Having recently traveled from my home near Madison, Wisconsin to Pontiac, Michigan using rail as much as possible (Metra commuter rail from Harvard, Illinois to Chicago and thence Amtrak to Pontiac) it is clear to me that investments in rail-based transportation could yield substantial environmental and social benefits in this region of the United States – primary among them a massive reduction in automobile-centric sprawl. The synergy between rail transit and dense, pedestrian-oriented urban habitat is especially clear in the Chicago heartland. Her leaders – God bless them! – never allowed their transit system to collapse, much less be systematically dismantled by transit-averse business interests.
However, I am troubled by the various claims I've seen over the years regarding energy consumption and CO2 emissions per passenger-mile for trains/streetcars versus automobiles versus airplanes. Environmental organizations and sustainability advocates routinely assert that energy consumption for passenger rail is much "greener" than driving or flying. But Tables 2.13 and 2.14 in the Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book #27 indicate that existing Amtrak intercity passenger rail is only 25% more efficient than the fleet average for cars; furthermore, Amtrak is only 18% more efficient than air travel!
Given the greater-than 80% reductions in GHG emissions we need to achieve in the coming decades, and given the fact that new CAFÉ standards mandate a 40% improvement in the mileage of cars and SUVs by 2020, efficiency gains from passenger rail of 18% to 25% seem paltry. Moreover, due to basic laws of aerodynamics, the efficiency of high speed rail (i.e. trains moving at 150-300 mph) will inevitably be less than trains moving at 50-100 mph. While I cannot recall the source at present, I am quite sure I have seen credible data within the last five years which indicated that Bullet Trains in Japan were no more energy-efficient on a passenger-mile basis than airplanes.
Of course the real issue vis a vis energy and CO2 is the practical potential for these transportation modes in the future, not the existing efficiencies of each as currently deployed. During the past half-century, aerospace companies (with lavish financial support from the Department of Defense) have pursued the most ambitious research and development programs by far of any “transportation” industry in the United States. Along the way, improvements in engines, aerospace materials, and aircraft designs have yielded astonishing increases in the efficiency of air transport (almost ten-fold). And even though they vigorously marketed absurdly inefficient cars in the '60's and then gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks more recently, automobile companies also made notable investments in R&D during the same time period; consequently the energy efficiency of engines and transmissions were substantially improved (it is the sheer size and weight of SUVs and pickup trucks which make them gas hogs, not their drive-trains).
Meanwhile, passenger rail locomotives and rolling stock in our nation changed very little even as ridership plummeted (until recently) and domestic engineering activity all but ground to a halt. Thus we must ask how efficient our passenger trains could be if they were constructed with aerospace materials, up-to-date engineering, etc. What if hybrid drives and regenerative braking were widely deployed? What if more trains were electrified? What if the expansion of electrified rail were coordinated with upgrading the national electrical grid? Having languished for so long, surely our passenger railroads are ripe for major improvements!
And there are sound reasons to believe that investing in rail technologies rather than airplanes or automobiles is likely to produce the biggest efficiency gains overall. Thanks to many decades of top-notch engineering, aircraft have already approached their theoretical efficiency limits; thus spending billions more on R&D probably won't change efficiencies by more than a percent or two. Similar logic applies to automobile R&D generally, although electric cars and battery technologies might prove to be an excellent gamble. Even so, such breakthroughs in "automotive" technology might be used to equal or greater advantage in trains rather than cars. Given the nature of "fixed costs", it is usually much cheaper to install a particular technological improvement in a single unit – say, a locomotive that moves 250 people – than to install that improvement in many units – say, 250 cars that move 250 people.
Usage factors must be carefully considered also; the percentage of empty seats makes an enormous difference in passenger-miles per unit of energy or pound of CO2. (While the vehicle occupancy of automobiles cannot (yet!) be less than one, trains and airplanes often travel with relatively few passengers – and sometimes with none at all.) How much more usage-efficient is existing Amtrak service along the heavily-used Washington-Boston corridor versus lightly traveled routes in the "hinterlands"? How efficient is the best existing passenger rail in Europe? Japan? Practically speaking, what kind of usage factors could we expect for high-speed service along a Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Minneapolis route?
