 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
July 10, 2008 How the Greens Captured Energy PolicyBy J.R. DunnThe only group in American that sees energy policy achieving some of their goals are the ones who oversaw its implementation from the beginning: the environmentalist Greens. It's obvious that our energy policy was intended not for the benefit of the public, or industry, or government, but almost solely to fit the agenda and goals of the Green movement, and not even the public agenda and goals, but the core agenda rarely referred to except through euphemism. The irony here is that it has done next to nothing to fulfill the actual requirements of the environmentalists. Greens, it appears, are the worst judges of their own true needs. A glance at the record will give us a clear idea as to how we reached this pass. One thing consistently overlooked is that American energy policy is literally the result of a series of accidents. Each of these incidents set off a blizzard of activity intended to "rationalize" the energy industry and its practices, prevent further mishaps, increase government control, and not the least, usher in the new Green Age. Each thrust American energy policy deeper into stagnation. The first incident occurred at the very infancy of the modern Green movement (which is distinct from the conservation movement, a far older phenomenon, with no more true relationship between the two than between socialists and communists), and played a large part in defining environmentalism, setting its tactics, and establishing it as a political and social force Santa Barbara On January 29, 1969, a blowout occurred at a Union Oil platform six miles off Santa Barbara. The blowout itself was contained, but internal pressure ruptured the pipe, sending 200,000 gallons of crude spewing out in an 800 square-mile slick. Prevailing winds blew the oil directly onto the shore, fouling over 35 miles of coastline. Thousands of birds were threatened along with seals and dolphins. The public rallied to save the wildlife with some success. Environmentalists rallied alongside them. Within days, an anti-oil activist group, GOO (Get Oil Out) was in operation, calling for boycotts and circulating petitions to end offshore drilling. Ignored in all the uproar was the fact that Union Oil had been allowed to skimp on heavy-duty protective sheathing by the U.S. Geological Survey. If the piping had been reinforced as called for by standard procedure, the rupture might not have occurred, or might well have been contained. But, the logic of political activism being what it is, with the government having played a crucial role in causing the accident, environmentalists turned to... the government, to prevent them in the future. The Santa Barbara blowout was critical in transforming environmentalism from a conservationist to an activist movement. It led to the foundation of Earth Day a few months later (an event still celebrated in certain backward communities such as Ann Arbor and Berkeley). The incident also established the Green worldview: industry was the enemy. Oil was not a resource to be utilized under proper safeguards, but a pollutant to be subject to the most stringent controls. Above all, environmentalism was no mere political or social movement, it was a crusade. A crusade to rescue nature and to "save the planet", even if it was at the cost of human civilization. (Or for that matter, human extinction.) Offshore drilling was a major target. A concerted campaign soon saw the practice all but outlawed within U.S. waters. Less than a decade later, the first "gasoline shortage" occurred in the U.S. Three Mile Island Even as cars were lining up for miles at gas stations, a second front opened in the Green crusade. On March 28, 1979, a pumping failure occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in south-central Pennsylvania. While the reactor shut down as designed, a relief valve stuck open (legend attributes this to its being put in backwards), allowing coolant water to escape. The ill-designed instrument suite failed to alert the operating crew. All unknown to them, the reactor core began to melt down. Half the core had melted by the time anyone became aware of it. But the reactor's containment vessel held, and no major breach of radioactivity occurred. All the same, public reaction, nurtured on visions of Hiroshima and stoked by media hysteria (not to mention The China Syndrome, a Jane Fonda anti-nuke drama that had the good fortune to appear almost simultaneously with the accident), amounted to abject panic. A partial evacuation of nearby areas was carried out, amid media speculation that similar action would be required for the entire east coast. The site was under control before the weekend was out. But the damage to nuclear power had already been done. The nuclear industry joined Big Oil as an enemy of mankind and nature. The Greens set out to shut down the entire industry, including all operational reactors. Although that effort failed, they did succeed in preventing the construction of any new reactors for a period of thirty years. By the beginning of the 80s, the U.S. energy industry was paralyzed, the oil industry relegated to an ever-shrinking pool of permitted drilling areas, the nuclear industry effectively moribund. This put the U.S. in an excellent position to meet the depredations of OPEC, the rise of Saddam Hussein and the mullahs of Iran, and the manipulations of our Mideast "allies". That situation has prevailed ever since. Chernobyl The conclusions drawn from Santa Barbara and TMI were further underlined by two later incidents. On April 25, 1986, technicians at the Chernobyl nuclear plant decided to see what would happen if they shut down all safeguards and ran the reactor at its point of major instability. (This being a Soviet reactor, that point was at its lowest operational level. God forbid if it had been the other way around.) What happened was that the roof blew off, immediately killing several dozen people and irradiating large parts of the Ukraine. Aided by the regime's clumsy attempt at a cover-up, the accident played no small role in the collapse of the USSR. On March 24, 1989, a captain challenged with alcohol problems allowed the supertanker Exxon Valdez to pile up on a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, dumping 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sea. Hysteria peaked at probably the highest level of any such incident. The company's management was threatened with criminal prosecution, and a federal judge hearing the case went so far as to say that the accident was "worse than Hiroshima". All inclinations to adapt more rational energy policies evaporated in the wake of these events. No reform following failure An unprejudiced eye will immediately see that the common factor in all these incidents was management failure. Union Oil (a company long vanished into mergers) colluded with government in an effort to cut corners. The nuclear industry -- a combination of government and private enterprise, with the worst aspects of both and the advantages of neither -- insisted on operating on the lowest possible level of execution. (A few months before the TMI breakdown, I met a man who had just accepted a job installing a piping system at the Indian Point reactor. An engineer, I thought. No, he replied -- a plumber. Simply to save a few bucks, the industry was hiring bathroom-and-hot tub plumbers for sensitive work rather than experienced pipe-fitters