August 13, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:It's all about oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil
Kevin Drum has a piece on peak oil production that crystallized a niggling difficulty I've always had with environmentalists, and various other sorts of energy activists such as the "end our dependance on foreign oil" crowd -- they seem to take "We are the World" a little too literally.
When they talk about the Greenhouse effect, for example, the subtext of the conversation is that the US is the major problem, and if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked. While the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (and, not coincidentally, the largest producer of goods and services), China and India are hot on our tail, and China has a lot of nasty, carbon emitting, air polluting coal to burn. To a large extent, any cut in oil consumption by us is going to give growth a fillip in the developing world, but is not going to lessen the amount of stuff being consumed.
They also talk about alternative energy research as if we had the only research plant in the world, and the provision of federal funds is the difference between no research being done, and finding a way to turn the natural gas content in political speeches into clean, renewable energy. But the EU has more people than us, and with its ferocious energy taxes, has both countries and companies highly incented to find alternative energy sources. The result has been . . . Danish wind farms. This is not to say that more money might not make the difference, but the system is not binary, and we could well just be pouring more US money down a bottomless rathole.
Similarly, the "end our dependance on foriegn oil" crowd seem to be working on one of those simplistic economist's models they publicly deplore. In this model, there are only two countries, which we'll call Country A and Country S. Country A has a lot of money and not enough oil. Country S has a lot of oil, and not enough money. If Country A decides to stop buying Country S's oil, terrorism will stop and we can get our troops off the Arabian peninsula.
In the real world, of course, there is this global geopolitical system thing, filled with lots of trading partners and allies who don't have any oil. Even if the United States collectively decides to turn the thermostat down, carpool, and cut our consumption by 30% in order to get oil's role in our economy down to a more geopolitically manageable level, our trading partners will be just as dependant on Saudi oil as before -- more, in some cases, because our withdrawal from the market will alter the supply curve, allowing them to consume more. And as long as our trading partners, and might I add the holders of a huge portion of our debt, are dependant on Saudi oil, our fate will be nearly as tied to the Arabian peninsula as if we were importing the stuff ourselves.
Magic bullets only work in horror novels. Which our environmental policy isn't quite, yet.
Posted by Jane Galt at August 13, 2004 1:11 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksAh, the ever-ignorant "they". "They" don't appreciate we live in a multi-polar world; "they" don't understand China's rapidly growing demand; "they" aren't as sophisticated as me, Jane Galt.
Nonsense. Flat dismissive ignorant nonsense.
Sure there are lots of dumb enviros. But swing by FreeRepublic some time and you'll find all the rightwing idiocy you want.
There are plenty of smart progressives / liberals who understand that the Chinese and Japanese central banks have been purchasing billions of US govt debt; that the oil market is global; that conservation is not a magic bullet.
They also understand that long-term investment in alternative energy systems is one place where the market is not likely to make the requisite investment until oil prices go quite high. So maybe, just maybe, us liberals have a point in looking to the government for investing in the research necessary to keep our economy humming in the face of rising oil prices.
Francis
Yep, there goes Jane with her pesky pronouns again. How can we possibly take her seriously?
Sure there are lots of dumb enviros.
Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who write the political speeches and get the media coverage. Francis, when the people I read about and see on tv are as reasonable as you, I will expect Jane to issue a correction.
fdl:
Do you promise that this is the very last
thing that for which you 'so much smarter
than the conservative' liberals want to
take my money?
No more after this because only the U.S.
Federal Government (and not BP-Amoco or
Shell or Kerr-McGee or Occidental ...)
can check out energy alternatives?
That this would be the absolute very last
'big government' project?
Excuse me but if you want wind mills and
solar panels and fuel cells and fusion do
it on your own dime. Not mine.
Great argument. And consider:
It doesn't matter if we immediately stopped using every last drop of foreign oil. Japan has no oil. We buy a lot of stuff from Japan. They buy a lot of stuff from us. If terrorists suddenly took the entire Mid East oil supply hostage (or worse), Japan's economy could go into the tank and take the world economy with it.
So whether we use Saudi oil or not, it's in America's enlightened self-interest to ensure the foreign oil market remains stable and safe.
Unless we all decide to go the Homer Simpson Route: "And Lord, we are especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipe dream."
"Oh what a interdependent web we weave, When first we practice to succeed"
With apologies to SWS.
Nice post Jane.
Maybe if we all wish very hard, we can get Francis to read it, too.
...long-term investment in alternative energy systems is one place where the market is not likely to make the requisite investment until oil prices go quite high...
(Sadly, oil prices remain low.)
It's certainly true that the government can spend more on any project than "the market" will; after all, the government can print more money, while "the market" needs an incentive, or a potential incentive, or a glimmer of a potential incentive...
Whether the government can wisely choose the right amount to "invest" is a tough question to answer, unless I'm the one in charge of doling out the dollars, or am accepting the dollars for doing research. Then, of course, the answer is that we need to do more.
So, Francis, if you're seriously interested in discussing this, what makes you think that a few billion more dollars from Washington will make much difference, given the European and corporate (and probably Japanese) research now being funded?
Last time I checked, we were still funding fusion research, which still looks like our best shot at moving beyond fossil fuel energy production. Back in the 1980s, there was hope we'd have prototype plants running by 2000; obviously, we're not there yet.
"But the EU has more people than us, and with its ferocious energy taxes, has both countries and companies highly incented to find alternative energy sources. The result has been . . . Danish wind farms."
Err, and biodiesel.
'When they talk about the Greenhouse effect, for example, the subtext of the conversation is that the US is the major problem, and if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked."
And they're not that far off. Our CO2 emissions were 16 tons CO2 per capita per annum (1997 figures, sorry don't have more up-to-date ones to hand) and climbing. OECD Europe is 8.9 tons CO2 per capita p.a. and falling. China is 2.5 tons CO2 per capita per annum and rising. China and India can ask, with good reason, why should we restrict our growth and use more expensive energy, which would impact our poorest citizens most, when you won't take the steps to lower your CO2 emissions/capita to the level the Europeans have achieved? (Same argument goes for CO2 emissions per unit of GDP - the US is an outlier in its higher CO2 intensity compared to other developed economies).
"While the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (and, not coincidentally, the largest producer of goods and services), China and India are hot on our tail, and China has a lot of nasty, carbon emitting, air polluting coal to burn."
A relatively in-depth recent article on peak oil prediction is: http://www.nd.edu/~jhalloc1/Forecasting%20the%20Limits%20-%20Hallock%20et%20al.pdf. Pithy summary in Nature: http://www.nd.edu/~jhalloc1/OilandCulture%20-%20Natureart.pdf.
Apologies for the ugly URLs..
Tom,
Oak Ridge National Lab has a list of year 2000 carbon emissions ("from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring") by country. It is, of course, only an estimate, not including--among other things--cooking fires.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2000.tot
According to that list, the United States produced 1,528,796 thousand metric tonnes of carbon. The next 50 countries produced 4,338,500. Which, assuming the remaining countries didn't produce much, means the United States produced about one-quarter of the world's atmospheric carbon.
If the United cut its emissions in half, that would still leave 7/8 of the carbon generated. I don't know of any model that says that would reverse global warming or even slow it that much. I do not think it is fair to say "if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked."
Tom, I corrected "89 tons per capita" to "8.9 tons . . . " which I assume is the correct number.
You're making a moralistic argument about carbon emissions. I'm making a quantitative argument, which I'd argue is the right one to make, because the atmosphere isn't going to listen to China's explanations about how it's not fair and all when it decides whether or not to warm up.
According to The Economist, the population of China is 1.28 billion. According to the Beeb, that figure is growing at 1.07% a year. Using your numbers, and assuming an average growth rate of 6% for China and 2.8% for us (conservatively low in the first place, and conservatively high in the second), and also assuming that carbon emissions grow in both places pretty much in step with GDP and population, then China is already producing nearly as much carbon as we are in absolute terms, and will surpass us in a few years. By 2020, they'll be producing more than 50% more than we will, even if we do nothing at all to curb our greenhouse gases. And that's just China -- India's growing at a nice clip too, and has 900 million mouths to feed. Assuming that any reduction in US oil consumption will be largely offset by increased Chinese and Indian consumption, nothing the US does is likely to have much impact on global warming.
Using Roger Sweeney's source, the date at which China surpasses us is 2014, incidentally.
OECD Europe is 8.9 tons CO2 per capita p.a. and falling.
.....
China and India can ask, with good reason, why should we restrict our growth and use more expensive energy, which would impact our poorest citizens most, when you won't take the steps to lower your CO2 emissions/capita to the level the Europeans have achieved?
Ever heard the expression that 'text out of context is pretext'?
Europe's emissions per-capita are lower in part because the continent lends itself to cleaner forms of shipping (we rely more heavily on trucks), in part because the climate lends itself to reduced heating/air-conditioning needs (a typical office building in Europe neither has nor needs a cooling plant), in part because France went to town on nuclear energy years ago (but will they be able to afford rebuilding those plants as they reach the end of their service lives, or switch to fossil?), and in part because the European economies are largely stagnant (Germany never got below 10% unemployment even during the 1990s).
That's just off the top of my head. Anyone wishing to be taken seriously when comparing Euro carbon emissions to those of the US needs to first adjust for those contingincies.
fdl wrote that smart liberals "understand that long-term investment in alternative energy systems is one place where the market is not likely to make the requisite investment until oil prices go quite high."
