Bipartisanship, perhaps an oxymoron already, brings us an apparent oxymoron: "Drilling for Clean Energy" from Representatives Jim Marshall and Roscoe Bartlett, writing in the WaPo:
...a strategic plan to use the remaining value of our federally owned oil and natural gas reserves to fund a clean, affordable and independent energy future for America, a goal worthy of short-term environmental concessions and risks.
Their idea is to open up ANWR and offshore for drilling, but under changed financial terms that would capture more of the revenues for the federal government, and ensure that the money goes to develop solar, wind, nuclear, and "better" biofuels.
Now, some questions (and not all are rhetorical, some are genuine requests for those who know to chime in):
Are Marshall and Bartlett hell-bent on drilling, and just trying to seduce and undermine the opposition?
Why talk of "short-term environmental risks" only? That sounds kind of minor, not really worthy of consideration by our wise, far-sighted legislators. Aren't there also important long-term risks, such as total destruction of civilization as we know it?
They discuss the estimated federal revenue ("trillions of dollars"). What happened to the environmental risks? Aren't they worthy of discussion? What about the contribution to global warming? Is there any way to estimate it? What would the units be? Kilograms of carbon emitted yearly at an estimated burn rate for the oil and gas, as a percentage of yearly global emissions? Degrees centigrade of warming per year, with a comparison to the expected warming if the oil and gas remained sequestered?
What about estimates of the other risks (oil spills, habitat loss, what else?).
What about the federal leases already granted but never drilled? Shouldn't this plan be applied to them first? How do the estimated yields compare? How about the environmental risks there; are they bigger or smaller?
Marshall and Barlett write:
The United States can be virtually free of fossil-fuel use within a few decades -- if we pursue this goal aggressively.
Isn't it a good thing that a future without fossil fuels is part of a bipartisan vision? But how many decades is "a few"? How many decades before the U.S., indeed the world, ceases to be recognizable because of global warming?
Is this more or less important than Sarah Palin's uterus and propensity for bullying librarians?
- gob's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Simple answers to simple questions
gob asks:
Less important, of course.
Go read Elizabeth Kolbert, Climate of Man. This plan is so, so inadeqate compared to what we need to do.
Oh, and what kind of dog is Marshall? Why, a a Blue Dog, of course.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Energy Econ 101
I plan to write a post (when I get my head out of the weeds) regarding the current economics of clean energy.
Before I do, I am glad someone else noticed that there is some interesting "strange bedfellows" going on, right out there in public and everything. For example, T. Boone Pickens? What the fuck is the Swiftboat King doing advertising wind (oh, and drilling natural gas)? GE? Exxon? Why are they all advocating new energy solutions? What's with all the "We can DO IT" alternative energy ads? Who is spending that dough? What is their motivation? Did all these troglodytes of the oil industry just have epiphanies and decide to become tree huggers?
Yeah right.
Here are some hints:
1.) Capital equipment financing vs. energy production's future commodity price risks
2.) Geographic monopolies vs. geographic demands
3.) 2008 accelerated capital depreciation vs. corporate windfall profit taxes.
Notice something in those points? No talk of climate change.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
the only issue here...
There are three separate issues here...
1) our need to find sources of 'cleaner' energy
2) our need to find sources of 'affordable' energy
3) our need to be energy independent
Both are worthy goals, and can be worked toward simultaneously.
The problem, as I see it, is that these kinds of proposals do not require that US resources be used exclusively in the US -- and excluded from/independent of international oil markets.
mini-turbines now available--
very cool, but still way way too expensive--
Tiny Turbines May Have a Bright Future -- http://www.spiegel.de/international/busi...
"...five meters (16 feet) tall and with a diameter of close to three meters, they are certainly too big for a kitchen cabinet. They would, however, definitely fit in backyards and city parks and on the roofs of houses and office buildings. ...
It is not, as one might be tempted to believe, a vast, futuristic art project. Rather, the odd-looking, twisting contraptions are the newest generation of high-tech wind turbines. In contrast to their cousins, these windmills are virtually silent, do not require long blades to catch the wind, and spin no matter which direction the wind is blowing. Even better, their modest size and weight mean they can easily be installed on rooftops -- and they can generate up to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to supply two low-energy homes, or a 20 person office, with power. ..."