or engineers. No wonder crucial fittings were going in backwards, upside down, and inside out.) Chernobyl was merely the ultimate expression of ingrained Soviet incompetence going back to the Revolution. The Exxon Valdez revealed that a critical oil shipping component -- maritime operations -- was completely isolated from any meaningful oversight. (This is in large part due to marine traditions; ship's captains are as close-mouthed as any surgeon or cop concerning ineptitude in the ranks -- and in large part is still the case. Noel Mostert's Supership, written in the 1970s, remains the standard work on the shortcomings of the tanker industry.) The appropriate response in these cases (Chernobyl being the exception: the only solution there was to tear the system down and start over) would have been to convene a panel of experts, send out investigators, hold hearings, issue recommendations, and see to it that reforms went into effect. This is what occurs following aircraft disasters, large-scale fires, building collapses, or any other catastrophic incident where suspicion exists that things were not being handled according to best practice. (Consider the investigation following the Challenger disaster, for one example.) But this is not what occurred in these cases. Not in any meaningful sense. Under the new Green paradigm, oil and nuclear energy were not industries to be reformed, but "evils" to be either contained or destroyed. The Greens could have served a useful purpose by pushing for serious reform in management of critical energy industries. Instead, we got the religious impulse, distorted into sheer apocalypticism, with the environmentalists fighting oil and fissionables (plutonium in particular) as products of dark sin, placed on earth to tempt humankind from the path that Gaia intended. The Green Agenda Through its influence in the media and government (both bureaucracy and congress), the Greens effectively abolished nuclear power, curtailed domestic oil production, and left the American energy industry in the comatose state in which it abides to this day. Nor this was an error or overreaction - it was a deliberate effort to fulfill the Green agenda. What is the nature of this agenda? Greens were much more open about it during the early years of the movement. (As for example in the utopian novel Ecotopia.) The end point of all Green efforts is a kind of Edenic state in which humans exist in "partnership" with nature. In which humanity is simply another species. In which the human "footprint" (a purely Green concept with no literal meaning) is reduced to a minimum. A world which has returned in large part to a pre-industrial state, where whatever small amounts of power are needed are provided by solar and wind. Where every last damn item is recycled. A kind of universal Northern California, where all living things from spirochete to grizzly exist in harmony under the cloak of Gaia. (Such a world could sustain perhaps a hundred million human beings, tops. What happens to the rest is something most Greens have been less than straightforward about.) Greens have become quieter about this vision as it has grown more distant. Which does not mean that they have ceased working toward it. Like all true believers, the Greens simply grow more fanatical the more unlikely their dreams become. And that is why the long overdue reform of America's energy sector, of the kind supported by John McCain and a few forward-looking GOP politicians (now there's a threatened species), is no certainty, in no way a slam-dunk, and will require a lengthy and hard-fought battle if it's going to happen at all. Current energy policy -- or non-policy, however you wish -- lies at the very center of the Green agenda. It is the only element in which any progress has been achieved. First, we need to rid ourselves of our "addiction" to nukes and oil. Then we adapt to solar and wind, and.... Here it peters off into silence. Because no such second step has ever, or will ever be made. Solar, wind, alcohol, ethanol... all these are single-digit energy sources. (And the low single digits as well, able to replace perhaps two or three percent of power generation at best.) Replacement of oil and nuclear power is a fantasy. Therefore, the rest of the Green dream is as well. But the gutting of the American energy sector remains the Green's chief accomplishment, their single achieved step toward paradise. They will defend it tooth and nail. The Green lobby, comprised of organizations such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Federation, is immensely powerful and has deep pockets -- not to overlook the many politicians who are avid converts (e.g., Hudson Valley congressman John Hall, who as leader of the execrable 70s soft-rock band Orleans wrote an anti-nuke anthem, "Plutonium is Forever"). The Green crisis ahead They'll still lose. Americans are not going to freeze in the dark. Nuclear technology has gone through several revolutions in the past decades. Entire families of reactors exist -- including the CANDU and pebble-bed designs -- that are far safer from kind of catastrophic failure. Evolution in oil drilling and exploitation has followed similar paths. We need to catch up on these technical advances. There are already 30 new nuclear plants proposed in the US and some are even in early stages of licensing. The plants use new designs which make use of passive safety systems that substantially reduce the chance of a major accident. Other aspects of the Green argument have also collapsed. New discoveries off Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico have nearly doubled international oil reserves, pushing backwards from the "peak oil" date. And global warming, that notorious by-product of "oil addiction," has faded to the point that its advocates are now reduced to threatening dissenters with prison. Energy reform is an egg and rock situation for the Democrats. (From the old Irish proverb: "When the rock hits the egg, alas for the egg. When the egg hits the rock, alas for the egg.") The Democrats -- Obama chief among them -- can neither adequately defend it nor abandon it, as is clearly shown by their refusal to even consider loosening drilling restrictions. The GOP holds all the cards on this one, and all they need to do is keep building the pressure. (Always granted, of course, that they play it better than their last few runs of hands.) No better electoral tool will be found during this cycle. We just can't expect results immediately - this will be a long and drawn-out battle, requiring maximum, sustained effort from all involved. It has gone almost completely unacknowledged that with oil shale, offshore deposits, and new resources such as the hydrocarbon sludge deposits off B.C. and Alaska, the OPEC of the late 21st century is going to be right here. That's a goal worth working toward. Breaking the power of the Greens is yet another possible benefit. Environmentalism is a luxury, and like all such, is best taken in moderation. The environment requires protection, but that's all. Primitive panthiesm has no place in this millennium. Nature is not an utterly benign continuum, and human beings are not a disease. Pseudo-religious environmentalism has long outlived its welcome. It's time to bring down the curtain. J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
J.R. Dunn - I love your last paragraph! It should be made into a commercial ending with "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less."