How many of those smart liberals have engineering degrees? I ask because Steven Den Beste, who has an engineering background, has discussed the issue of alternative energy systems on a number of occasions to explain why the few that are practical from an engineering standpoint are impractical from a legal and political standpoint in the U.S.(e.g., fission nuclear plants) One such post may be found at http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Morepracticalproblems.shtml
I've yet to read anything by a supposedly smart liberal refuting the basic points Den Beste has made about these alternative energy systems.
If you are interested in the limitations on Hubberts method of forecasting peak oil production, do a google search for Michael Lynch. He has a interesting paper on the subject.
We most likely have run up against pumping and refining capacity, not an actual peak in oil reserves.
Excuse me while I plug my flying car into my clean, effient backyard reactor (I love good old Popular Science).
Pragmatist:
"Excuse me but if you want wind mills and solar panels and fuel cells and fusion do it on your own dime. Not mine."
I'll take that deal, as long as you and yours agree to pick up the cost for that other Big Government Program, "Democracy in the Middle East. Hurrah! Hurrah!" We can even do it privately - no need for government intervention - we'll just exchange checks.
So here's my proposal:
The DOE figures I've seen (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/rea_issues/reatabp2.html) seem to range up to about .5 bil/yr. on solar and renewable energy. I'm willing to assume a program for the next 10 years that increases that budget by an order of magnitude. The cost of the war in Iraq has been around $125 bil to date. Assume that the relevant population (competent adults) is about 200 mil, that this population is split 50/50 on the war in Iraq (polls suggest this), and that the population splits in about the same way on an increase in research funding for new energy sources. (These are all I-net figures, so we can probably adjust later). Let's allocate costs! To date, it appears you owe about $1250 and I owe $50. Just send your check for $1200 to me, c/o Jane, and I'll consider the deal in operation for the next ten years. After that, we'll settle accounts at the end of each year.
I really, really look forward to working together in the future.
The result has been . . . Danish wind farms.
NO, damn it all! The result has been small, fuel-efficient, fast, easy-handling cars like the Peugeot 305 (which is a ton of fun to drive, by the way). Anyone who knows enough about this subject to write about it knows that this is the big potential gain in the USA. And every time the issue is raised, the only argument that the other side appears to have is that they can't drive vastly superior small cars, because somebody might think they were gay.
Nice post. However, you said:
"While the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases..."
True, but what is less frequently noted is that we are also the world's largest sink for CO2. In fact, on a net basis North America removes more CO2 than it generates. See, for example:
Fan, S., M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi and P. Tans. 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data models. Science 282:442-446
Unfortunately registration is required, but I will send a PDF to anyone who is interested. The paper shows that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher off the west coast of North America and drop by the time the Atlantic is reached. Reasons are unproven, but are probably due to the massive reforestation occuring in North America as we move to a post-industrial economy.
D2, I was specifically talking about alternative energy research, not more fuel efficient cars. I've advocated a gas tax consistently as a way to force Americans into smaller cars. But the Peugot 305 is not the result of a European technological breakthrough in non-carbon-emitting technologies.
"Oak Ridge National Lab has a list of year 2000 carbon emissions ("from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring") by country. It is, of course, only an estimate, not including--among other things--cooking fires."
Probably because cooking fires are carbon-neutral (i.e. they're not introducing carbon that wasn't in the biosphere back into the system)
"If the United cut its emissions in half, that would still leave 7/8 of the carbon generated. I don't know of any model that says that would reverse global warming or even slow it that much. I do not think it is fair to say "if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked."
IIRC, total anthropogenic CO2 emission are ~5 GTonne/yr., of which 2.5 GTonne is absorbed, and 2.5 accumulates in the atmosphere. If you dropped emissions by 1/8th, you'd still have a marked effect on the timing and size of the peak CO2 concentration: remember that model runs done by the IPCC only go out to 2100, which is pre-peak CO2 concentration (and temperature, as temperature lags CO2 concentration, as the ocean is a heat sink) for many scenarios.
"Using Roger Sweeney's source, the date at which China surpasses us is 2014, incidentally."
Using the figures & forecasts in the DoE's 2004 International Energy Outlook, I get a different story. The US's emissions drop from 24% to (ta-daaa!!) 21.5%. China's rise from 12.6% currently to 18%, and India's from 4% to 5%.
Jane again:
"You're making a moralistic argument about carbon emissions. I'm making a quantitative argument, which I'd argue is the right one to make, because the atmosphere isn't going to listen to China's explanations about how it's not fair and all when it decides whether or not to warm up."
No, but the atmosphere would listen if we have an incentive to *pay China & India to reduce their emissions*. Which is in the mechanisms in Kyoto, BTW.
Currently, the US has a carbon intensity of (reading of a chart, so pardon inexactide) of ~$6,250 of GDP/tonne CO2. Germany has a carbon intensity of ~$10,000/tonne. China has an intensity of ~$1,400/tonne; the FSU $1000/tonne CO2. Can you see the arbitrage opportunity here?
(Source: EIA International Energy Outlook 2003)
"How many of those smart liberals have engineering degrees?"
None of us. Part of the condition of entering the liberal hive-mind is that you can only study macrame and giant puppet making at college. Those of us drawn to more rigourous subjects are allowed to take Generically Oppressed Persons Studies (but not as a major).
"I ask because Steven Den Beste, who has an engineering background, has discussed the issue of alternative energy systems on a number of occasions to explain why the few that are practical from an engineering standpoint are impractical from a legal and political standpoint in the U.S.(e.g., fission nuclear plants) One such post may be found at http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Morepracticalproblems.shtml
Sorry, I have a hard time taking anything Denbeste says about energy after the very crappy job he did on CO2 mitigation (see the link at http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004769.html - hello Karl, I believe you contributed to that thread). Because he wasn't familiar with the technologies, despite some of 'em being >40 years old, he made invalid conclusions without knowing they existed. (Bit like me saying that mobile telephony is unfeasible because of the expense of providing all the semaphore signallers needed on top of hills with nice packed lunches).
FWIW, I think DenBeste is way off on the feasibility of biomass & solar.
Jane wrote "we could well just be pouring more US money down a bottomless rathole..." about research money spent on alternative energy sources.
Even if the research on alternative energy fails to deliver, it won't be poured down a rathole.
The NSF spends quite a bit of money each year in research on theoretical math and theoretical physics - research which has no reasonable chance of translating into practical products in the conceivable future. The idea is that basic research increases our store of knowledge and will potentialy lead to improvement in our lives later on.
Same logic applies to alternative energy research, should it fail. And given the huge benefits of potential success, its seems like the logical thing to do would be to pour a large amount of money in that direction.
Follow the money trail: years ago a friend made a comment that to completely understand a persons' view all one had to do is to simply ascertain how "they" make a living. It took me years to grasp this thought but now I think I've got it down pat......Kevin Drum makes a living shilling for the interests of the political left, his paycheck is dependent upon presenting ideas that are not offensive to his readers. Since he is a left-of-center type he has a tendency to express views that are party line. (pc) The oil shortage hypotheses that he writes about are primarily formulated by scientists who work for governments or universities who receive their funding from governments. These people need continuous funding or the Volvo goes into receivership.
The environmental "non-profits" that back these studies get their money from donations--the biggest donations come from people who live on unearned income.(like dad or grandmas')--The Kerrys,The Kennedys and The Fords come quickly to mind. Simply stated--The enviros make their living scaring the shit out of rich, lazy people.
I'm not saying that the political right doesn't do the same thing...they do. Their science comes from the industries that depend on them for corporate welfare and maintaining the military industrial complex....yes-it does exist.
All I'm saying is watch out for hidden agendas...politicians need control, academics need funding, scribes need adoration and I need a cocktail!
p.s. I personally believe that the more independent one is of the corporate/government world the less they have to worry about all this crap--that's why I trade futures, play music and own a "little cabin in the sky" near Flagstaff, AZ. Keep up the good work Megan-you're on the right track!
"The NSF spends quite a bit of money each year in research on theoretical math and theoretical physics - research which has no reasonable chance of translating into practical products in the conceivable future. The idea is that basic research increases our store of knowledge and will potentialy lead to improvement in our lives later on."
I'm going to be contrarian on this and say this isn't really the case. Basic science has downstream effects on other disciplines and on applied science, but the applied science/technology that is most of alternative energy doesn't has little of this multiplier effect. Worse, you might get a bunch of spin-out technologies out there spending investors' $$$ when the real markets haven't developed. I'd argue this has happened with fuel cells. (Mind you, it seems to happen with most waves of technology: e.g. first-wave biotech, genomics, nanotech)
".Kevin Drum makes a living shilling for the interests of the political left, his paycheck is dependent upon presenting ideas that are not offensive to his readers."
I very much doubt that the Washington Monthly is paying Kevin what he was making as a high-tech marketing exec. Kevin's given indications that he did pretty well in the high-tech boom, and that plus occasional consulting work in marketing is what sustains him. What the Washington Monthly pays might stretch to pay for his kitties' litter, but only if he shops at Costco.
Tom,
Can you help me with something? You say, "the atmosphere would listen if we have an incentive to *pay China & India to reduce their emissions*. Which is in the mechanisms in Kyoto, BTW."
That seemed wrong to me because India and China (and just about all of the traditional Third World cluntries) are "Non Annex B" countries under Kyoto and are not required to reduce emissions. A simple map of "Annex B" and "Non Annex B" countries can be found at
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/annex.htm
I have seen references to Section 12 Clean Development Mechanisms but I can't figure out exactly what they are or how they work. Do you know?
I completely agree that every model says that reducing worldwide emissions by 1/8 will cause warming to be somewhat slower. I was just asserting that no model says that kind of reduction will either stop or reverse warming. It is simply not true that, "if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked."