Given our worsening ecological circumstances, our unsustainable consumption of natural resources, and the prospects for a long and severe recession, America desperately needs facts rather than urban myths and "green-washing"; we need reality-based planning rather than cheerleading and poorly conceived, hastily-approved public works projects. We must thoroughly analyze the efficiencies of our existing transportation modes, soberly review existing and practically-achievable alternatives, and then responsibly choose those transportation arrangements our heirs can afford in the future. This is not the time to shoot from the hip, "wish upon a star", or print our money into hyperinflation!
And throughout it all we must never forget this elemental fact: proximity is the most efficient form of "transportation" that will ever exist. There is nothing like already being within a short stroll, a flight of stairs, or a quick bicycle ride from where we want to be. Our greatest challenge is to stop manufacturing so many "needs" for more complex, ecologically-disruptive forms of transportation in the first place!
Friday, December 5, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
On the Spot
Yes, it’s important that “regular folks” like Ingrid Jackson of Tennessee put Presidential candidates on the spot (debate #2). Would they boost green jobs? Would they avert climate change in time?
But putting THEM on the spot is nowhere near enough. No President will fund eco-friendly employment if 51% of voters refuse to foot the bill. No President will aggressively fight global warming if 51% of us aren’t willing to cut our own emissions without being compelled by government decree. No candidate has forgotten President Carter’s crushing defeat after he warned us to tighten our belts and live within our means – economic and ecological.
Tragically, we-the-people are still far more concerned about holding our leaders to account than demanding accountability from ourselves. Just look at the incredible discrepancy between media treatment of politicians and corporate executives versus the man on the street. Back when "pain at the pump" was headline news, did any reporter ask an ordinary citizen, "Excuse me, sir, but did America invade and occupy the Mideast for your oil?" Have you ever asked that question yourself? Great lies and greater evils flourish when such candor is taboo.
You and I need to stop waiting for Washington! Let’s create green jobs for ourselves and our neighbors – and pay for them ourselves. Let’s start a transportation revolution – beginning with 100% renewable self-locomotion via our own legs. Let’s decide how we’ll slash our CO2 emissions to safe levels by 2020 – and get down to it. And let’s stop wars for energy which are being waged on our behalf against humanity and nature – petroleum from the strife-torn Mideast, oil sands from Canada's vast forests, and coal from beneath the pristine mountaintops of Appalachia.
Because if we don’t make this stuff happen from the grassroots up, it ain't gonna happen at all.
But putting THEM on the spot is nowhere near enough. No President will fund eco-friendly employment if 51% of voters refuse to foot the bill. No President will aggressively fight global warming if 51% of us aren’t willing to cut our own emissions without being compelled by government decree. No candidate has forgotten President Carter’s crushing defeat after he warned us to tighten our belts and live within our means – economic and ecological.
Tragically, we-the-people are still far more concerned about holding our leaders to account than demanding accountability from ourselves. Just look at the incredible discrepancy between media treatment of politicians and corporate executives versus the man on the street. Back when "pain at the pump" was headline news, did any reporter ask an ordinary citizen, "Excuse me, sir, but did America invade and occupy the Mideast for your oil?" Have you ever asked that question yourself? Great lies and greater evils flourish when such candor is taboo.
You and I need to stop waiting for Washington! Let’s create green jobs for ourselves and our neighbors – and pay for them ourselves. Let’s start a transportation revolution – beginning with 100% renewable self-locomotion via our own legs. Let’s decide how we’ll slash our CO2 emissions to safe levels by 2020 – and get down to it. And let’s stop wars for energy which are being waged on our behalf against humanity and nature – petroleum from the strife-torn Mideast, oil sands from Canada's vast forests, and coal from beneath the pristine mountaintops of Appalachia.
Because if we don’t make this stuff happen from the grassroots up, it ain't gonna happen at all.