"Environmentalism is a luxury, and like all such, is best taken in moderation. The environment requires protection, but that's all. Primitive panthiesm has no place in this millennium. Nature is not an utterly benign continuum, and human beings are not a disease. Pseudo-religious environmentalism has long outlived its welcome. It's time to bring down the curtain."
Posted by: Beth Barnat | July 10, 2008 01:36 AM
Green is the perfect word substitute for socialism
or try fascism as defined in Jonah Goldberg's bestseller,
LIBERAL FASCISM
Posted by: Peter Fleming | July 10, 2008 01:51 AM
You perhaps forgot the keystone to the green movement's agenda. Full fledged abortion in order to reduce the evil of human population. They of the planetary worship,are neo-pagans in the best sense of the word, willing to destroy God's creation for their own sick view. They are without understanding that man is really a part of nature. (They always speak of the planet without man as being perfected.)
It is a really a nilhilistic view of reality.
Posted by: Don L | July 10, 2008 02:46 AM
Excellent overview and analysis.
One thing I find interesting when debating a global warming hysteric is their reaction to nuclear power. They'll spend 20 minutes describing the coming apocalypse and when you mention the nuclear option they immediately condemn it. I usually reply - "Well if the world is really just 20 years from disaster, isn't worth the risk?" At which point they backpedal furiously.
Point being - their lack of advocacy for this non-carbon energy source underlies their own tenuous belief in the doomsday scenarios they regularly proselytize.
Posted by: David Bueche | July 10, 2008 05:40 AM
I found this article to be an insightful analysis of how the current US energy policy came to be. The author avoided the trap of laying all blame at the door of either big business or the government, but rather shows how mistakes by both have played into the hands of Greens and lead to the current energy situation. As conservatives we often tend to focus on the failure of government and overlook the failure of business. Short sighted, "shareholder value" focused management has done as much harm to the US energy situation as has technically ignorant bureaucrats and politicians. The far left has highjacked the conservation movement of the past, which called for responsible stewardship of natural resources, and created fanatical environmentalism of today, which is just another tool seizing political power.
Posted by: James Moody | July 10, 2008 06:37 AM
If elected, John McCain will build 100 nuclear electric plants - the same number as Iran, Europe and China plan to build.
Even if Americans want a free nuclear-country, they won't have one. There are NEPs in Canada and Mexico.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | July 10, 2008 07:01 AM
I'm simply amazed at the ignorance of the democratic voter. They continue to vote for the same party that is destroying our economy and way of life. As airlines cut back on flights and layoff workers, as trucking companies are forced out of business, and as any company that relies on fuel for their business suffers, they continue to vote for the same arrogant, condenscending politicians. Most people losing their jobs vote for the same people that are rersponsible for that lose and suffering. When are people going to wake up, democrtas have no solution or energy plan.
Posted by: Angelo Bellini | July 10, 2008 08:08 AM
Great article! Even some Democrats are now re-thinking off-shore drilling. Their constituents are starting to ask what they intend to do about the high price of oil. This crazy environmental whack job stance only works when gas prices are $1.50 a gallon; go over $4.00 a gallon and even the soccer moms start to demand off-shore drilling. High gas prices might just help America get off foreign oil but certainly not in the vision the greens thought it would be. Real environmentalists would embrace nuclear technology and off shore drilling and solar and wind and anything that makes America energy independent and prosperous. They should insist on care for the environment but not at the expense of Americans.
Posted by: Michael H Serafin | July 10, 2008 08:11 AM
If you want to get a good idea of what Ecotopia is like, read up on all the people getting killed by bears and mountain lions these days and, who will continue to do so because its basically illegal to effectively defend yourself against a wild predator whose ranks get increased every year by absurd wildlife management policies.
The Greens are just people-haters. It's as simple as that. They want everyone else but their circle of Green friends to die. And then they delude themselves that they can live a happy life in harmony with nature, as if we weren't part of nature right now. After all, beavers build dams, and so do we... just a little better.
What they don't realize is that being "in harmony with nature" usually involves being a hot lunch for the large predators or bacteria or viruses that our ancestors spent a millenia trying to control and escape.
Greens are idiots. They are just the new religion on the block and like all zeolots, they are flat out wrong on damn near everything.
Posted by: AvgDude | July 10, 2008 08:20 AM
Mr Dunn,
Bravo.
JH
Posted by: J E Hunt | July 10, 2008 08:25 AM
Green is the new Red. Christmas colors never looked so awful.
Posted by: 8rent | July 10, 2008 08:40 AM
If you think the greens are under pressure now, wait until there is a shortage of oil and electricity leading to rationing. When the luxory of environmentalism is palayed against the need for heat, cooling and transportation the greenies are going to lose big.
Posted by: saleboter | July 10, 2008 08:51 AM
I wonder why Gaia hasn't filed suit against California for its egregious CO2 pollution. You've all seen the videos of the rampant wildfires, the same wildfires that happen every year. And, the same wildfires that are getting worse every year because of "environmental protection" laws that prevent the clearing of fire-enhancing brush.