And, for what it's worth, Kyoto doesn't require the US to cut emissions by 50%. It's more like 15%, which means the US would cut global emissions by less than 4%. Of course, everyone agrees that Kyoto won't make much of a difference unless it is made much more stringent and expanded to include the Non Annex B countries.
I would say that reduction of dependence on foreign sources of a strategic material is not a bad idea. The only question is how we are to go about it. A heavy investment in nuclear energy and SPS systems would definitely be the way to go in that regard. With this in mind we can count on the Liberals to call for increased spending in Nuclear Energy and Space Development, right? ^_^
Im not a person that has great concern about the enviroment. But the current administration has created a real hatred of US big oil in me. It really bothers me that the Supreme Court didnt order the release of the DOE/Cheney/Enron minutes for no reason other than a search for understanding and/or culpibility in the largest bankruptcy in US history. But when I state this fact, people start making accusations of tree hugger and assume I support the Sierra Club.
It really bothers me that what little planning there was for post war Iraq stated that the Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction, while at the same time claiming Iraq wouldnt be an exercise in nation building. It made me absolutely furious when Bush then gave Iraq grants that made the American tax payer responsible for rebuilding Iraq so he could funnel sealed, no bid contracts to the Halliburtons and Bechtels. Because if we paid for the reconstruction with the Iraqi oil money we would have to let Iraq choose the contractors. Its as if the US armed forces were rented out to US big oil, and the US taxpayers are paying for it.
It really bothers me that despite all the shady buisness in Iraq that Im not getting my cut in cheap gas. I know all about demand in China and such, but I also know Exxon set records for profit last year, and are over 80% ahead of that pace for this year now. I also think Russia is playing games with that huge semi-privatized oil company thats current financial situation just happened to take the same amount of oil off the market that SA made available in its previous increase in production. Its like we screwed up Russias deal with Saddam, so there going to get there pound of flesh from the US. I also know there are other reasons that Russia pulled that oil off the market, but the timing makes you think.
I guess what Im saying is though I think the enviroment concerns are really overstated, this administration has me cheering for the enviroment side of this debate.
Tom wrote "Basic science has downstream effects on other disciplines and on applied science, but the applied science/technology that is most of alternative energy doesn't has little of this multiplier effect..."
Er, how exactly do you know this?
I will note, for the Detached Observer's benefit, that modern semiconductor technology is based on research into quantum theory some 40-50 years ago, that modern cryptographic algorithms (which secure wire transfers) are the result of research into pure mathematics about 30 years ago. 60 years ago, research into math and physics from 30 years before that was paying dividends in the form of operations research, and the development of motors, engines, and planes.
The lead time before basic research becomes useful is often quite long, but certain advances are simply not possible without the theoretical framework done over a generation ago.
Ray,
Yes, thats exactly the point I was making.
My question to Tom was why exactly this is not true for research into alternative energy sources, as he claimed.
Detached: Because alternative energy research is not basic research. Basic research creates new science, which will lead in totally unexpected directions, with unknown eventual payoffs. Alternative energy research is simply trying to apply the science we already have to a specific goal - and at this point it isn't directed towards anything actually new (not even the fusion research), but to trying to improve existing technologies until they become cost-effective. Big leaps are pretty unlikely, and pouring in government money tends to divert resources from what is actually close to becoming marketable to whatever has political pull.
Denmark’s experience is instructive to the rest of the world on wind power. They found that turbines only run an average of one day a month at the rated potential generating capacity. They were also surprised at the number of hours where the turbines generated no electricity at all because the wind speed was too high or too low. Overall their wind farms had a capacity to give Denmark over 30% of their power requirements but over a months time they only averaged half of that.
But was what worse was the variability of the power from hour to hour. It made power management of the electrical grid an impossible task.
Because of these factors the Danish Government has given up on wind power. They will use the turbines they have but they will not add any more or replace the ones that fail. However, they are encouraging other governments to buy turbines from Danish manufacturers.
You are getting closer to the real questions, but you have not gone far enough... go farther...
And Begbee... I am a Begbie (from Madras), myself, on my mother's side. That said, your comment is vapid, and I do not believe: "Im not a person that has great concern about the enviroment." in the least... your post is simply a collection of talking points, and has little substance otherwise. You seem to complain that we 1) dishonestly fought this war to obtain cheap oil and 2) oil isn't cheap... Hmm... must be a conspiracy in there somehwere.
This administration has little to do with this... elect a new president, by all means- I think you will find that we still need energy, and that it is still expensive, in more senses than monetary.
I have come to think that there are only two real currencies in the world- knowlege and power.. and by power I mean energy, motive force... everything else is fungible.
> Probably because cooking fires are carbon-neutral (i.e. they're not introducing carbon that wasn't in the biosphere back into the system)
It's not carbon-neutral if they're deforesting, which many of them are.
Of course, both oil and coal are also bio-carbon.
Tagore sorry about hijacking a relatives surname, my screenname is a Irvine Welsh reference, and has nothing to do with my lineage.
I dont care what you choose to believe about my thoughts on the enviroment. Im all for nuclear power, and that alone makes any accusation of tree hugger stupid. Im also all for drilling in Alaska. And if your going to use the word 'vapid', support your claim or accept the fact that your the one that is 'pretty vacant'.
You completely fail to see the point of my previous comments as to the war in Iraq. Its not just that everything the Bush administration said about Iraq was a deception. Because it was based on Wolfies filtering of the Iraq intelligence, in order to remove any point that disagreed with need for war on Iraq. My problem here is that the American taxpayer is paying for big US oil contracts in Iraq, when it should be the Iraqi oil paying for the cost of this war. Gee, the administration claims unemployment is a major problem in the occupation of Iraq, it seems to me using the Iraqi oil to hire Iraqis to do the reconstruction would really help the situation, and remove the burden from the American taxpayer. But then Halliburton and their ilk wouldnt have the sweetheart contracts in Iraq. Thats not to say Iraq wouldnt still need some foreign technical support. Further, not only are my taxdollars paying for US big energy contracts in Iraq, my cost for gas is rising. We are being bent over without the courtesy of a reach around.
As to the upcoming election, the choice is between a war hero, and an incredibly stupid former male cheerleader that froze until someone told him what to do on 911. If the worlds as dangerous as the reps say it is, the choice is obvious.
I'm annoyed by a minor point: the claim that European cars are "fuel efficient". They are not. It's not like the Europeans have some new technology to make more efficient use of the energy in gas. Their cars are just smaller. They use less gas because they are smaller, not more efficient.
As to government investment in energy research - the US HAS invested, or rather - spent a lot of money on energy research, and efficient cars research. The result: nill, nada, nothing. Which proves that we can't have all our wishes, not even when we pour endless gov. dollars on them.
(See: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072104.shtml for government financed energy programs).
mrkm wrote "Because alternative energy research is not basic research. Basic research creates new science..."
Where exactly do you get the claim that alternative energy research won't create new science, while other research very well may?
Many attempts to create practical technology have created new science. See the Manhattan Project.
"I'm annoyed by a minor point: the claim that European cars are "fuel efficient". They are not. It's not like the Europeans have some new technology to make more efficient use of the energy in gas. Their cars are just smaller. They use less gas because they are smaller, not more efficient."
European cars are smaller, but that is not the main reason for greater fuel economy in Europe. It's that most European passenger cars are diesels. If we used the same proportion of diesels as Europe does, that alone would basically eliminate the need to import oil. However, diesels are not feasible here because of our much tougher particulate standards, ironically signed into law by Bush.
Cutting US energy consumption by 30% would seem to be near the outer limit of what's really feasible. Rich, modern economies are that way because of high per-capita energy use. Western Europe and Japan get by on about half the per-capita use of the US, but both have significant geographic advantages. Taking that big a cut out of US usage on a permenant basis would probably require decades, as major changes in transportation and housing (and other things) would be required. So continued high energy consumption is a given (or the US becomes less wealthy).
The problem with poo-pooing the Hubbert Peak people is that it's a "bet the ranch" proposition. If they are right, we need to start on the conservation and alternate energy sources RIGHT NOW. If they are right and we don't start now, at some point in the future things will come crashing down around our ears; how about a war between the US and China/India fought in the Middle East to try to control the oil supplies? I personally don't think it's a gamble we can take.
I have a lot of comments, many not related to each other.
1. From what I understand, many of the environmental models do not account for increases in the output of the Sun. So they explain recent history but fail to account for a possibly major factor in global warming.
2. The oil in the ground in the US isn't going anywhere. If we use lots of foreign oil, we'll still have ours when theirs runs out. We ARE currently drilling and producing oil reserves in the US, though, so we're hardly bereft of domestic sources of energy. If foreign oil become more expensive, domestic oil would be exploited more.
3. Fusion research is currently government subsidized. It is also bound up by politics. I worked on a small fusion research project and we encountered outright hostility from the established fusion research community because we were proposing some radical, small, cheap methods of producing fusion that might actually work in the near term. My impression is that many of the fusion researchers are more interested in keeping the money flowing than producing results.
4. Most alternative energy sources (especially the renewable ones) are just not up to the task of producing enough energy. I've looked at the numbers and you just can't meet current or future energy needs without massive windfarms and solarfarms.
5. Europeans use less power because they have less stuff. European refrigerators are small and not very cold. Europeans don't use ice in their drinks. Etc... None of this is bad, but before the US is going to be able to drop down to European levels of energy use, someone is going to have to convince 300+ million Americans to give up a lot of convenience. That's not going to be an easy sell.