Friday, September 19, 2008
New World Order
From the Madison (Wisconsin) Capital Times:
Community planners, municipal officials, and business owners tend to get fixated on the notion that "If we build it they will come/behave/do/act…". Meanwhile, many New Urban/anti-sprawl advocates focus on "If we stop it they won't come/behave/do…"
Stated another way, they (and we) often subscribe to a mechanistic view of (those other) human beings as mere automatons responding to environment (in this case infrastructure). But as most of us know intuitively, there can be safety in numbers – i.e. when more people choose a particular activity/behavior, not only does it become more acceptable socially, but it can actually make the activity/behavior safer for participants regardless of infrastructure. This recent study demonstrates it applies to bicycling:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080905-bike-accidents.html
Does this mean infrastructure doesn't matter? Can we afford to forget about bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, or the "Elephant in the Drop Off Zone"? Should we stop giving our elected officials and public servants (ahem) extra-real-hard spankings when they forget about "habitat for humanity" and choose instead to make the world as convenient as possible for the resource-gobbling species homo automobilicus?
Absolutely not! What it does mean is that we should encourage our fellow citizens to stop waiting for infrastructure, stop making excuses, and git their dang butts on the saddle. We got a New World Order to make – one we-the-people will CREATE by showing up with two wheels…and two feet.
(This letter was also sent to state and county highway departments as well as a number of Madison-area municipal officials, planners, and environmental leaders.)
Community planners, municipal officials, and business owners tend to get fixated on the notion that "If we build it they will come/behave/do/act…". Meanwhile, many New Urban/anti-sprawl advocates focus on "If we stop it they won't come/behave/do…"
Stated another way, they (and we) often subscribe to a mechanistic view of (those other) human beings as mere automatons responding to environment (in this case infrastructure). But as most of us know intuitively, there can be safety in numbers – i.e. when more people choose a particular activity/behavior, not only does it become more acceptable socially, but it can actually make the activity/behavior safer for participants regardless of infrastructure. This recent study demonstrates it applies to bicycling:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080905-bike-accidents.html
Does this mean infrastructure doesn't matter? Can we afford to forget about bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, or the "Elephant in the Drop Off Zone"? Should we stop giving our elected officials and public servants (ahem) extra-real-hard spankings when they forget about "habitat for humanity" and choose instead to make the world as convenient as possible for the resource-gobbling species homo automobilicus?
Absolutely not! What it does mean is that we should encourage our fellow citizens to stop waiting for infrastructure, stop making excuses, and git their dang butts on the saddle. We got a New World Order to make – one we-the-people will CREATE by showing up with two wheels…and two feet.
(This letter was also sent to state and county highway departments as well as a number of Madison-area municipal officials, planners, and environmental leaders.)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Technology & Self-Restraint
James Howard Kustler frequently emphasizes the crucial point that technology is not a replacement for energy. This is no less true for ethics.
"Technology is not a substitute for enlightened self-restraint. To the contrary, the more powerful and complex the technologies that we-the-people choose to adopt, the greater the caution and the more refined the precision we must exercise in the deployment, lest through inadvertence or lack of foresight those technologies undermine or destroy the foundational ecosystems that sustain human life." - Hans Noeldner, 29 Jul 2008
Man with 11,000 watts of technology at his disposal 24/7/365 can do far more damage to his fellow human beings - and his home planet - than Man with 300. (Incidentally, the average automobile produces significantly more than 11,000 watts at highway speeds...)
"Technology is not a substitute for enlightened self-restraint. To the contrary, the more powerful and complex the technologies that we-the-people choose to adopt, the greater the caution and the more refined the precision we must exercise in the deployment, lest through inadvertence or lack of foresight those technologies undermine or destroy the foundational ecosystems that sustain human life." - Hans Noeldner, 29 Jul 2008
Man with 11,000 watts of technology at his disposal 24/7/365 can do far more damage to his fellow human beings - and his home planet - than Man with 300. (Incidentally, the average automobile produces significantly more than 11,000 watts at highway speeds...)
Thursday, July 3, 2008
No Race for Small Footprints
Burning through aviation fuel just as fast as money. Multiple flights per candidate per day. High-speed armored convoys at every stop. And always with a phalanx of fossil-fueled media in their wake.
It’s not just that prospects with small Footprints need not apply for the job. No, it’s also the virtual certainty that our frenzied election process will quickly cull anyone – candidate or newsperson – who has any VISCERAL comprehension of how small we-the-people must make our Ecological Footprints to save Earth. Walking gently and living carbon-lite are totally alien to their way of life. If those who are swept up in this hyper-metabolic machine “got it”, they’d either go mad or have to quit out of conscience.
We are damned fools to expect either Obama or McCain to lead us to the Sustainable Promised Land – or for the mainstream media to reveal where it is on the map. They’ve long since flown far beyond it, and they aren’t looking back.