Because CO2 is such a catalyst for global warming we have "environmentalists" advocating "Cap and Trade" policies designed to reduce industrial CO2 emissions and "Block and Don't Clear" policies designed to increase "natural" CO2 emissions from forest fires. I'd be baffled by those who believe that mitigating cow flatulence is a pressing need to combat global warming when they simultaneously believe that the CO2 emitted from policy-enhanced forest fires is irrelevant to the global carbon balance, if I thought that Environmentalists actually cared about the environment. Sadly for Gaia, it's all about power, money and the ability to sell a hoax to people who do actually care.
Posted by: Curly Smith | July 10, 2008 09:03 AM
I thought this article was very well written and informative. I see it as just one more exposure of the very close link between the modern "Green" movement and communists/socialists. I find myself in agreement with Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio hosts who see the "Green" movement as the repository of all those socialists and communists from the 1960's.
The "Greens" never want to have any type of debate as to how we Americans could possibly achieve the best aspects of energy; cheap, domestic, plentiful, and safe.
Personally, I feel that if given the chance (i.e. removal of government "stranglehold" regulations) then private industry could easily give us all the energy we could possibly need for as long as we could possibly need it. This has already been demonstrated on a number of occasions from the new types of reactors and drilling techniques mentioned in this article to the discoveries of massive oil deposits discovered this year (the Bakken oil reserve comes to mind).
I think that it is incredibly short-sighted, perhaps even the height of irresponsibility, of our representatives to prevent us from using our natural resources to their fullest extent
Posted by: Justin | July 10, 2008 09:31 AM
When my mother-in-law was alive I asked her if she preferred animals to humans. She replied "animals". I did not have the sense to ask if that also applied to her children and grandchildren.
I think that she would opt for the animals such as dogs and cats.
Posted by: Insight | July 10, 2008 10:11 AM
You make some great points and tie the catalytic events together very well. You do however make some critical errors in your review of the Exxon Valdez event and I find your portrayal of the shipping industry is flawed based on personal experience. To that end I question some of your portrayal of the Nuclear Industry as well. While I strongly agree with the premises and direction of your article I think it's crucial to be accurate when we use history to advance an argument or there will be unintended negative results.
Posted by: Jon | July 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Excellent article Mr Dunn. After reading it, I was musing why is it, when you find a group of greens you will also find therein a group of people who support abortion on demand and euthanasia...while adamantly opposing the death penalty? Are crimes against nature more heinous than crimes against humanity?
Posted by: Tommy K | July 10, 2008 10:46 AM
Mr. Dunn,
A great overview of the Green Mafia; with one notable oversight.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and general discredit of Communism, a large number of activists migrated into the green movement and in many cases have co-opted it to drive their totalitarian desire to control wealth and the means of production.
There is a natural symbiosis between true greenies who wish for control to impose their Edenic state and Earth-mother world view on humanity, and the watermelon enviros who wish to mask their totalitarian inclinations with environmental truisms and emotional appeals while undermining free market economies and seizing control of resources and human freedoms in general.
Posted by: CSM | July 10, 2008 10:50 AM
I would be willing to wager that the "green" paranoia actually has made the environment dirtier by blocking new energy development. By not allowing coal and oil technology to progress in the form of newer, cleaner plants, we are stuck with the old dirtier ones, unable to build new ones. We are also stuck with our older designs of nuclear reactors, rather than having been allowed to build new ones; cleaner and more efficient to replace the older ones. It seems to me, having been to eastern europe (heavily polluted even in the mid 1990s), hard leftists have a much, much poorer showing of environmental cleanliness than us western capitalists (read China).
Posted by: GFox | July 10, 2008 10:51 AM
Excellent article Mr Dunn. After reading it, I was musing why is it, when you find a group of greens you will also find therein a group of people who support abortion on demand and euthanasia...while adamantly opposing the death penalty? Are crimes against nature more heinous than crimes against humanity?
Posted by: Tommy K | July 10, 2008 11:18 AM
You make some good points on the need to develop new energy sources, but you are deluding yourself if you think the future is bright and the US could be a new OPEC. Shale kerogen (it isn't oil) takes more energy to produce than it gives back in product. It probably will never be feasible. The best estimate I have seen of recoverable oil in ANWAR is 7-8 billion barrels. The US uses 6 billion per year. As a rough rule of thumb, you can produce 5% of a field per year. This will meet about 6% of our needs, at current rates of consumption
Posted by: Steve Funk | July 10, 2008 12:21 PM
Drill here drill now, eat the caribou
Posted by: Buster | July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
I've been operating nuclear reactors in the Navy for almost 30 years and the Navy has trained a good number of "nukes". As with any industry/business minor issues occur, but it has been overwhelmingly safe..we are very anal about such things thanks to Rickover. With the advent of new technologies, nuclear power generation should be a no brainer. Hope so anyway, retiring from the Navy soon and they'll need people. ($$$)
Posted by: Ron | July 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Here are two other pieces that nicely compliment what JR Dunn has detailed.
Another Liberal Myth, the US has no energy policy:
http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/07/05/another-liberal-myth-%e2%80%93-the-us-has-no-energy-policy/
Democrats Drive an Economic Downturn:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/are-democrats-driving-an-economic-downturn/
Posted by: dscott | July 10, 2008 12:40 PM
Facts - France used 80 % in Nuclear energy and are building 5 new plants right this minute . All of Europe is building 28 Nuclear power Plants .