6. "Most European passenger cars are diesel"? This seems odd. When I was in Germany several years ago, this is not the impression I got. They do drive small cars. They also must buy new cars. Cars can only be so old and drive on the street. The US is producing plenty of fuel efficient, clean autos. It also has loads of old clunkers on the road that produce more pollution than hundreds of new cars. If new American cars produced 0 pollution, it would still take years for that to have an effect.
7. Kyoto is all about the CO2. It completely neglects other greenhouse gasses. Any models that take into account the effects of Kyoto better assume that someone figures out how to create less CO2 and more of something else that's bad.
8. BTW, even highly focused results-oriented research produces unrelated advances. I know that railgun research, for example, developed innovative carbon-fiber technology. And railguns. Pretty much a win-win situation.
Bolie IV
As to the upcoming election, the choice is between a war hero, and an incredibly stupid former male cheerleader that froze until someone told him what to do on 911. If the worlds as dangerous as the reps say it is, the choice is obvious.
I find it interesting that you elect to refer to John Kerry as a "war hero" and not as a longtime U.S. Senator. There are a lot of war heroes in this country and I'd wager precious few of them are qualified to be president. So while I honor Mr. Kerry for his service, it is of little to no relevance.
His Senate career, however, would seem to be of major relevance, don't you think? I find it curious that Mr. Kerry prefers to pretend that that career never ocurred. Perhaps you'd like to point out some of his legislative accomplishments for me, since he won't?
Oh, and while I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, I will point out that he was a chief executive for a U.S. state. That experience has produced most of our presidents over the last 4 decades.
p.s. Read "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. Please.
I realize that the "Country A" and "Country S" was a theoretical illustration, but many Americans -- even the informed commenters on this forum -- could usefully study the table of U.S. oil imports by country available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html. The top six countries, listed in terms of year-to-date 2004 imports in thousands of barrels per day, are
Canada 1,586
Mexico 1,579
Saudi Arabia 1,374
Venezuela 1,336
Nigeria 1,075
Iraq 654
Clearly Venezuela and Iraq are both likely to increase exports in the future when their respective internal political turmoil abates. SUV salesmen may not have to consider a career change just yet.
"If we used the same proportion of diesels as Europe does, that alone would basically eliminate the need to import oil."
This is a very strong statement. What is it based on ? I don't beleive it is true. There are no easy ways to reach energy independence.
Most people who are not involved with petroleum production don't realize finding and producing oil and gas is extremely expensive, difficult, and time consuming. Obviously there is a huge amount of money to be made if alternative energy could be made to work. The major oil companies are aware of this and they also understand engineering, science, and physics. If alternate energy was feasible (economic) they would be using it. If research would make it feasible they would be funding it. The fact that neither of these is going on to any great extent indicates replacing hydrocarbons will not be an easy task.
Ray stated that modern semiconductor technology is based on research into quantum theory some 40-50 years ago, that modern cryptographic algorithms (which secure wire transfers) are the result of research into pure mathematics about 30 years ago. 60 years ago, research into math and physics from 30 years before that was paying dividends in the form of operations research, and the development of motors, engines, and planes.
This is not quite the case.
In "To the Didital Age" (Johns Hopkins UP, 2002), for example, R.K. Bassett demonstrates that MOS technology emerged out of applied, product driven engineering and not basic research.
In more general terms, the idea of basic science leading to applied science leading to product development (the "linear model" of R&D") is the product of a position paper written by Truman's science advisor Vannevar Bush in 1948 rather than any sort of emprical evidence.
The basic idea was adopted as the framework of the science policy of the US government which gave us the NSF, the NIH, etc, and has become one of those things that everyone just knows is true, but which is largley untested.
One direct consequence of the Bush (Vannevar, not GHW or GW) Science policy has been the transformation of US higher education: the explosive growth in funding created incentives for universities to become research institutions.
(N.B., every research grant provides funding for the direct costs of the research and additional funding for "overhead." Overhead is typically charged at a rate of 80 - 100 % of direct costs and goes directly into the university's general fund.)
There is lots of petroleum held in tar sands, oil shale, and methane hydrates. These resources are mostly non economic (oil shale) or the technology to produce does not exist (methane hydrates). If oil prices continue to rise they will eventually become cost competitive with crude oil. At that point they will be produced.
Bolie Williams IV,
I agree with most of what you said, but 7 is wrong. Kyoto actually covers 6 sets of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride.
Countries are supposed to reduce their emissions of a weighted average of the 6 gases. The weights are their estimated "global warming potentials," expressed as "CO2 equivalents."
http://unfccc.int/resource/beginner_02_en.pdf
Carbon dioxide has a CO2e of 1, methane 23, and nitrous oxide 296. The fluorinated gases have ranges because it is uncertain how long they remain in the atmosphere. They have high GWPs but are rare so most global warming discussions ignore them.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/ccpo/glossary_gases.htm
Tom,
you said
"FWIW, I think DenBeste is way off on the feasibility of biomass & solar."
Could you please provide some numbers to back up what you "think". You went into exquisite detail on carbon sequestration on the other thread yet provide nothing besides an "I think" when it comes to the scaling problem of biomass and solar.
Thanks
TJIT
Gopher the main reason I and the Kerry campaign emphasize Kerrys service is the current president insists on referring to himself as a 'war time president'. In any case, I completely disagree with you in your claim its not relevant. We know from the vetting of Kerrys medals how he makes decisions under fire. We know from the 7 minutes of Bush sitting there, reading 'My Buddy the Goat' after being told 'America is under attack', how Bush DOESNT MAKE ANY DECISION WHEN STRESSED.
I dont know what Bush learned being governor in Texas, but it cant be much other than never taking responsibility for anything. The Economy? Not my fault I inherited a recession. 911? Not my fault, who could have thought of using Planes as weapons( I guess poppa Bush never told him stories about kamikazes)? The fact that most of the world now looks at the US as a den of liars and thieves because of Iraq? Saddam was a 'grave and gathering threat' despite the fact every interrogated Iraqi scientist prior to the invasion stated no wmd programs active since 98. Despite the fact the CIA said the Iraqi armed forces had been deteriorating since Desert Storm.
I dont think Kerry has been impressive as a senator. I dont think hes been bad either. One of the funniest things the Bush campaign is trying to sell is that its better to be decisive and stubbornly wrong, than it is to be reflective, and change course as the situation evolves. I have read Woodwards book, as well as Clarkes, and part of Oneills. The one constant in all those books is that Bush is clearly not fit to be President. Im currently reading Anonymous's Imperial Hubris, and I would strongly suggest it to anyone that wants the complete story on Oil, Islam, and terrorism.
Tom: "Probably because cooking fires are carbon-neutral (i.e. they're not introducing carbon that wasn't in the biosphere back into the system)"
Approximately 20% of China's 1.5B tons of coal produced each year is burned for cooking and heating on a small scale. Not only is it a carbon source, but it's a source of a lot of other nasty things that are turning out to be a serious health problem.
It is probably worth noting that China has extensive coal-field fires, burning on the order of 150M tons per year, and accounting for 2% or so of total world production of fossil-fuel CO2. Coal-field fires have been a natural occurrance for millions of years. Estimates for the Powder River region of the US are that more than 30B tons of coal were consumed in such fires.
Begbee,
Have you been following the Swift Boat controversy on the non-left side of the blogosphere at all? Kerry. a war hero? Gimme a break.
As to those infamous 7 minutes? What was Bush going to do? Turn into Superman and travel north at the speed of light to save the world from what? Nobody really knew what was going on at the time. What leadership experience do you have in a stressful situtation? Sometimes not doing anything until you get the facts is a good thing.
BTW, Kerry has said that he was unable to do anything for over 40 minutes when he heard. Besides, he can't even decide what to do about anything,other than wrap his arms around all sides of an issue until the French tell him what to do.
I'm annoyed by a minor point: the claim that European cars are "fuel efficient". They are not. It's not like the Europeans have some new technology to make more efficient use of the energy in gas. Their cars are just smaller. They use less gas because they are smaller, not more efficient.
So, if I took a Chevy Suburban, and put a great big lump of concrete into the back that it had to carry around, that wouldn't make it any less efficient?
steve and dsquared,
Can we agree that something is "more efficient" if it does the same thing with less?
It seems to me that steve is saying that a smaller car just doesn't do the same thing as a larger car.
And that dsquared is hinting that it does (a big car is just a small car with a great big lump of concrete in the back).
Isn't the answer that a small car is not the same as a big car but sometimes it is just as good (maybe even better). And sometimes it is worse.
So sometimes it is more efficient. And sometimes it just isn't comparable.
Ive seen plenty of the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry because their bitter old fools. 11 out of 12 to serve on his boats support Kerry. The Medals were vetted by the US Navy. Several of these guys have either told several different stories or recanted all together. These Swift Boaters are funded by the same Bush contributors that slandered both Mccain and Cleeland. The anti Kerry book was written by a holocaust revisionalist as well as a papel conspiracy nutjob.
The question is what if the attack on 911 was such that it could have been stopped or minimalized if Bush would have acted in the 7 minutes he sat in the classroom, or the additional 22 minutes he stayed at the school. Kerry wasnt the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, he had no authority to act in any way as a Senator. But Kerry proved himself under fire in Vietnam, he likely wouldnt have changed events on 911, but he wouldn't have just sat there looking scared. I wonder what the viewers of Al Jazeera think of that clip, you dont have to speak English to see the fear. And since you reps hate the French so much, should they take their 6000 troops out of Afganistan?
In Den Beste's Analysis he relates alternative energy to the 'war on terror'. This imposes some significant time and co-operation constraints for the implimentation of alternative energy. If you are looking at it from a global warming perspective, these assumptions can be relaxed significantly.