It’s not just that prospects with small Footprints need not apply for the job. No, it’s also the virtual certainty that our frenzied election process will quickly cull anyone – candidate or newsperson – who has any VISCERAL comprehension of how small we-the-people must make our Ecological Footprints to save Earth. Walking gently and living carbon-lite are totally alien to their way of life. If those who are swept up in this hyper-metabolic machine “got it”, they’d either go mad or have to quit out of conscience.
We are damned fools to expect either Obama or McCain to lead us to the Sustainable Promised Land – or for the mainstream media to reveal where it is on the map. They’ve long since flown far beyond it, and they aren’t looking back.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Elephant in the Drop-Off Zone
June 30th – first day of Summer School
This morning, as I walked towards Prairie View Elementary School to escort a child to my wife’s in-home day-care on West Lincoln Street, I witnessed two motorists nearly run down children who were trying to cross the street. I am sick with fear. And I am filled with anger at my community. Because the problem isn’t just these two distracted motorists. It’s how so many of us have chosen to live.
No doubt the summer school curricula will include many lessons on conserving resources and preserving ecosystems and coexisting peacefully on Earth. But what will our children learn about fighting global warming when they are strapped all by themselves into the back seat of a fossil-fueled motor vehicle? What will they learn about overcoming America’s addiction to oil with Mom’s foot on the accelerator pedal? And what will they learn about coexisting with 6.5 billion other human beings when their parents can’t even manage to live in peace with children who walk and ride their bicycles to summer school?
It’s not just that so many of us still deny the connection between our own hand on the gas pump and the blood and treasure that America is forfeiting to occupy the Mideast – we can always blame President Bush instead of ourselves and our neighbors.
It’s not just that we remain blind to the carbon dioxide that pours from our tail pipes – coal-fired electricity is a bigger problem and we can always hang the crime of thermal genocide on evil utility executives.
It’s not just that we are passing more bucks than ever to OPEC and oil lobbyists in Washington – Fed Chair Bernanke is the fall guy de jour for inflating the dollar into worthlessness and driving our nation into bankruptcy.
But there is absolutely no excuse for us to pass the buck when our own schoolchildren are being endangered by…US! Citizens of Oregon*, how can we not see the elephant in the room? Because when we get into our vehicles and drive to congested places like an elementary school entrance, that’s exactly what we become – elephants! Even if we drive a Prius or Vibe instead of an Expedition or Avalanche, our automotive exoskeleton is a veritable pachyderm compared to a child who is trying to cross the street.
It’s time to face some inconvenient truths. The way to stop global warming is to stop driving our children everywhere – including summer school. The way to stop wars for oil is to stop buying so damn much of the stuff – even if that means actually LIVING where we live rather than driving somewhere else all the time. And the key to coexistence lies in choosing to be small and slow and gentle rather than big and fast and powerful.
P.S. If this feels like an attack on you, dear reader, consider how our precious children feel when we fail to see them beyond the anonymity of our tinted glass and beneath our supersized hoods.
* Oregon, Wisconsin, that is
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Election Spin 2008
Now that the final stretch of Election 2008 is underway, Republican spin on energy issues is becoming obvious.
(1) High gasoline prices? It's the fault of environmentalists (i.e. DEMOCRATS.) These guys – and their bosom buddies the trial attorneys and activist judges – have managed for far too long to block exploration and extraction of vast reserves right here in America.
(2) But Mr. McCain, didn’t you say you were opposed to more offshore drilling only a few months ago? $4 gas changes everything, just like 9/11 changed everything. (Remind the people of 9/11 whenever possible.) Next question?
(3) And didn’t President Bush help his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush to block offshore drilling in Florida? Next question!! (And make sure that damned reporter gets blacklisted – I don’t want any more questions from him!)
(4) How much oil is really available in areas that are currently off-limits, and how soon can oil corporations get it to the (American) consumer? American companies must be allowed to produce more American oil – end of discussion. There shall be no mention of realistic estimates of recoverable reserves, the mind-boggling number of holes already poked into this highly-perforated continent, nor of the brine-laden dribble from US wells which currently average tens or sometimes hundreds of barrels per day rather than the thousands and tens-of-thousands which obtained in the prior century.