Facts - America is 20 % Nuclear powered and by
2012-14 we will be 15 % Nuclear powered and not one is being built now ?
Smart huh ? IT is quite Sad actually that a few Tree Huggers are deciding America's $$$$ fate .
Posted by: ReCon USMC | July 10, 2008 12:42 PM
Great article. After reading it, I wondered why it is that 'progressives' always look to the past for their ideas. However, I think the model for what they want has already existed in the past. Go back 10,000 just years, to a time when we were part of the food chain, when there was no medicine and life spans were short.
I guess the 'progressives' think that they can choose the parts of life that will go away and keep what they want.
They don't sound like survivors to me.
Posted by: Joe Dantone | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
There are only two things the Green movement is trying to achieve; remove money from your pocket and control the way you live.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy | July 10, 2008 01:06 PM
I'd have more respect for Greens if they went beyond talking the talk and started walking the walk.
Let's start with the high priest of Green -- Al Gore, who uses more enery at his house in one month (a reported $13,000)than I would in several years (my electric and natural gas bills average a total of less than $200 per month).
Let's see Greens stop driving cars and limit themselves to public transportation, bicycles, or walking. Power their homes only with solar and/or wind sources. Oh, and stop buying products that are made of plastic because they all contain petroleum by-products (i.e, EVIL oil).
If human beings are responsible for global warming, we can chalk it up to all the hot air b.s. spewed by the Greens. They wrote the book on hypocrisy.
Posted by: Scott | July 10, 2008 01:09 PM
Democrats are evil scum. Cowardly, corrupt, anti-American, treasonous scum. If I were President I'd tell them all to go to hell, sign an executive order and get the oil drilling, refineries, and power plants up and running. In fact, I would have done that 8 freakin years ago.
Posted by: Ponz Luker | July 10, 2008 01:29 PM
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
According to the 'Pickens Plan," 20% of American electricity could be generated from wind power, far greater than your dismissive "low single digits." Opposing fanatacism musn't be a quixotic endeavor, Mr. Dunn. To paraphrase John Irving, you can't blame Christ for all the fanatics running around f**ing up in his name. If you beseech an "unprejudiced eye" to re-evaluate the percieved evils that have blown the green cause out of proportion, then you musn't do battle with windmills, lest you harbor equal blame in acting on "religious impulse."
Speaking of which... pantheism has nothing whatever to do with "pseudo-religious environmentalism." A pantheist would not believe that nature requires human protection. If greenies' hidden agendas and irrational fears have demonized rational industries and thereby belief sets, the counterpoint should indicate the alternative rather than mirror the butterfly effect.
Posted by: TB | July 10, 2008 01:56 PM
J.R.- Are you aware that Dunn County in North Dakota is a focal point in the production of oil from the Bakken Shale and other zones recently assessed as the largest by the USGS? How appropriate.
Posted by: Jim B. | July 10, 2008 02:25 PM
What a bunch of BS. Nature is not a luxury - but essential to the chemistry of our planet. Environmentalism is not about making people live in the woods eating bark and wiping your ass with corncobs. It is about investing in a working relationship with the planet we inhabit. Like it or not we are still a part of the planet's ecosystem and humans are animals. The idea that environmentalism is at the heart of our flawed energy policy goes well beyond ignorant and into the realm of delusional.
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2008 02:31 PM
Environmentalism is not a luxury, it is a disease. Natural stewardship, on the other hand, is indeed a luxury, a very expensive and resource intense luxury. As such it can only be afforded by nations with strong economies, strong currencies and a political system that allows capitol to be used ofr such discretionary spending. These are the very things the greens are most ardently trying to destroy in our own land. Poor countries do not spend scarce money and resources saving the whales. They burn their forests for heat, they eat their endangered animals because there is nothing else. They denude their agricultural land because they cannot affor fertilizer or decent seed, and tyrants steal whatever little is left over because a starving populace can do nothing about it. Mother Gaia factors not a whit into their utopian ideal.
The most wasteful and polluting societies on earth are nativist societies that most resemble the greens ideal. Why? because they can and do pollute the heck out of their immediate vicinity and as soon as they can no longer stand the stench, they move a mile or two down river and repeat.
Posted by: mike | July 10, 2008 02:39 PM
The left is always talking about wind and solar, trust me, as soon as it is decided to go ahead with large scale projects, they will be against it. They will say the windmills kill birds and solar panels kill vegetation. They don't care about the environment, they want to destroy America. That's all.
Posted by: Tarkus289 | July 10, 2008 02:40 PM
Some great analysis, but I disagree with the conclusion. Industrial civilization is the luxury, and it's been based on cheap energy in the form of oil. In the long run, oil will peter out, followed by coal. Even nuclear power is a form of fossil energy - we only have so much uranium on the planet and we're piddling it away with our inefficient reactor technology. Then what? Nature will win in the end, we might as well learn to cooperate with it.
I lean Green but I don't buy everything they preach, nor do I believe that Only Private Enterprise Can Save The Day (tm). Government can't solve the problem by itself. It takes cooperation. We definitely need some leadership that looks beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election to plan our way to a longer term future.
Posted by: Chuck Fry | July 10, 2008 02:43 PM
Surprisingly, AT has never mentioned that nuclear reactors would not only replace TEPs, but also produce fissile materials like DU and plutonium, which the US military needs to counter the Russian military, whose nuclear-armed branch is divided into 3 components:
1) The strategic nuclear triad. It has 536 ICBMs, hundreds of SLBMs on 27 SSBNs, 8 SSGNs, and dozens of strategic bombers (Tu-16s, Tu-95s and Tu-160s). The triad can attack targets located anywhere in the world.