Most of his main critics on alternative energy are attacking him with the global warming assumptions, while he is using the war on terror asumptions. Of course you get different results, but calling his analysis stupid becasue of that is , well kinda dumb. If you want to compare apples to apples run his number with the different time line assumptions.
I would do this, but I have to finish my thesis in 2 weeks, so until then...
Trying to get this back on-topic -
Tom wrote
'"But the EU has more people than us, and with its ferocious energy taxes, has both countries and companies highly incented to find alternative energy sources. The result has been . . . Danish wind farms."
Err, and biodiesel.'
Indeed, biodiesel - which is also a heavily-over-hyped, energy-inefficient and environmentally-destructive way of not addressing our energy needs. However, in the USA as in Europe, it's a great way of buying both 'green' and farmer votes.
llater,
llamas
"Isn't the answer that a small car is not the same as a big car but sometimes it is just as good (maybe even better). And sometimes it is worse."
Absolutelly correct.
Those who think small cars are just as good or better (for their needs) buy small cars, as they are cheaper.
Those who think they are worse buy big cars.
Some people would just FORCE other people to buy small cars, regardless of the buyer's needs or preferences. Is this the solution to energy problems? You could as well force people to use less air-conditioning and less heating and dim the lights at the malls by decree. But this is a command economy, incompatible with a free society, and inefficient too.
A free economy in a free country works like this: when energy resources are scarce prices go up, and people decide, each one personally and freely, where to reduce his consumption: in energy or in other things, and how much of each.
As to "end our dependance on foreign oil" - that's reverting to autarky, an ancient and long inexistent state that nevertheless keeps fascinating some ignorant people. Why not "end our dependance" on foreign cameras, watches, wine, TVs, etc., etc., etc. Not only unrealistic, but absurd. We are no more dependant on foreign oil that foreign oil producers are dependant on merchandise purchased from us in return for that oil, as they cannot eat dollar bills or coins.
Well, for the folks hoping for a break through in fusion, get ready for a much longer wait. The US is abandoning fusion research here in the states according to this New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996225
Jacob wrote:
As to "end our dependance on foreign oil" - that's reverting to autarky, an ancient and long inexistent state that nevertheless keeps fascinating some ignorant people. Why not "end our dependance" on foreign cameras, watches, wine, TVs, etc., etc., etc. Not only unrealistic, but absurd. We are no more dependant on foreign oil that foreign oil producers are dependant on merchandise purchased from us in return for that oil, as they cannot eat dollar bills or coins.
This assumes that we are dependent on these items and if we are, how important these items are to us. Assuming our dependence on foreign wines for example, what would really happen if France and Italy decided they wouldn't sell us any more wine for some political reason? Some restauranteurs and wine enthusiasts might have to make do with Gallo for a while, but it really wouldn't hurt our economy that much. If two major oil producers, say Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refused to sell us oil, we would have problems.
It's all connected ...
One of the best energy technologies available is the breeder reactor -- converting non-fissile U-238 into fissile Pu-239 and Pu-241. As near a "something-for-nothing" technology as you're likely to see this side of Star Trek.
HOWEVER, engineering/industrializing plutonium recovery for use in power reactors would mean developing great cheap new ways to build nuclear weapons. This MIGHT not be a technology we want to spend a bunch of US tax money making available to the world.
Similarly, some have suggested that space power satellites comprising hundreds of square miles of collectors could beam masers at a grid on Earth to give us cheap electricity. Leaving aside the question of our "friends" fearing we might aim the maser at, say, Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus or Riyadh -- the commercialization/industrialization of ability to orbit tons of construction material cheaply corresponds with the ability of our foreign adversaries such as China or North Korea to pirate our technology for use in their missiles. Again, even leaving what KIND of warhead might be atop such missiles clear to one side of the debate -- do you really want to have thousands of cheap launching rockets for sale world wide to all bidders, every year?
Hydrogen fuel for automobiles might be a useful non-CO2 producing technology. But how long before the gasoline-based "Molotov cocktail" is replaced by an even more compact and unstable "al-Sadr Highball" or something?
Any new high-density energy-storage or energy-delivery technology allows new weapons. Most likely, the weapons will be developed FIRST. Missile warheads before astronauts; nuclear bombs before nuclear steam engines; military semaphore before telegraph ... all the way back to swords before plowshares or pruning hooks.
You wanna invest a bunch of money in basic science research for new energy systems? Great! But prepare yourself for the new problems.
So long as Saudi oil is the cheapest in the world to produce they'll have a lot of market power. That's just plain simple.
If the United cut its emissions in half, that would still leave 7/8 of the carbon generated. I don't know of any model that says that would reverse global warming or even slow it that much. I do not think it is fair to say "if we seriously reduce our carbon output, the problem will be mostly licked."
But any technology that would let the US cut its emmissions in half would almost certainly be taken up by Europe, China, India and other major players. Cutting US emissions in half would probably result in similar cuts by the EU and at least dramatically slowing the growth of emissions everywhere else.
When they first started to talk about standards, I urged that the criteria be ton-miles per gallon, a direct measure of efficiency. Opting for straight mpg [albeit a weighted mpg] allowed the companies a cheap way to make half as much car and sell it for twice as much. It is only after all the weight possible has been wrung out of cars that they had to look inward and make genuine improvements in efficiency.
As far as I know, the only way Saudi Arabia and Kuwait can decide not to sell oil to the US is to decide that they won't sell oil to anyone. Since oil is the only thing their nations produce that has any actual value, this might hurt the US economy but it would absolutely devastate theirs.
In fact, I believe the nations of the Middle East tried this tactic once upon a time back in the 70's -- I believe it was tied in some way (as always) to their neverending quest to destroy Israel. It turned out to be such a disaster that the chances of them ever doing it again are effectively zero.
But my history is a little shaky, anyone have more authoritative knowledge?
Roger:
'That seemed wrong to me because India and China (and just about all of the traditional Third World cluntries) are "Non Annex B" countries under Kyoto and are not required to reduce emissions. A simple map of "Annex B" and "Non Annex B" countries can be found at
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/annex.htm
'I have seen references to Section 12 Clean Development Mechanisms but I can't figure out exactly what they are or how they work. Do you know?"'
Quoting from a Pewclimate document:
'CDM allows companies or countries
with emissions obligations to fund specific emission reduction projects that contribute to sustainable development in developing countries, and to “credit” the resulting emissions reductions against their obligations.'
As to detailed mechanism, they were left to subsequent meetings of the Conference of Parties, and I haven't followed what the policy developments have been. I believe the CDM mechanism went into operation last year, according to pewclimate.org.
Detached observer wrote:
'Tom wrote "Basic science has downstream effects on other disciplines and on applied science, but the applied science/technology that is most of alternative energy doesn't has little of this multiplier effect..."
Er, how exactly do you know this?'
Seen too many applied research projects die on the vine without much joy coming out of them.
Applied research projects for energy are going to involve pilot plants, rather than bench-scale research. The capital/labor ratio is thus much higher, and the capital deployed is usually not suitable for alternate use. If you employ lots of grad students & professors, chances are even if they've reached a dead-end they'll find a way to create some discovery (if only to protect their careers). However, concrete and steel just sit there.
(IMHO, this is one of the reasons why the DoE's productivity, in terms of papers written, is spectacularly lower than the university sector.)
TJIT:
"FWIW, I think DenBeste is way off on the feasibility of biomass & solar."
'Could you please provide some numbers to back up what you "think". You went into exquisite detail on carbon sequestration on the other thread'
Why thank you.
' yet provide nothing besides an "I think" when it comes to the scaling problem of biomass and solar.'
I was vague because I know a lot about sequestration but less about biomassa and much less about solar.
I'll clarify: I think that by writing off sequestration, I think that Denbeste missed that certain technologies can, with sequestration, give us a solution until We Figure Out A Smarter Way.
For the foreseeable future, we'll be using carbon (mostly as coal), but the possibility of alternate carbon-neutral technologies means that, combined with geological sequestrations, give us the needed reduction in CO2 emissions to stabilize temperatures. (I also believe that natural sequestration is a non-starter: it'll only give us a ~3% off-set against global emissions to 2100.)
From a project back a few years ago for an alternate solar/waste heat generation technology, I remember being seriously impressed with how far solar had went. IIRC, the area needed for the US's energy needs was in the same order of magnitude of the area of rooftops in the US. So solar would be a big expense, but not a backbreaking one, especially if the efficiency of amorphous solar cells rises. Denbeste wrote off solar 'cos the area needed for CA would be ~200 sq. km. I estimate the total area of silicon chips currently to be in the ~6 sq.km range. Given the growth in silicon production over the past 30 years, I'd be loath to say that a 2-3 order of magnitude increase in production is out of the question.
"From what I understand, many of the environmental models do not account for increases in the output of the Sun. So they explain recent history but fail to account for a possibly major factor in global warming."
Err, not true. Cf. this (old) paper by Wigley in Science, one of the more prominent climate modelers, back in November 1998:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5394/1676
'Anthropogenic Influence on the Autocorrelation Structure of Hemispheric-Mean Temperatures
T. M. L. Wigley, * R. L. Smith, B. D. Santer
It is shown that lagged correlations for and cross-correlations between observed hemispheric-mean temperature data differ markedly from those for unforced (control-run) climate model simulations. The differences can be explained adequately by assuming that the observed data contain a significant externally forced component involving both natural (solar) and anthropogenic influences and that the global climate sensitivity is in the commonly accepted range. Solar forcing alone cannot reconcile the differences in autocorrelation structure between observations and model control-run data.'
HTH.
