Punditry and the reality of environmentalism

McGovern had to declare bankruptcy.

Why do you think environmentalists want us to build wind turbine farms and solar installations? Because these are toys that will not work. That is their objective - to de-industrialize the civilized world. Why are the environmentalists so upset with the ethanol farms? Because they might work a little. Brazil converted it's auto fuel to ethanol three decades ago - there were no complaints from greens, now only because the US might take part comes the uproar.
These are all trivial fixes. There are two real fixes, one
short term and one long term. The short term fix is to open up all the petroleum / shale deposits in the USA and Alaska to exploration. The long term fix is to displace oil entirely by nuclear energy - which we are now very good at. In 50 years time we
will be able to displace the fission plants by fusion and get our energy
from seawater - well almost.
Both solutions are fiercely opposed.
They might work. Remember, the goal of environmentalism is to remove the human race from the world. What will the worms and the flies do when the next huge comet is about to impact the Earth? We could have shot it down. The worms won't be able to do that. Greens won't care about that. They'll be gone.

Way to go Juan!! Finally... Given enough time even a blind squirrel will find a nut...

Regarding Dave M's comments:
Dave, I agree with where you're coming from. At the same time, some of what you say is in error. First of all, ethanol is perhaps the worst boondoggle ever foisted upon us. Compared to gasoline or diesel, ethanol is a very poor fuel which causes a DECREASE in fuel economy of 10-30 percent. Thus it takes MORE imported oil than we were using before just to compensate for that alone. (By the way, Brazil's switchgrass ethanol program is an environmental disaster in the making.)

I agree that we need to drill for oil in a lot of the areas that have been off limits for decades, but ONLY in conjunction with a crash program to increase the average fuel economy of our cars and light trucks to about 50 miles per gallon. (Volkswagen has been producing such cars since about 1995.)

As far as nuclear is concerned, the majority of our energy consumption in this country is for our cars and trucks, so nuclear in no way addresses that. As for oil shale, yes, theoretically there is more oil in the shale in Northwestern Colorado than there is in Saudia Arabia. But to really develop it on the scale needed would require the use of an almost unfathomable amount of groundwater, and then how do you dispose of the contaminated slurry?

You are right that massive wind farm and solar arrays do not have the potential to make much of an overall contribution to our energy problem, let alone the fact that they destroy the view and the windfarms kill significant numbers of migratory and endangered birds. The real place for solar is in individual homes and businesses. (You can now buy roofing shingles where each individual shingle is actually a solar panel.)

If we can get our government to admit that ethanol is a dead end, and embark on a 5 year plan or even a 10 year plan to drill responsibly in off-limits areas, AND attain an average fleet fuel economy of 50 MPG, we could solve our current energy problems and our over-dependence on foreign oil. And then, as you say, we could buy ourselves another 25-50 years of time until other technologies can be developed.

The objection to oil shales is the most mysterious if one takes the enviros at their word. These deposits are great puddles of sludge that are scooped up and melted down. Just what chipmunk or elf is inconvenienced by this? Of course the enviros DO NOT want progress, not what normal, moral people would call progress at any rate. The purloined name "Progressive" is a vile appropriation for these would-be troglodytes. Pure hate of humanity most especially the human they see in the mirror is the fuel for this fire.

BP has been trying to expand capacity at its Whiting, IN, refinery. Needless to say, the environmentalists continue to block the expansion, citing increases (slight) in water and air pollution. Meanwhile, gasoline prices in Chicago remain the highest in the country (though, admittedly, sales taxes seriously exacerbate the problem).

Democrats seem unable to grasp the notion that legislating the laws of economics is like legislating the timing of tides.

Charles Krauthammer was so on this one! My thoughts exactly! He left Easton and Williams still clueless and in the dust. Love you Charlie!!!

While I watched enthusiastically at the responses, Juan's response stood out. Not for it's insight or great commentary. But instead for his readiness and willingness to entertain the premise.

As soon as I heard Vaclav Klaus, I commmented that the MSM would need to start marginalizing him. Then along comes Nina Easton, who also said (sic) "He needs to grow his economy and doesn't want restrictions".

Any public realisation that AGW is just code for global governance is a good thing - Klaus has been an effective spokesman for the forces of freedom for a long time. It's too bad that he's as old as he is. We need a few more like him to get the word out.

A comment for George T - conservation is largely a mirage - it looks good on paper, but it relies on replacing a huge installed base of cars in order for it to work. Wards' estimated in 1999 that there were 486 million autos in service around the world. With the growth of wealth in China and India since 1999, it's likely that the number has risen to half a billion cars world-wide. Even if you price the cost of replacement at a conservative $10k, that's a $5 trillion dollar replacement cost - most of which would be borne by private individuals. It would take years to replace the old base of gas guzzlers and further, the natural replacement cycle for automobiles will undoubtedly slow down in responce to the pressures of a slow economy and the trend of persons to be over-extended on credit. While there are those who can afford to dash out and commit to a hybrid at $20k, there are a lot of people who realise that even at $5 a gallon - they still spend as much or more on their car insurance per year than they do on gas, so they'll wait to replace their car.