2) Eurostrategic forces: this component is the functional counterpart of the triad, but it works only on the Euroasian continent. It's armed with Iskander BMs, Tu-22 bombers and Tu-22M bombers.
3) Tactical nuclear-armed forces: they are supposed to attack only countries in 'the near abroad'. Armed with Scud BMs and theatre bombers like Su-30s and Su-34s.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | July 10, 2008 04:18 PM
My local brewer on bio-fuel, "It takes a lot of energy to make beer," and a lot more energy to distill beer. So, there is more demand for liquid fuel, so we pay at the pump; there is more demand natural gas, so people will pay dearly or freeze this winter; and, the obvious increase in demand for corn, so all of our food goes up. So, Green Power bio-fuel was bad energy policy advocated by WA Sen. Cantwell.
Posted by: Carlgh | July 10, 2008 05:30 PM
I detect a fair amount of cynicism regarding Dunn's article - there really shouldn't be. His own words speak for themselves; let me add something upon which I see individuals basing their 'Green' views so often - future energy sources.
The argument of such a green goes along the lines of "fossil fuels are a finite resource we are all going to die when they run out. Oh, and mining and burning them is nasty." Some of you will note that recently that line has taken a semantic change so that it is now the burning of fossil fuels (producing CO2) which is going to lead to the end of civilisation rather than using them up.
This was a necessary change of direction as fears about future energy sources proved to be unfounded.
The funny thing about Coal, Oil and Gas in the 20th Century was that the more demand there was the more the stuff tended to show up. The more you look for something the more of the thing you're trying to find shows up. Until a point, clearly. The same is true for Nuclear fuels.
Although Nuclear fuels are far more interesting prospect because there are some almost magical aspects to them, which many 'Greens' would be horrified to know.
Firstly, if the energy conversion process is done in specific ways the Nuclear reactors can not only supply energy to the grid but can also supply more fuel. In other words the Nuclear Reactor's waste product is more Nuclear fuel. These reactor's are called breeder reactors. The creation of which along with the development of other innovative nuclear technologies such as the 'pebble-bed' reactor's mentioned will mean that nuclear fuels will last many times longer then previously rumoured. Due to fossil fuels current abundance breeder reactors are not yet perfectly economically viable, though several are in current operation, as fossil fuels dwindle the switch to breeders will begin.
Secondly there is another form of Nuclear Reactor which uses Hydrogen for its fuel - which is obtained from water, plenty of that about last time I checked. What's more these reactors are incapable of 'meltdown' and expected by many to be our main source of energy 100 years from now. ITER is an international test reactor of just this type. It is being built in Southern France -should America truly have OPEC-type aspirations she will need to pull her socks up.
Until then we have more then enough alternate sources of energy to sustain us.
What about renewable? I can tell you that despite all the projected progress it is costly, finite, ill-suited, desultory and incapable of supplying majority power. Is this truly the area in which the most would benefit from investment in?
Posted by: Douglas Lang | July 10, 2008 06:02 PM
"Facts - France used 80% in Nuclear energy and are building 5 new plants right this minute . All of Europe is building 28 Nuclear power Plants."
Heh, good point. I like to use that fact when annoying college brats start raving about how much better everything is in Europe; it shuts 'em up QUICK, believe me.
Posted by: Lucas D. | July 10, 2008 06:29 PM
Let's help the greens achieve their utopia.
Let's start killing them to reduce the human footprint.
Posted by: ernest | July 10, 2008 07:12 PM
The idea that environmentalism is at the heart of our flawed energy policy goes well beyond ignorant and into the realm of delusional.
Who is delusional? The person who denies the facts or the person who cites them? It is an undeniable fact that environmentalists proposed and Democrats past laws restricting oil and natural gas drilling all over the country. It is an undeniable fact that enviros supported Dems in banning offshore drilling. It is an undeniable fact that enviros supporting Dems blocked coal fired electric plants. It is an undeniable fact that enviros insisted and Dems delivered in stopping gasoline refineries for over 30 years. It was you kooks who actually crowed over it! It is an undeniable fact that enviros supporting Dems have fought nuclear energy at every turn. The sum total of enviro supported Dems have brought us to a restraint of supply and increased Petrodollar terrorism by forcing the US to purchase oil and gas from foreign sources. So who is being delusional? The denier or the citer?
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if solar and wind were viable alternatives that they would have filled the gap, they haven't and that's an undeniable fact. The reality is oil would have to be far higher than it is now for solar and wind to be viable. If it were not so we would already have it. Just because something is technologically feasible doesn't mean it is practical. You can make anything work if you gold plate it enough. It seems that liberals specialize in white elephants and boondoggles. It is delusional to believe an oil free economy is feasible at todays or even tomorrows technology. It is delusional to believe an oil free economy is feasible even in the next 20 years. It is therefore delusional to restrict oil and gas supplies for a panacea.
Posted by: dscott | July 10, 2008 07:58 PM
As a degreed environmental professional, let me testify to the veracity, wisdom, and sublime truth in this commentary. I have personally sat across the table from professional "environmentalists" and I can tell one and all that they are zealots and fanatics of the first order. They seek nothing short of total conversion or utter defeat...same as those OTHER zealots in the Middle East believe.
Posted by: Kaz | July 10, 2008 09:54 PM
Mostly good, but a few critiques.
1) Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource. Sooner or later, it will run out. It is prudent to prepare for this before it happens.