The major oil companies are aware of this and they also understand engineering, science, and physics. If alternate energy was feasible (economic) they would be using it. If research would make it feasible they would be funding it. The fact that neither of these is going on to any great extent indicates replacing hydrocarbons will not be an easy task.
Actually, the major oil companies are not only aware of this, many of them are working strenuously to become diversified energy companies. They are also aware that something like Kyoto (only this time, hopefully, with a more realistic tone) could come around again, and succeed, with a net negative effect on traditional hydrocarbon demand and a net positive effect on alternative energy designs (hydrocarbon or otherwise); or that market forces could drive that outcome anyway; and regardless, they would like to have a finger established in both pies when that time comes.
Where did you get the idea that the oil companies aren't investing in alternatives? Because I've spoken with two executives (from two different companies) who said otherwise, and gave evidence. The driving motivation is base self-interest but hey, if it works...
When they first started to talk about standards, I urged that the criteria be ton-miles per gallon, a direct measure of efficiency. Opting for straight mpg [albeit a weighted mpg] allowed the companies a cheap way to make half as much car and sell it for twice as much. It
The problem here is that we are forgetting what markets are good for. Take an SUV that takes twice as much gas per mile driven. If the SUV transports 3 people there is still less gas burned. Here is where the left should really learn to embrace the market. If CO2 is the problem then simply tax CO2. If people object to taxes simply take the revenue generated by the CO2 tax & reduce over taxes so there is no net tax increase.
Let the market then take into account the higher cost of using CO2 generating fuels. What will happen is that a combination of policies will be implemented including reduced consumption, higher fuel efficiency, better route planning (i.e. carpooling, flexible work schedules etc.) and so on. People will then crunch the numbers and find the options that best fit them, just like they do with the hundreds of different cell phone plans out there.
"The major oil companies are aware of this and they also understand engineering, science, and physics. If alternate energy was feasible (economic) they would be using it. If research would make it feasible they would be funding it. The fact that neither of these is going on to any great extent indicates replacing hydrocarbons will not be an easy task."
Guess who the largest maker of solar cells is. Go on, guess.
(Hint: www.bpsolar.com)
Begbee,
You win. I'm just an ignorant Republican shill who doesn't know anything except what the Cheney/Rove/Halliburton cartel feeds me every night thru my Fox News therapy sessions.
Keep drinking that kool aid and don't forget to change the tinfoil every now and then.
Just passing thru, forgive me for not reading all the comments;
"While the US is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (and, not coincidentally, the largest producer of goods and services), China and India are hot on our tail, and China has a lot of nasty, carbon emitting, air polluting coal to burn..."
This is not a secret and I assume that most informed environmentalist are well aware of this fact. But have you ever tried lobbying China to change a policy?
and yes, Europe is way ahead of us in the pursuit of energy independence. It may well be that sometime in the not too distant future this will prove to be a major competitive advantage for the Europeans. (puts crystal ball back under the table)
"Excuse me but if you want wind mills and
solar panels and fuel cells and fusion do
it on your own dime. Not mine."
What? Don't you think the US government is subsidizing the oil industry?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/archive/page.cfm?pageID=817
"reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
*lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
*government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists
*"hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution
and that doesn't even go into the money Mid East oil is costing us by way of the military....
yak writes, "As to those infamous 7 minutes? What was Bush going to do? Turn into Superman and travel north at the speed of light to save the world from what? Nobody really knew what was going on at the time. What leadership experience do you have in a stressful situtation? Sometimes not doing anything until you get the facts is a good thing."
Please don't defend this. If you want to say something good about Bush say that he supports policies that are best. But don't defend his sitting there dumb-faced while NYC and DC are being attacked. That would be even worse than defending his befuddlement when asked a question that wasn't on his script in a press conference. Or defending his record-breaking amount of vacation time while in office. We only have one U.S. present at a time. We have a pool of 100M or more people to draw from. I would like our leader to be someone I can admire and respect even if I disagree with his or her policies.
Tom,
Thanks for the info.
Oil companies are indeed trying to diversify into other sources of energy. The company formerly known as British Petroleum now goes by BP and uses the slogan "beyond petroleum."
Gee, I should have returned to this thread earlier. Since Tom addressed my earlier post, which addressed a prior thread in which both of us participated, I'll respond. I normally wouldn't, given the amount of time elapsed, but since Tom is by far the best proponent of alt.fuel and related tech that I've seen at the various blogs I frequent, he deserves my honest response.
The fact that DenBeste may have gotten some calculations wrong on CO2 sequestration is cause for concern, but does not, in my mind, warrant throwing out his overall major theses (yes, plural) regarding other alt.energy sources. I recognize that there are folks at other blogs who find DenBeste too pessimistic, particularly about biomass-related tech. But I've yet to read a convincing, comprehensive refutation of DenBeste's basic point that there is not a "practical" long-term solution to dependence on fossil fuels at this time. The basic point, while largely based on "practicality" as defined in fields of engineering, is not entirely based on them. For example, as I noted above, the case of fission, which is scientifically practical, but not politically practical, in the U.S. And it's not a lack of looking on my part; I think it would be great if a solution were to magically appear. But it's much easier for people to promote the miracle cure du jour than it is to come up with a practical long-term solution.
Moreover, my post was responding to fdl's first post in this thread about government funding of alt.energy research. As Tom and others here have noted, such research is already being funded both privately and publicly. The policy issue is how much public money is the public willing to commit to such research, if there are overall problems of practicality. I agree that DenBeste is taking a bit of a risk by working from first principles without domain knowledge, but aside from Tom's point on sequestration, I haven't seen much in the way of refutation. And the advantage of working from first principles is that it can give you an idea of the larger constraints and thus the probability of finding that long-sterm solution.
Furthermore, I think it should be recognized that the renewed public interest in the issue is linked to current world and political events. On that score, I think DenBeste also makes a decent case that while we would have less to do with the Middle East if we came up with an alt.energy solution, it would not be a sufficient solution to the problem of terrorism against the U.S. And when the issue is the pirority of alt.energy funding in the federal budget, one's opinion about the related geopolitics is going to matter.
"Gee, I should have returned to this thread earlier. Since Tom addressed my earlier post, which addressed a prior thread in which both of us participated, I'll respond. I normally wouldn't, given the amount of time elapsed, but since Tom is by far the best proponent of alt.fuel and related tech that I've seen at the various blogs I frequent, he deserves my honest response."
Thanks for the compliment. I've never really thought of myself as a real proponent of alternative fuels, though: for instance, I think starch-based bioethanol is a ludricous waste of money, that cellulose-based bioethanol has some really, really serious technical problems that might make it a nonstarter, and am agnostic on biodiesel (only because I'm unfamiliar with the subject, and need to get a colleague who's looking at the subject ot give me the straight dope). And I've never talked about how GM had a car that got 250 mpg on hemp oil but 'they covered it up man'. So I'm not sure I've got the bona fides needed.
"The fact that DenBeste may have gotten some calculations wrong on CO2 sequestration is cause for concern, but does not, in my mind, warrant throwing out his overall major theses (yes, plural) regarding other alt.energy sources."
My problem with DenBeste thesis is that he's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Biomass could only meet 12-15% of the US's energy needs, yes: but that 12-15% that we're not burning fossil fuel to meet.
I'd see a larger role for nuclear and coal (with sequestration) [although I have a problem with nuclear more from the fact that if, say PG&E built another nuclear plant there's an implicit risk that's taken on by the government if there's an accident or if the cost of disposal of waste is prohibitive).
"Furthermore, I think it should be recognized that the renewed public interest in the issue is linked to current world and political events."
I'd add that new commercial-scale alternative fuels (be it hydrogen or fuels from cellulosic biomass) are 10-15 years away from commercialization, by which time hopefully we'll all be worrying about some other problem than Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
ABR, I'd suggest finding something substantive, and not taken directly from a Michael Moore movie, if you want to criticize the Bush Administration.
The teacher in that Florida classroom praised President Bush's demeanor during that morning, and has said that even though she didn't vote for him, she would have that day, based on how he handled a very difficult situation.
One wonders how Mr. Moore would have handled it - maybe grabbed an extra box of Twinkies to get him through the hour? As for Senator Kerry - maybe he would have handled it as well as President Bush. That's entirely possible.
As for all of that time President Bush allegedly spent on vacation - Mr. Moore claimed that President Bush was on vacation "42 percent of the time" during his first eight months in office. Except that Mr. Moore included time spent at Camp David and on foreign trips in that figure. (Mr. Moore also included events from the first year and eight months of the Bush presidency when calculating this figure, but somehow neglected to mention this.) As anyone remotely familiar with American politics knows, much business is conducted at both Camp David and on overseas trips.
Relying on a Michael Moore film to buttress an argument (or create one in the first place), is not the safest path in any debate.
Byebye, Jane - Your name fooled me but when you advocatesd higher taxes to force people into smaller vehicles I am outa here. Any time they raise the tax to make you stop doing something, they are tyranically wrong.
In the case of pollution, I think there's a valid argument -- unlike most collectivist arguments -- that there is an infringement on the property rights of others that justifies the tax. I don't particularly care about whether or not people get into smaller vehicles, but I would like to see them bearing the costs of the pollution they emit, rather than forcing it onto others.
Geeber much of America was well aware of Bushs terror paralysis long before Moores movie came out. Attacking Moore everytime 911 is mentioned is pretty pathetic...
Tom wrote "Seen too many applied research projects die on the vine without much joy coming out of them."
Perhaps you just weren't around when someone made use of the experience later.
