions were published between December 2007 and July 2008. Polish and Bulgarian translations will be published in coming weeks and others are under preparation.
3 - Speech at the Climate Change Conference, United Nations, New York, September 24th, 2007. See www.klaus.cz.
4 - Is Schumpeter’s Vision of the End of Capitalism Relevant?, Speech at the Competitive Enterprise Institute Annual Dinner, 28 May 2008, Washington D.C.; see http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=OfTuMDaIhOG8 or http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/90823_CEI-web.pdf
5 - Christina Romer, David Romer, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks”, NBER Working Paper No 13264, Cambridge, MA, March 2007. Source
addthis_url = location.href;
addthis_title = document.title;
addthis_pub = 'ccfeditor';
!
Peter
Vaclav Klaus is the current President of the Czech Republic. He gave this speech at the Hilton Hotel in Portland, Oregon on September 30, 2008
Global Warming Alarmism is Unacceptable and Should be Confronted
Written by Vaclav Klaus, Hawaii Reporter
Wednesday, 01 October 2008
Many thanks for the invitation and for the opportunity to be here with all of you. I have visited the U.S. many times since the fall of communism in November 1989 when – after almost half a century – traveling to the free world became for people like me possible again, but I’ve never been to this beautiful city and to the state of Oregon before. Once again, thank you very much.
I am expected to talk here about global warming today (even though I don’t really feel it, especially not in this room) and my address will be devoted mostly to this issue. As you may expect Oregon is – for me – in this respect connected with the well-known Oregon petition which warned and keeps warning against the irrationality and one-sidedness of the global warming campaign. Rational people know that the warming we experience is well within the range of what seems to have been a natural fluctuation over the last ten thousand years. We should keep saying this very loudly.
Before I start talking about this issue, I would like to put the topic of my today’s speech into the broader perspective. During my visits in the U.S. in the last 19 years, I made speeches on a wide range of topics. There has, however, always been a connection between them. They were all about freedom and about threats endangering it. My today’s speech will not be different. I will try to argue and to convince you that even the global warming issue is about freedom. It is not about temperature or CO2. It is, therefore, not necessary to discuss either climatology, or any other related natural science but the implications of the global warming panic upon us, upon our freedom, our prosperity, our institutions and our legislation. It is part of a bigger story.
At the time that followed immediately after the fall of communism, I spoke here about my (and our) experience with the dismantling of this tragic, irrational, repressive and inefficient system, about the experience with the rather complicated transition from one social system to a radically different one and with the intricacies of building a free society and market economy. We had learnt some useful lessons and they should not be forgotten. This is not an issue in my country anymore now, it is all over there, even though it continues to be relevant in other places of the world.
There are other phenomena that should be discussed and warned against now. I very carefully watch and study the situation on the European continent. Applauding the end of communism is not sufficient. I am more and more nervous about the developments that followed. I have always tried to explain to the Americans the meaning and substance of the European integration process and especially the undergoing shift from evolutionary and more or less natural (or genuine) integration, based on opening up, on liberalization, on elimination of various protectionist barriers, towards politically and bureaucratically organized unification. We are close to the formation of a supranational entity called the European Union, resulting in the weakening of democracy and free markets in Europe.
To be correctly understood, I am not against my country’s EU membership (by the way, it was me who handed in the formal application to enter the EU in 1996 when I was prime minister of the Czech Republic), because regretfully there is no other way to go in Europe these days. The recent developments in the EU are, however, very problematic: we see and feel less freedom, less democracy, less sovereignty, more of regulation, and more of extensive government intervention than we had expected when communism collapsed.
As if this wasn’t enough, in the recent years we came to witness yet another major attack on freedom and free markets, an attack based on environmentalism and – in particular – its global warming variant. The explicitly stated intentions of global warming activists are frightening. They want to change us, to change the whole mankind, to change human behavior, to change the structure and functioning of society, to change the whole system of values which has been gradually established during centuries. These intentions are dangerous and their consequences far-reaching. These people want to restrict our freedom. It is our duty to say NO.
As I said at the beginning, the current world-wide panic as regards dramatic, in the past allegedly unknown global climate changes and their supposedly catastrophic consequences for the future of human civilization must not remain without a resolute answer of the more or less silent majority of rationally thinking people.
After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.