(5) What about long lead-times for new infrastructure? What about looming shortages of highly trained, experienced personnel as the aging petroleum workforce retires? Details, details! Again, acknowledging these factors will only detract the public’s 15-second attention span from the Main Point: Everything is the fault of Democrats.
(6) What about leaving some oil in the ground for future generations? Acknowledging that our heirs might have more important things to do with oil than burn it in speedboats, riding lawn mowers, and flights to Vail to play on the powdery slopes shall be Grounds for immediate decapitation. Technology and The Market – not frugality and enlightened restraint – are The Answer. Oh, and by the way, Democrats are the blackguards who always block The Market from optimizing Technology.
(7) What about fairness? Is it RIGHT for five percent of Earth's population to burn more than 30% of the world's motor fuel? Implement Evasion Tactic #1: Government must not interfere with Free Enterprise. It is axiomatic that consumers have a right to purchase whatever they want with their hard-earned dollars – and if that happens to be oil, fine and good. Also Spake Die Markt.
(8) But hold on a minute - do Americans really need to consume so much oil? Isn’t quite a bit of our usage discretionary? Whoaaaa! Stop right there – this is Economic heresy! We NEVER NEVER NEVER distinguish between needs and wants. Economy must grow; therefore Everything consumers (can be convinced to) want is a need.
(9) What about refineries? Obviously more and bigger are better. Once again, the eco-warriors (i.e. Democrats) and their accomplices at the bar and on the bench are to blame for blocking production of domestic oil resources. (Fortunately for the Republican Party, the chances are slim that oil companies really want to invest in significant expansions of their US refining capacity – “It's the lack of supplies, stupid!” So Republicans can make hay on the issue, pin blame on Democrats, but not risk offending any Republican voters who, in the final analysis, would revolt at the prospect of a refinery spoiling their view from their McMansion on the 18th hole.)
(10) What about Clean Coal? Unloose the fetters on Free Enterprise! Let The Market work its magic! (To the extent that the term "Clean Coal" is defined at all, it will be portrayed as a fait accompli rather than a dubious research-stage technology which might never prove practical. Naturally no mention shall be made of the fact that the Federal government recently pulled the plug on FutureGen, Clean Coal’s flagship research project.)
(11) Are the environmental costs of coal mining acceptable? Don’t EVER bring it up!! And if someone else does, tar and feather those unpatriotic left-leaning bastards (i.e. Democrats) who always sabotage good-paying American jobs and block the use of our own domestic energy. (Fortunately, the most devastating coal mining in America happens to occur in historically Democratic territory, so the Democratic Party probably won’t make it an issue of it either. Hey!! What could be better?)
(12) What about Coal-to-Liquids? Go for it! Subsidize it! Provide big tax loopholes – oops, I mean incentives – for it! Next question?
(13) What about Tar Sands? Go for it BIG TIME!! (Tar Sands are especially good because this province-spanning disaster isn't happening in the backyards of any US voters.)
(14) What about Nuclear? YES! YES! YES!
(15) But what about disposal of nuclear waste? Don’t bring it up until we’ve got a political “solution”. (OK, Karl, you're our best spinner ever, now get to work on it pronto! Hmmm…what if the most geologically stable sequestration site turned out to be in a lightly populated state that just happens to be a Democratic stronghold? SWEET!)
Last but not least:
(16) What if oil prices go down? We got a winner!
a. "Thank God Dubya unsheathed Amerka's mightily sword after 9/11! Otherwise Unser Fuehrer wouldn't be able to twist OPECs greasy arms and make 'em open the spigots."
(17) What if prices really go over the top? What if there are actual shortages? What if rationing proves necessary? EVEN BETTER! Now would-be-emperor George becomes Moses. Not only can all these troubles be blamed on Democrats (see above), but the bumbled invasion of Iraq suddenly becomes a prophetic act of deliverance:
a. "Gosh, here it turns out that Iraq has MORE oil than the Saudis…Thank God Dubya gave Saddam the boot! I mean, just think what would happen if Saddam still controled of all that oil…"
b. "Thank God Dubya has (most of) our sojers and sailors defending (our) Freedom (to consume all the oil we want) right there where (most of) the (world’s remaining) oil is!” (After the people have endured shortages and/or rationing for a few days, politicians of all stripes will tacitly acknowledge that “their” oil is now ours; by then everyone will clearly understand that if The Flow is not quickly restored, our Non-Negotiable Way of Life will collapse.)