2) One area where conservatives have failed on energy policy is efficiency. The less energy we use, the less we need. The ideal is to have the same or better lifestyle as we have now while using less energy. The free market does not always adequately deal with these concerns. Case in point: when gas was cheap, automakers designed bigger cars with bigger engines because that's what buyers wanted. Now that gas is expensive, these cars are still on the road.
Posted by: Jim | July 10, 2008 10:01 PM
Chris, if you substantiated your position with a few facts instead of name calling there's a chance you might be able to win thinking Americans to your position. However, your sophomoric response is more appropriate to a rest room stall than a reasoned debate.
Posted by: NCMike | July 10, 2008 11:00 PM
The Green Weenie mediocrities are democratically elected stealth Marxist commandos. The easiest infiltration in the history of the world. Their petty vulgar meanness seems to have worked successfully. Its how snarky little bastards score a quick guilt free twenty bucks crack money from granny's open purse. They are blood sucking karma ticks on the soul of the collective good.
They are dismantling capitalism with ideological marching orders from the ghost of St. Karl. They fully believe thay are a Darwinian force of nature in a Godless mechanical universe. Their vile fascistic hubris tells their narcissistic egos its a duty to the earth goddess and her poor oppressed children.
Their disproven, defunct philosophy is a viral artifact of a racist Victorian pseudo-science. (Malthusian Eugenics anyone?) A malignant contamination that threatens the fundamental peace of the free world. They are deliberately targetting energy like enemy frogmen blowing up a Nazi power plant. Its the precious key joint of evil capitalist civilization.
Their drug addled nihilist New Age pagan mindset gives them the green light to 'subvert the dominant paradigm' with a cowardly political strategy from the Marx-Alinsky-Che guerrilla manual. Our hard won long established Roman Republic 'status quo' is first objective of their well scripted parasitic warfare. First control the definitions through pop culture and the MSM delivery system. Be the charismatic uber hipsters. The social arbiters. Check.
They see an anti-establishment vegan Eden of happy hippiedom with sharing and caring, free love (abortion on demand) and hemp shoes. We will all live in little thatched Hobbit huts with outhouses, in a garbage strewn Shire, stoned on home brew honey beer. They are convinced their apocalyptic visions of a world ruled by their kinder, gentler counterculture spawned by their 60's street subculture is the inevitable apocalyptic New Wave of human history. It's their Utopian fantasy of a perpetual 'Weekend at Bernies' financed by the dead guy's credit cards!
Posted by: Ranger Joe | July 10, 2008 11:07 PM
All the arguing back and forth means nothing at this point. No matter what side your on, THE FACT is, we're in Iraq NOW, and we need to see it through. Yes, that means until "they" ask us to leave. If you want to gripe about a CURRENT threat in the ME then talk about Iran. Gotta problem with our troops "occupying" Iraq? Direct your attention to real wastes of military "occupation;" Germany and S. Korea.
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 12:20 AM
While America refuses to generate electricity using nuclear power, Saudi Arabia is getting on board. It was curious
that we entered into a new agreement to provide nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia at about the same time that
George Bush was over there begging them to open the oil spigot. Was there a deal made between Bush and the Saudis to
sell them the nuclear technology in return for help with the current fuel crisis?
But why would the Saudis need nuclear power plants? For investments. The Saudis are rolling in cash with few places
to invest for long-term gain. They also have a very well-educated and underutilized professional class. World demand
for energy can go nowhere but up. The solution? Saudi Arabia becomes a worldwide financier and builder of nuclear
power plants - with desalination as a side option. Unfettered by American environmental stupidity, they could
mass-produce barge-mounted plants of standard design and tow them into place anywhere accessible to the ocean. It's
an approach Westinghouse tried to sell in the 1970's. Standardized design, serialized production, and freedom from US
environmental ninnyism would drop the cost of pre-fab nuclear plants substantially.
And what better place to put the pilot plants than at the north end of the Sea of Cortez? Sheltered from tropical
cyclones by Baja California, free of oppressive American environmental regulations, and with a ready customer for the
generated power in Southern California, this is a natural. The Mexican government could get a cut of the take in a
sale/leaseback arrangement, and everyone would win. The Saudis would get a money-making long term investment and could
become the world leaders in the design and operation of these plants and the host country would get a reliable source
of power on the installment basis.
And, if the US refuses to sell the Saudis the technology, the French certainly will.
Posted by: Dave Thomson | July 11, 2008 11:29 AM
I'm tired of this energy and oil crisis talk. If people could be more efficient they would. Some say the cost of petrol will continue to rise and the others say it will fall. Nobody really knows. NO ONE. Don't believe everything you think folks. If it goes up or down, we need to kick our addiction. Period.
Yes, we need more efficient vehicles. But your regular "Joe" can't afford them. Yes we need more efficient energy but again, "Joe" can't afford solar panels or even the standard electric bill now that it has jumped 30% higher. Sure "Joe" would love to buy and electric or hydrogen car but how can he afford to? If he could, they aren't even readily available.
Until any alternatives are reasonably priced to buy and use, the middle and lower classes are not able to afford any of it. Cars that use flex fuels are out there but the fuel isn't. At least not in hardly any of the cities throughout the USA. Why buy a flex fuel or hydrogen car when we can't buy the fuel? Gas prices, to the now poor middle class, are beginning to take meals off our tables to fill our tank to get to work. Why not get these fuels to all the cities in the USA so that people are able to act instead of talk, talk, talk.
The government cash incentives after the purchase of green vehicles sound great, but not many can buy them, so how can they get the incentive? How about being reasonably priced first? How about cash incentives immediately; a check within two weeks of financing these cars or instant rebate at the time of purchase?