The bottom line is that its generally very difficult to predict which research will be used again and which won't. Many of historys famous project failures in science ended up being tremendously useful later. Its also nearly impossible to predict which scientific directions will succeed. In light of this, it makes sense to overfund those plausible scientific directions which, if succesful, would have the greatest impact.
Consider the following two cases of how the environmental groups deal with their "problems."
I've seen a TV piece about the Iraqi sabotaging of the Kuwaiti oil fields, multiple times. It was either a National Geographic or a "Frontline" program - - but I've NEVER seen a presentation by an environmental group. So where's their presentation of this tremendous environmental event?
Ronald Reagan had SOME effect on expediting the resolution of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union(which is why his ardent supporters could present the false claim that he was the 'only' guy who brought this about.) The Soviet demise and Eastern Europe changes made the world aware of environmental insults that DWARFED the problems in the west - and today most of these problems are now being resolved.
Now there's no reason to believe that Reagan intended to noticeably improve the environment in this manner .... but he did. I doubt that Reagan's contribution will ever be acknowledged by the enviro groups.
The environmental movements are led by folks who lead a POLITICAL agenda - - "environment" is the issue, the front, that is enployed as a basis for the political agenda.
"But don't defend his sitting there dumb-faced while NYC and DC are being attacked"
Bush could stick his fingers up his nose, as far as I'm concerned. I tend to prefer substance over appearance. So I'd like that whatsisname war-hero to explain what he would have done and what he plans to do if elected, but it's always something like "Bring. It. On."
This is my basic trouble with Den Beste and people who seem to challenge the idea trying to reduce the use of fossils significantly is a pipe dream.
There seems to be an infinite capacity to rely on breakthroughs in technology to extract, refine oil in sand tars and other non-traditional sources, yet the idea that significant breakthroughs in so call renewables seem to be looked at with an order of magnitude more skepticism. The example of wind power is actually quite funny since Den Beste is an engineer. Yes the power is uneven, but all that that means is that we need to develop suitable storage for the power, you can store power 9 ways from Friday. A few methods off the top of my head would be compressed air, water, hydraulic, and the fuel cell (although that is much more exotic then the former methods).
Point is that people like Den Beste are very quick to dismiss the notion of major leaps in technology that would make renewables a reasonable adjunct to the overall power stew yet have an infinite capacity to assume that extraction and refinement technologies will be developed to keep oil flowing at a pace somewhat close to current levels.
> I don't particularly care about whether or not people get into smaller vehicles, but I would like to see them bearing the costs of the pollution they emit, rather than forcing it onto others.
And I'd like to see NYC and other urban areas pay for their transit systems.
Does pollution from a car in North Dakota affect anyone?
One problem with the "polluters should compensate" argument is that the payments don't go towards mitigation, so the victims are always asking for more.
"Yes the power is uneven, but all that that means is that we need to develop suitable storage for the power, you can store power 9 ways from Friday. A few methods off the top of my head would be compressed air, water, hydraulic, and the fuel cell (although that is much more exotic then the former methods)."
And all THAT means is you double the investment in R&D and engineering -- one dollar for energy gneration and one dollar for energy storage.
Somewhile later, the guy who invested his dollar in generating energy to be used where needed as needed is going to be selling his product at half the price of your generator-and-battery system.
ABR,
Begbee brought up the 7 minutes, I was responding to that. My point was that in a crisis situation, sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action - it's better than doing the wrong thing. A leader requires information to make the decisions he deems necessary to respond to the situation at hand. Sometimes you get too much, sometimes too little, but rarely do you get exactly the information you really want. On the morning of September 11th, there was a lot of confusion as to what exactly was going on and where by a number of federal agencies. I used to fly jets for a living and this doesn't surpise me at all.
One of the best thing you can do is appear calm. One of the worst things you can do is appear panicked. I would say that Bush was closer to the former than the latter. And he has remained that way since.
As to Bush's policies, some I like, some I don't. But to me this election is about one thing and one thing only - who do I think will be better at fighting the war on terror? And the answer is Bush.
Geeber writes, "ABR, I'd suggest finding something substantive, and not taken directly from a Michael Moore movie, if you want to criticize the Bush Administration."
And maor writes, "I tend to prefer substance over appearance."
I'm not sure where the reference to Michael Moore comes from, however I dare you or any other intelligent American to look me in the eye after seeing Bush at a press conference and say, "Yes, I respect this man George Bush, and I really believe he is guiding our country with a better-than-average grasp of the forces that are at play at home and abroad."
I'm not saying anything about who would do better or what should be done in what situation. I'm not saying Kerry's policy's are good or Bush's (whoever determines them) are bad. I'm just saying I think a pool of 100M possible candidates should have been able to produce a finer specimen to stand at the head of our nation than that.
Moreover I would bet quite a lot that if you took some hypothetical "center" of the _positive_ reasons behind all Bush supporters' support of Bush and all Kerry supporters' support of Kerry, you would find the latter significantly more based on "substantive" issues than the former.
I have seen Bush at a press conference and I say, "Yes, I respect this man George Bush, and I really believe he is guiding our country with a better-than-average grasp of the forces that are at play at home and abroad."
Look, we already know you don't like Bush, and I don't really understand why--I think it's a visceral reaction. I've observed Bush and I like him. He does what he says he is going to do, and I like what he says he is going to do. I think he is on the right track, except for not reining in the GOP/Democrats who push for pork, pork, and more pork, but other than the tremendous increase in federal spending (tremendous not counting the GWOT effort, which I happen to think is money well spent), I agree with most of his policies and how he is implementing them.
The man's a leader; Kerry is not.
Pouncer,
Great and when that technology is developed then “oh happy we”. We can all live in the Panglossian garden where we only have to protect our cow from the pox. But your comment was a bit of a quibble from the main point; you seem to be one of those types of people who believe that the technology solutions for renewables are pie in the sky while everything else is somehow more feasible. You also seem to assume that the guy who develops the “future tech” will be generating the power for the same price that power is generated from the sun or the wind or cow dung.
Again why are logarithmic leaps in extraction and refinement technology for making exotic sources of oil more likely then the same level of advancments in technologies for making renewables economically feasible?
At the risk of letting the thread drift further OT, I'll note the following about ABR's post.
ABR rolls out a variation of the standard "Bush is an idiot" meme. The meme is itself a variation of the standard Leftist meme that conservatives in high office are: (a) stupid; (b) evil; (c) religious fanatics; or (d) all of the above.
ABR's evidence is the fact that Bush isn't very articulate. The questions begged by folks like ABR are whether being articulate equates to being intelligent, and whether either is the most important quality to seek in a President.
Most folks who hold ABR's views also tended to believe that Ronald Reagan was stupid, and he was "the Great Communicator." Folks who hold the opposite view would point out that Bill Clinton was very articulate, but could not bring himself to pull the trigger on bin Laden. Jimmy Carter was thought to be an intelligent man, but his foreign policy was largely a disaster, particularly his acquiescence in the rise of theocracy in Iran.
I would suggest that there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom of judgment.
As for the now-imfamous seven minutes, perhaps it might occur to people that when the President is separated from his national security and intelligence staffs at a moment of crisis, there is probably a security protocol for the Secret Service to follow in terms of: immediately protecting the President on-site, ensuring that Air Force One and the route thereto are safe, establishing contact with WH, NSA, CIA, etc. Moreover, that such protocols are not likely to be made public knowledge for the consumption of terror groups. Finally, that voters have had ample opportunity to judge Bush's response to 9-11, and are unlikely to change their positive view of it.
Detached Observer wrote:
"The bottom line is that its generally very difficult to predict which research will be used again and which won't. Many of historys famous project failures in science ended up being tremendously useful later. Its also nearly impossible to predict which scientific directions will succeed. In light of this, it makes sense to overfund those plausible scientific directions which, if succesful, would have the greatest impact."
All of which is obvious to the point of almost being tautological: R&D is the paradigmatic example of a good with large positive externality. However, we were talking about the difference in such externalities between applied and basic research. Applied research has less risks, but has less applicability outside of the specific problem you're seeking to solve. That's why there's private funding of applied R&D, but not of basic R&D; the externalities for applied R&D are less.
Rex wrote:
I've observed Bush and I like him. He does what he says he is going to do, and I like what he says he is going to do. I think he is on the right track, except for not reining in the GOP/Democrats who push for pork, pork, and more pork, but other than the tremendous increase in federal spending (tremendous not counting the GWOT effort, which I happen to think is money well spent), I agree with most of his policies and how he is implementing them.
I concur although I could probably come up with a longer list of things I disagree with the POTUS on than just pork barrel spending (e.g. Medicare prescription drug benefit, agricultural subsidies, supporting some tariffs in order to get votes for free trade agreements – which Clinton did even more so than Bush but with less success since he lost TPA, general growth of government, etc.) – the thing is that each of these complaints are just as true is not more so for John Kerry in which case I am hardly going to vote for a guy who’s objectively worse than the incumbent. Bush still has things I do agree with that go beyond just the war such Social Security reform, a general preference for an “ownership society” versus a “dependent society,” health care savings accounts, FDA and EPA reform, tort reform, and a general focus on long term economic growth in the private sector of the economy. Despite the areas where he has fallen short (mainly government spending), there is simply no logical reason for a conservative/libertarian to vote for Kerry over Bush.
Karl writes, "ABR rolls out a variation of the standard "Bush is an idiot" meme. The meme is itself a variation of the standard Leftist meme that conservatives in high office are: (a) stupid; (b) evil; (c) religious fanatics; or (d) all of the above."