c. “Thank God Dubya is opening-up Iraq to Free Enterprise! Now our multinational oil corporations can show the world what real production efficiency looks like – and THAT will bring oil prices back down to Earth again!"
d. "Thank God Dubya is constructing that huge military complex – oops I mean embassy – in Bagdad. Now let's see if Iraqi resistance fighters – oops I mean terrorists – can stop the Free Market from delivering oil to the consumer (i.e. US)!"
e. Oh, and now that rationing is necessary, Homeland Security needs to issue and track National Identity Cards. And maybe Dubya should clamp down a bit more on civil liberties, freedom of association, freedom of the press…
Will the Democratic Party act like the proverbial deer in the headlights if/when Energy comes to dominate the campaign? Unfortunately, refuting the Supply-Side Fairytale in the realm of political “reality” requires that a voting majority must have the rudimentary ability to grasp basic scientific and geological facts. Nor does it help that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the looming exhaustion of low-entropy, environmentally-benign energy "sources" virtually ensure that our Happy Motoring Days will sputter to a halt rather soon.
The troubles that lie ahead call for much more than “change”. They demand a truly courageous, sweeping new vision of a sustainable civilization – along with equitably-shared sacrifices, hard work, and a pervasive dedication to the common good we-the-people have not evinced since WWII. Unfortunately real citizenship doesn't "sell" anymore. Or that's what we – and our "leaders" – keep telling ourselves.
(1) High gasoline prices? It's the fault of environmentalists (i.e. DEMOCRATS.) These guys – and their bosom buddies the trial attorneys and activist judges – have managed for far too long to block exploration and extraction of vast reserves right here in America.
(2) But Mr. McCain, didn’t you say you were opposed to more offshore drilling only a few months ago? $4 gas changes everything, just like 9/11 changed everything. (Remind the people of 9/11 whenever possible.) Next question?
(3) And didn’t President Bush help his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush to block offshore drilling in Florida? Next question!! (And make sure that damned reporter gets blacklisted – I don’t want any more questions from him!)
(4) How much oil is really available in areas that are currently off-limits, and how soon can oil corporations get it to the (American) consumer? American companies must be allowed to produce more American oil – end of discussion. There shall be no mention of realistic estimates of recoverable reserves, the mind-boggling number of holes already poked into this highly-perforated continent, nor of the brine-laden dribble from US wells which currently average tens or sometimes hundreds of barrels per day rather than the thousands and tens-of-thousands which obtained in the prior century.
(5) What about long lead-times for new infrastructure? What about looming shortages of highly trained, experienced personnel as the aging petroleum workforce retires? Details, details! Again, acknowledging these factors will only detract the public’s 15-second attention span from the Main Point: Everything is the fault of Democrats.
(6) What about leaving some oil in the ground for future generations? Acknowledging that our heirs might have more important things to do with oil than burn it in speedboats, riding lawn mowers, and flights to Vail to play on the powdery slopes shall be Grounds for immediate decapitation. Technology and The Market – not frugality and enlightened restraint – are The Answer. Oh, and by the way, Democrats are the blackguards who always block The Market from optimizing Technology.
(7) What about fairness? Is it RIGHT for five percent of Earth's population to burn more than 30% of the world's motor fuel? Implement Evasion Tactic #1: Government must not interfere with Free Enterprise. It is axiomatic that consumers have a right to purchase whatever they want with their hard-earned dollars – and if that happens to be oil, fine and good. Also Spake Die Markt.
(8) But hold on a minute - do Americans really need to consume so much oil? Isn’t quite a bit of our usage discretionary? Whoaaaa! Stop right there – this is Economic heresy! We NEVER NEVER NEVER distinguish between needs and wants. Economy must grow; therefore Everything consumers (can be convinced to) want is a need.
(9) What about refineries? Obviously more and bigger are better. Once again, the eco-warriors (i.e. Democrats) and their accomplices at the bar and on the bench are to blame for blocking production of domestic oil resources. (Fortunately for the Republican Party, the chances are slim that oil companies really want to invest in significant expansions of their US refining capacity – “It's the lack of supplies, stupid!” So Republicans can make hay on the issue, pin blame on Democrats, but not risk offending any Republican voters who, in the final analysis, would revolt at the prospect of a refinery spoiling their view from their McMansion on the 18th hole.)