In addition to increased domestic drilling/mining for oil, we need to increase our refinery capacity, remove restrictions that force the refinement of 40 some "specialty" grades of gasoline and we need to get those technologies such as creating petroleum from organic trash and from old tyres up and running.

Electric cars are merely tomorrow's environmental nightmare waiting in the wings. For one thing, until the majority of electricity is generated in "environmentally friendly" ways, the additional burden of recharging straight electrics will cause increased pollution. Further, the replacement of batteries is an expense that will shock many hybrid owners when it comes around, but the real concern is what we'll do with all of the toxics that they contain.

Straight up electrics will not gain broad acceptance until they can be recharged as quickly as cars can be refueled. How'd you like to be stuck at work for five hours because you forgot to plug in your buggy, or if the plug got knocked out by some jerk in the parking lot? Or how would you feel if you had to make a sudden uplanned trip to the emergency room and your car wan't charged? Electric has a long way to go.

ROFLMAO...Juan Williams just admitted that he doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh yet he is one of the first one's to criticize Rush's "extremism" every time the MSM tries to blow Limbaugh out of the water with their faux controversies.

Ultimately, the left just wants an excuse to gut "big oil". Why? Because those dividends make up an awful lot of pension and 401k investments. It's a backdoor way to raid the retirements of the hardworkers in this country without getting caught in the act! And that solves another problem the left has: people who are securing their own retirement instead of depending on the government for survival. They can't implement Mussolini tactics until they have us all firmly under their control.

I was amazed and completely underwhelmed by the thought given to this section of the panel. Juan and Nina seemed to have been of the mind that this was already inevitable so why even talk about it -- after all we heard the debate is over. Very poor segment from what could have been some excellent points by the Czech President.
DKK

"Why do you think environmentalists want us to build wind turbine farms and solar installations?"

Of course not, they tried to build a farm here in Texas and enviromental whackos took them to court. You can't win with them. they watched too much Captain Planet as a kid and believe it.

I may be willing to believe that Juan Williams is "ready and willing to entertain a new premise" when I hear some introspection from him on anthropogenic global warming("climate change" to the folks in Rio Linda!) And why does it take a statement by the president of the Czech Republic to trigger this new thoughtfulness? There are a number of respected American scientists who have spoken out on this scam, and Senator James Inhofe has been available for a discussion any time!

Volkswagen has been producing cars that get 50mpg since 1995???

Has you forgotten the 1970's era Rabbit Diesel?

It is not that environmentalists hate humanity. The problem is that the environmental movement has become a religion, complete with its fanatics. Michael Crichton has written an excellent article detailing exactly how.

It's a shame, because what the world needs is a serious environmental movement. Plenty has been done, and rightfully so, by government to protect the environment. (Stand behind a car made in 1968 and one made in 2008 and smell the difference.) It is never a good idea to foul one's own nest, and public policy should reflect this. Pollution does have costs.

That being said, environmental policy cannot be made in a vaccum nor can protecting the environment be an end in itself. When the issue is protecting polar bears vs. lifting a few billion Chinese and Indians out of poverty, the polar bears should be the ones who have to adapt. However, balancing these costs and benefits of different policy choices is tantamount to sacrilege among many environmentalists.

On the comment that nuclear energy is no good for automobiles, that is only true if you discount hydrogen as a fuel. I suspect hydrogen will be the fuel used for trains and boats and planes (sorry) and cars too,
Hydrogen would be produced by nuclear reactors as their other main form of output. There is a direct chemical synthesis process for liberating hydrogen from water that doesn't involve first
making electricity and just involves water, two catalysts,
and heat.
I'm not in favor of conservation. Conservation is only of use if you have a plan. For example, you're stuck in the desert with only a quart of water. You need a plan, walk out at night, set your car on fire to attract attention, something. Then by all means, conserve,
but otherwise it just give the illusion of accomplishing something when nothing is happening. Unfortunately, with politicians, nothing is happening most of the time, so giving them the fuzzy warm feeling of doing something by promoting conservation, just lets them slip further into fatal complacency.
We were fortunate that the Creator gave us the gift of all the oil just lying around, and the only sightly harder to use Uranium and Plutonium (just make a big pile and it works). We have a choice, use the gifts to go forward or retreat into a dim past. I say we go forward.

America has 250 to 400 years worth of coal in the ground untouched. Why not bring back Nazi coal derived liquid Benzene. It has the same heat valuve as that of Gasoline. Problem solved! Oh! We would have to shoot all the greenies first though.