We need action, talk is cheap.
Posted by: Brigetta | July 11, 2008 02:52 PM
The Left will never be happy until everyone is miserable like they certainly are. They are childish liars, have some sort of retardation and whine about how everything is unfair. Time to kick them in Azz and remove them from power they have nothing, nothing to offer. Just like during the Vietnam war, if they don't like this great country then get out! Go find that Eutopia of your dreams. Energy is the foundation for most of our dreams here and all progress and we have plenty of it and we will use it! The Greenies had best shutup and get out of the way!
Posted by: Moutrie | July 11, 2008 04:54 PM
The entire so-called "green" argument depends on the electorate believing that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will lead the world to disaster. This central thesis is not only not proven, it is un-scientific, considering that the predictions of tropospheric heating from the models are not occurring in fact, and considering that the models are inherently unable to be predictive due to uncertainties that govern them. But on, an on, and on, the greens go. Rather than figure out and admit we've been conned, the politicos go along as acolytes of the greens and keep herding us lemmings right off the cliff. We have dumbed ourselves down to the point of being led by our noses because most people have not got enough intelligence to really read and understand the science.
Posted by: Fearless Bear | July 11, 2008 05:07 PM
Oil,Gas and Coal are finite and will run out, but because we ignored energy policy for environmental concerns we are now in a bad spot. It will take nearly all our local fossil based energy resources to power the transformation to a alternatively powered economy. The world cannot power our transformation just because supply is going to get more and more constrained.
We have to provide domestic supply to power the transformation, we are going to get less and less oil and gas from the Global Market.
"You cannot get there from here without it"
People seem to miss the simple fact there is nothing that does not use energy to produce, without the energy to produce and implement technologies we cannot replace the energy sources we have.
Even the much toted electric car will be reliant on fossil fuels to manufacture as many components come from oil distillates and coal based energy.
Another point is you cannot consume your way out of an energy crisis, buy more efficent this, greener that, it all costs energy. When demand grows for these new technologies so will energy demand to produce them.
People get fixated on gasoline but a big picture attitude is required. A forward looking plan is needed, one not hampered by environmentalists.
You hear talk about the Space Race, and how we can achieve the fantastical when we get to it, now I say what do think would happen if the Space Race had to meet environmental requirements and social acceptance that is placed on everything today?
Posted by: Daryl | July 11, 2008 05:23 PM
Whilst your selected events are appropriate in regard to energy I think the pivotal event in creating the environmental movement was the publishing of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.
Posted by: TDK | July 11, 2008 05:46 PM
re.: Brigitta JUL 11th, 02:52 pm
Brigitta, you're right on! The solution can't be the same way. Car's, let's run them by hydrogen, or whatsever, are not the solution. A way to solution are light rail - near big cities - fast rail like the TGV in France, the ICE in Germany, the fast rail through the tunnel between Paris and London - Eurotrain - I am totally amazed and too, totally disturbed, that in the U.S. the whole country - from east to west - was united by railways. After all the hardships, after WW2, all what was done and achieved, suddenly switching over to cars - and interstates - wasn't the smartest of all possible decisions. But it will change, follow the money, when Warren Buffet took a good share in Union Pacific , it should tell us something.
Regards
KlausB
Posted by: Klausb | July 11, 2008 06:01 PM
McCain is talking out of both sides of his mouth when he advocates off-shore drilling, yet claims he will address the "climate crisis." These are contradictory statements.
Posted by: fnfcst | July 12, 2008 12:19 AM
Hey I am a "green" but many of those running the green groups never discussed or asked their membership about promoting a controversial product, wind turbines, that not only chops up rare birds and bats, but makes poor people poorer.
Green members have been learning about this promotion of wind turbines by accident. Many members still don't know what's happening.
Some Green groups receive six figured sums of money per annum from their wind partners.
Wind developers tear up prime habitat for US protected birds and bats and yet we "Joes" have all paid for legislation for these creatures to be protected. Statutory agencies appear to be paying the legislation "lip service".
Porpoises and dolphins rely on sound underwater, yet their guardians are promoting turbines in inland bays and at sea where vibrations from the turbines appear to result in distress for these mammals. Reports are not published that indicate there are breeding problems with pups in areas where turbines are situated.
No, don't blame the Green members who knew nothing about this sorry "Green" saga, instead, channel your anger at those who didn't show an ounce of courtesy to their membership.
Sadly the "new Green" now means, adopt a wind turbine. Green areas of countryside are being filled with tonnes of concrete and massive 440ft steel towers that result in radar security issues.
Rudderless politicians, with no backbone or spine appear to be so desperate to secure green votes at all costs and yet many members haven't had a chance to discuss or debate,renewable energy (aka wind power) let alone endorse it!
Posted by: Greenwatch | July 12, 2008 12:29 PM
The defining moment in the establishment of the present Greens was the "Limits to growth".
Ironically put together using a very early computer model. Crazy isn't it?? the results of human inputs are treated with quasi-religious adulation. that the results are from GIGO isn'y discussed.
The Greens are essentially.
Malthusian Marxist Hippies. have a look at the demographics of this group and you will find that most of them are 50-60yo, welloff financially, usually Tertiary educated who used to wave Mao's little Red Book at demonstrations in the radical days of the 60 & 70's.
The earth is cooling quite rapidly, the Goron is shrieking about "the end is nigh" and everything depends on fraudulent GIGO models.
Humans deserve to disappear.
regards.
Posted by: nevket240 | July 20, 2008 09:47 AM