(10) What about Clean Coal? Unloose the fetters on Free Enterprise! Let The Market work its magic! (To the extent that the term "Clean Coal" is defined at all, it will be portrayed as a fait accompli rather than a dubious research-stage technology which might never prove practical. Naturally no mention shall be made of the fact that the Federal government recently pulled the plug on FutureGen, Clean Coal’s flagship research project.)
(11) Are the environmental costs of coal mining acceptable? Don’t EVER bring it up!! And if someone else does, tar and feather those unpatriotic left-leaning bastards (i.e. Democrats) who always sabotage good-paying American jobs and block the use of our own domestic energy. (Fortunately, the most devastating coal mining in America happens to occur in historically Democratic territory, so the Democratic Party probably won’t make it an issue of it either. Hey!! What could be better?)
(12) What about Coal-to-Liquids? Go for it! Subsidize it! Provide big tax loopholes – oops, I mean incentives – for it! Next question?
(13) What about Tar Sands? Go for it BIG TIME!! (Tar Sands are especially good because this province-spanning disaster isn't happening in the backyards of any US voters.)
(14) What about Nuclear? YES! YES! YES!
(15) But what about disposal of nuclear waste? Don’t bring it up until we’ve got a political “solution”. (OK, Karl, you're our best spinner ever, now get to work on it pronto! Hmmm…what if the most geologically stable sequestration site turned out to be in a lightly populated state that just happens to be a Democratic stronghold? SWEET!)
Last but not least:
(16) What if oil prices go down? We got a winner!
a. "Thank God Dubya unsheathed Amerka's mightily sword after 9/11! Otherwise Unser Fuehrer wouldn't be able to twist OPECs greasy arms and make 'em open the spigots."
(17) What if prices really go over the top? What if there are actual shortages? What if rationing proves necessary? EVEN BETTER! Now would-be-emperor George becomes Moses. Not only can all these troubles be blamed on Democrats (see above), but the bumbled invasion of Iraq suddenly becomes a prophetic act of deliverance:
a. "Gosh, here it turns out that Iraq has MORE oil than the Saudis…Thank God Dubya gave Saddam the boot! I mean, just think what would happen if Saddam still controled of all that oil…"
b. "Thank God Dubya has (most of) our sojers and sailors defending (our) Freedom (to consume all the oil we want) right there where (most of) the (world’s remaining) oil is!” (After the people have endured shortages and/or rationing for a few days, politicians of all stripes will tacitly acknowledge that “their” oil is now ours; by then everyone will clearly understand that if The Flow is not quickly restored, our Non-Negotiable Way of Life will collapse.)
c. “Thank God Dubya is opening-up Iraq to Free Enterprise! Now our multinational oil corporations can show the world what real production efficiency looks like – and THAT will bring oil prices back down to Earth again!"
d. "Thank God Dubya is constructing that huge military complex – oops I mean embassy – in Bagdad. Now let's see if Iraqi resistance fighters – oops I mean terrorists – can stop the Free Market from delivering oil to the consumer (i.e. US)!"
e. Oh, and now that rationing is necessary, Homeland Security needs to issue and track National Identity Cards. And maybe Dubya should clamp down a bit more on civil liberties, freedom of association, freedom of the press…
Will the Democratic Party act like the proverbial deer in the headlights if/when Energy comes to dominate the campaign? Unfortunately, refuting the Supply-Side Fairytale in the realm of political “reality” requires that a voting majority must have the rudimentary ability to grasp basic scientific and geological facts. Nor does it help that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the looming exhaustion of low-entropy, environmentally-benign energy "sources" virtually ensure that our Happy Motoring Days will sputter to a halt rather soon.
The troubles that lie ahead call for much more than “change”. They demand a truly courageous, sweeping new vision of a sustainable civilization – along with equitably-shared sacrifices, hard work, and a pervasive dedication to the common good we-the-people have not evinced since WWII. Unfortunately real citizenship doesn't "sell" anymore. Or that's what we – and our "leaders" – keep telling ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