Please don't belittle my criticism by trying to turn it into something more extreme, or otherwise putting words into my mouth. All I was saying is that I would prefer to have someone who can answer a contentful question put to him by a member of the press in a way that makes me confident he actually has a grasp of the issues relevant to it. I'm not going to quote specific examples, but what I'm talking about becomes very clear if you watch a press conference with Bush and then watch one with, for example, Colin Powell. With Powell he is on top of every question, almost a step ahead of his interviewers, and he always gives a contentful response addressing the substance of the question. Bush will generally stall and stammer, in themselves innocent enough, but then he will usually just repeat his main message for the evening, or resort to catch phrases. It doesn't just look like an articulation problem, it really looks like he is operating at the level of the words rather than the concepts.
Look at it this way, if someone came into a job interview and answered substantive questions relating to the position in the way that Bush answers questions at press conferences, would you hire him or her?
If we must have a president with the Bush administration's policies, I for one would be infinitely happier with Powell, or even Cheney or Rumsfeld, neither of whom are really up to Powell's standard but would at least make me feel like there was someone with a reasonable degree of awareness at the helm.
As for Karl's other points: 1) Assessment of wisdom of judgment depends mainly on whether you agree with the decisions made, which comes down to a policy debate; many who criticize Bush believe that the administrations policies reflect the opposite of wisdom. 2) It is interesting to see so many different excuses and explanations put forth for the 7 minute sitting-there on 9/11. Context aside, I think it is quite reasonable to not want a leader who freezes like this, and to not consider it a very leader-like thing to do to do so. In the grand scheme it doesn't matter that much if he sat there for 7 minutes or not, but I think people tend to raise the issue because it seems such direct evidence to the idea of Bush as a "decisive leader" or as a "leader" at all. Of course decisiveness can be reflected in many ways, but the disconnect between the rhetoric and the action in this one case is so sharp as to draw attention despite any lack of overall significance..
The most essential and basic dots were not being connected. Everyone is talking about CO2 emmissions and projections into 2020 and no one has mentioned food.
I think the dots that should be connected from Drum's story are that it is irresponsible to use the amount of oil that we use for transportation when we KNOW that its going to peak soon and the importance that petroleum plays in agribusiness. And there are no known alternatives at this time
This is a point that deserves consideration. So maybe a step outside of the box might be appropriate.
ABR,
I guess it just comes down to what you want the leader of the free world to be thinking about. I want him to be thinking of the big picture and not get bogged down in too many details--that's what the entire Executive Branch of the gummint is for. So, while I expect him to have some level of detail at his command, I certainly don't expect him to have the same level of detail as Powell or Cheney or Rumsfeld.
That's why it's so important to surround yourself with competent people, which is why I voted for Reagan in 1984 after voting for Anderson in 1980--I was impressed with the way he surrounded himself with competent people who shared his philosophy. And this was one of the reasons why I voted against Clinton in 1996--not only were some of his appointees actual crooks, but their operating philosophy scares the pants off of me! Robert Reich espoused socialism in a very scary way. Madeline Albright didn't know the first thing about dealing with bullies. Etc.
So, although Bush isn't my first choice, he's way above anyone, and I mean ANYONE, that the Democrats have considered.
While there may be no logical reason for a Libertarian to vote for Kerry, there really isn't any reason for a real Libertarian to vote for Bush either. Bush has presided over a tremednous increase in the size and scope of government(prescription drugs, Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security), made a mockery of frade trade for the sake of trying to get PA's electoral votes, gotten our military bogged down in an unnecessary war, imposed greated limits on personal freedoms, pi**d all over the concept of state's rights through his AG (medicinial Marijuana and right to die). Any "Libertarian" who votes for Bush may as well simply stop the charade and join the GOP.
Raining Ketchup wrote:
While there may be no logical reason for a Libertarian to vote for Kerry, there really isn't any reason for a real Libertarian to vote for Bush either.
Sure there is and I’ve listed about half a dozen reasons above – Social Security reform, EPA and FDA reform, tort reform, health care savings accounts, policies directed towards long-term economic growth, and a general focus on an “ownership society.” He’s generally done pretty good on trade issues in pushing for expanding markets abroad although he, like his predecessor, has agreed to temporary tariffs to get the votes for these agreements. He’s more likely to nominate strict constructionists to the bench and less likely to defer American sovereignty to foreign organizations than his challenger.
Bush has presided over a tremednous increase in the size and scope of government (prescription drugs,
Acknowledged but it was pretty clear during the 2000 election that there was a bipartisan consensus for having a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Bush’s cost $534 Billion while Kerry’s was $700-900 Billion and at least with Bush’s we got health care savings accounts and begun to introduce the concept of means testing to federal entitlement programs and (some) competition into the system. I attended a health care conference a couple of months ago and several speakers made the prediction that the Medicare reform had paved the way for further means testing and the eventual privatization of both Medicare and Social Security. At worst we got a mixed bag but perhaps this could be the start of long-term reform that libertarians do support.
Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security
What of it? Arguably since both the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security fall within the power of the federal government to deal with terrorists (something that all but the anarchist fringe of the libertarian movement agree is a power for the federal government) it isn’t necessarily an expansion of the scope of the State. The Patriot Act pretty much just codified powers that the federal government already has and the Department of Homeland Security was largely a consolidation of already existing agencies. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t legitimate criticisms of both, just that it really isn’t much in the way of expansion of government.
made a mockery of frade trade for the sake of trying to get PA's electoral votes
Oh please, where have you been for the last twelve years? Horse-trading is how things get done in Washington. In this case it was Bush agreeing to steel tariffs (which are already repealed IIRC) in order to get the votes for Trade Promotion authority and the trade agreements that were passed and signed into law. Funny how we didn’t hear too many free traders bitch and moan when Clinton did the same thing in June of 1993 (except that his steel tariffs went up to about 68% IIRC) in order to get votes for NAFTA.
gotten our military bogged down in an unnecessary war
Debatable since quite a few of us see the war as both a necessary and a good thing or at least better than the alternative which was eight years of sleeping at the switch while refusing to deal with threats. Also toppling dictatorship that want to build WMDs, killing terrorists, and giving some thirty million or so people a shot at building a decent society in a strategically vital region that is bereft of them rather than simply sucking up to whichever strongman promises “stability” is preferable than waiting for them to attack again on our soil.
imposed greated limits on personal freedoms
Really? Please provide us with evidence of a personal freedom that we don’t have now that we had before Bush (43) became president.
Thorley Winston writes:
Really? Please provide us with evidence of a personal freedom that we don’t have now that we had before Bush (43) became president.
Yes, really! Bush reinstated the Federal Gag rule on abortion, a Constitutionally protect individual freedom according to the US Supreme Court. I never claimed that Bush elminated a single freedom, just that he imposed greater limits. And he did. Please stop distorting my argument.
As for the tariffs, give me a break. Everyone with an ounce of political savy knows they were temporarly put on to help Bush in key swing states like PA and OH and not to gain votes on a trade pact. If they were to gain votes, perhaps you could tell me whose votes were gained. Just one.
Raining Ketchup,
There is a huge difference between prohibiting speech and saying that you can't use federal dollars to fund certain types of speech. You might not like it, but don't confuse it with a constitutional right.
You sound as overwrought as the local librarians who don't think that the feds ought to have the same access to records when dealing with suspected terrorists as they already had when dealing with suspected drug dealers.
Rex, I am not confusing anything. It is abortion which is a constitutional right. The gag rule is a restriction on this right. Get it yet?
I might be wrong here, but doesn't the "Gag rule" refer to the so called Mexico City policy, which is aimed at foreign entities which receive U.S. funds? If so, then perhaps the only limit on the freedoms of Americans anyway, would be on those Americans living abroad who may wish to obtain reproductive services and/or information from those agencies. Not that I agree with the policy, but I think that its impact on the freedom of Americans is minimal.
ABR writes:
"Please don't belittle my criticism by trying to turn it into something more extreme, or otherwise putting words into my mouth. All I was saying is that I would prefer to have someone who can answer a contentful question put to him by a member of the press in a way that makes me confident he actually has a grasp of the issues relevant to it."
This may not be a variation on the "Bush is stupid" meme in ABR's mind; I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves. But I will note that ABR does not say that Bush is not stupid.
ABR then confirms the basic point of my prior post re: the weight and import he gives to giving articulate answers at press conferences.
And guess what? I wish Bush were as articulate as Cheney, or Powell, or Rumsfeld. The point remains that talk, ultimately, is just that.
John Kerry is more articulate than Bush. Here's what Kerry said today:
"For example, why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons?"
And here's what Kerry said at the beginning of the month:
"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has had very little imagination, enormous sort of ideological fixation and, frankly, took its eye off the war against al Qaeda and the war on terror shifting it to Iraq at enormous cost to the American people and to the legitimacy of the war on terror." (ABC’s “This Week,” 8/1/04)
I'm pretty sure that Kerry has been advocating getting more countries involved in Iraq. That's unlikely to happen, but if it did, Germany and France would be even more resistant to troop reductions in Europe. (BTW, does it matter if you are articulate when your plans are secret?)
Or we could take the Kerry statement on "Face the Nation" that voting against the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan would be "irresponsible." He then voted against it. Did he vote for a substitute that would have "paid" for the war by repealing tax cuts? Yes. Did that substitute pass? No. The final vote was whether to pay for the war (even if by issuing debt). He voted against it.
Or we could take the eloquent answer Kerry gave to the question of whether he would consider himself a "war president." It's lengthy, but you can read it here:
http://instapundit.com/archives/016466.php
In short, Bush is not a particularly articulate man, but it's usually pretty easy to figure out where he stands on an issue. Kerry (who is the other choice here, not Cheney, Powell or Rumsfeld) is an articulate man, but it is not easy to figure out where he st