It is important to demonstrate that the global warming story is not an issue belonging to the field of natural sciences only or mostly, even though Al Gore and his fellow-travelers pretend it is the case. It is again, as always in the past, the old, for many of us well-known debate: freedom and free markets vs. dirigism,
(Dirigisme (from the French) (in English also "dirigism" although per the OED both spellings are used) is an economic term designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence.)
political control and expansive and unstoppable government regulation of human behavior. In the past, the market was undermined mostly by means of socialist arguments with slogans like: “stop the immiseration of the masses”. Now, the attack is led under the slogan: stop the immiseration (or perhaps destruction) of the Planet.
This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.
Feeling very strongly about this danger and trying to oppose it was the main reason for my writing the book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” (2) with its hopefully sufficiently understandable subtitle “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?”. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City in September 2007. (3)
I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians, who privately express similar views, are more or less publicly silent. We keep hearing one-sided propaganda regarding the greenhouse hypothesis, but we are not introduced to serious counter-arguments, both inside climatology, and in the field of social sciences.
We, economists, owe the society a lot. We did not succeed in explaining the practical inexhaustibility of resources, including energy resources (on condition they are rationally used, which means with the help of undistorted prices and well-defined property rights). We did not come up with simple, well-argued and convincing studies about the costs and benefits of the currently proposed “green” measures and policies and about many other things.
I feel very strongly about it. I used to live in a world where prices and property rights were made meaningless. It gave me the opportunity to see how irrationally the economy was organized and how damaged the environment was as a result. This experience tells me that we should not let anyone play the market again and dictate what to produce, how to produce it, what inputs to use, what technologies to implement. This would result in another disaster and in the true “immiseration of the masses”, especially in developing countries. We already see some evidence for this now.
We should also speak about the convincing human experience with technological progress and give reasons for our justified belief not only in its continuation but very probable acceleration in the future. It is rational to expect that technological changes will be more important than any potential climate changes. There is no need for technologic skepticism and no reason to expect that we will enter a stationary world – unless the environmentalists win the debate and stop human progress. (4)
The economists should also discuss very relevant future shift in the structure of demand which will be based on the so called income or wealth effect. With higher income and wealth, people demand more of environmental protection which is a classic luxury good. It is, therefore, not necessary to radically decrease today’s consumption by coercion, because the much more affluent people in the future will have enough time to make rational consumption and investment decisions without our today’s “quasi-help”. Economic growth and the accumulation of wealth do not lead to deterioration of the environment. The empirical work in the field of the environmental Kuznets curves gives us reassuring arguments about it.
We should also explain to the non-experts the idea of discounting as the only rational basis for intergenerational comparisons, and for our today’s decisions about the future. Everyone who wants to protect future generations should express his or her presumptions about this intergenerational relationship and to clarify how he or she sees the future and what weight and importance he or she attaches to it. The environmentalists assume that no matter how distant the future is, it is of equal importance as the present, which is against human nature and experience. The objectively existing preference of rational human beings of the present over the future is traditionally discussed by means of the term discount rate. To defend this position is neither shortsightedness nor ignorance on our side. The models of the environmentalists produce strange results mainly because they consider the “social discount rate” to be zero or close to zero.
Another issue is the rational or irrational risk aversion. Every rational human being minimizes risks – but not at all costs. The precautionary principle, this dogma of environmentalists, leads to an unjustifiable maximization of risk aversion, which can in the end succeed in blocking and prohibiting almost everything. The environmentalists systematically overestimate the negative impacts of human activities and forget the positive ones. Such approach cannot bring good outcomes. We should offer standard cost-benefit analysis instead.
Even more frustrating is the fact that the economists do not pay sufficient attention to the abuse of the words “market” and “price” by the global warming alarmists. They want nothing else than to tax us, but instead speak about market-friendly “emissions trading schemes”. We have to tell them that the emissions licenses are implicit taxes and that playing the market is impossible. The economists convincingly argue that tax changes have very large effects. Recent U.S. study (5) shows that “an exogenous tax increase of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 per cent.” It works mostly through the strong response of investment to tax changes. And the environmentalists keep advocating large tax increases under the disguise of the “price of carbon”.
The global warming alarmists succeeded also in creating incentives which led to the rise of a very powerful rent-seeking group. These rent-seekers profit
- from trading the licenses to emit carbon dioxide;
- from constructing unproductive wind, sun and other equipments able to produce only highly subsidized electric energy;
- from growing non-food crops which produce non-carbon fuels at the expense of producing food (with well-known side effects);
- from doing research, writing and speaking about global warming.
These people represent a strong voice in the global warming debate. They are not interested in CO2, freedom or markets, they are interested in their businesses and their profits – “produced” with the help of politicians.
With all my criticism, I hope it is evident that I am not speaking against paying due attention to the environment and to environmental protection, because that’s another story. I would also like to stress that I don’t oppose the claim that the climate-anthropogenic carbon dioxide nexus justifies watching and research, but I am convinced that the existing evidence does not justify the currently proposed expensive, economy and society disrupting and probably useless and ineffective measures.
As I said many times before: the current world-wide dispute is not about environment, it is about freedom. And I would add “about prosperity and living conditions of billions of people.” To avoid a disaster, “we should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution of human society, not in the virtues of political activism.”
Vaclav Klaus is the current President of the Czech Republic. He gave this speech at the Hilton Hotel in Portland, Oregon on September 2008
1 - Portland Speech, Cascade Policy Institute luncheon address, Hilton Hotel, September 30, 2008.
2 - Published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., May 2008 (originally in Czech language under the title Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta by Dokorán, s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 2007). The German, Dutch, English, Russian and Spanish versions were published between December 2007 and July 2008. Polish and Bulgarian translations will be published in coming weeks and others are under preparation.
3 - Speech at the Climate Change Conference, United Nations, New York, September 24th, 2007. See www.klaus.cz.
4 - Is Schumpeter’s Vision of the End of Capitalism Relevant?, Speech at the Competitive Enterprise Institute Annual Dinner, 28 May 2008, Washington D.C.; see http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=OfTuMDaIhOG8 or http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/90823_CEI-web.pdf
5 - Christina Romer, David Romer, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks”, NBER Working Paper No 13264, Cambridge, MA, March 2007. Source
addthis_url = location.href;
addthis_title = document.title;
addthis_pub = 'ccfeditor';
!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A Detailed Analysis Of The Pickens Energy Plan
The following discussion of the T. Boone Pickens Energy Plan to alleviate America's dependence on foreign oil raises some interesting and important questions. All is not as simple as it seems. Are we really running out of oil? Is it wise to switch to burning natural gas in vehicles instead of gasoline? Is it wise, or even possible to built thousands of wind turbines and power lines? This is a long read, but worthwhile for those seeking a greater understanding of the issues.
Peter
The Pickens Plan: Questions Unanswered
by Reece A. Epstein and David A. Ridenour
Introduction
On July 7, 2008, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens introduced the “Pickens Plan,” an ambitious proposal to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil by one-third over the next ten years.1
The cornerstone of the Pickens Plan is replacing the natural gas now used to generate electricity with wind power, and then using the saved natural gas to power vehicles that presently run on gasoline.2
It’s a bold plan from a bold man.
Pickens should be credited for understanding that America has an urgent need to secure its energy independence. His website says: “As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion out of the country this year alone – that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.”3
While Capitol Hill offers partisan bickering, Pickens appears to be offering a solution. And, as Pickens is prepared to spend $58 million to promote his plan,4 his advocacy could have an enormous impact on America’s energy policy for decades to come.
But while Pickens appears confident, his claims raise questions. Has oil production finally and irrevocably peaked, as Pickens claims? Why use wind power instead of nuclear power? Are natural gas-powered vehicles a viable alternative to gasoline-powered cars, and would switching to them improve America’s security? What does Pickens believe the federal government should do to make his plan a reality? Might he or the firms he owns benefit financially from such federal aid?
(continued here)
Peter
The Pickens Plan: Questions Unanswered
by Reece A. Epstein and David A. Ridenour
Introduction
On July 7, 2008, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens introduced the “Pickens Plan,” an ambitious proposal to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil by one-third over the next ten years.1
The cornerstone of the Pickens Plan is replacing the natural gas now used to generate electricity with wind power, and then using the saved natural gas to power vehicles that presently run on gasoline.2
It’s a bold plan from a bold man.
Pickens should be credited for understanding that America has an urgent need to secure its energy independence. His website says: “As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion out of the country this year alone – that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.”3
While Capitol Hill offers partisan bickering, Pickens appears to be offering a solution. And, as Pickens is prepared to spend $58 million to promote his plan,4 his advocacy could have an enormous impact on America’s energy policy for decades to come.
But while Pickens appears confident, his claims raise questions. Has oil production finally and irrevocably peaked, as Pickens claims? Why use wind power instead of nuclear power? Are natural gas-powered vehicles a viable alternative to gasoline-powered cars, and would switching to them improve America’s security? What does Pickens believe the federal government should do to make his plan a reality? Might he or the firms he owns benefit financially from such federal aid?
(continued here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)