New Climate Bill – Guaranteed To Increase CO2 Production
From Disneyland on the Potomac another ill conceived environmental bill, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” which will virtually guarantee that global carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increase at faster rate. In the process we will also eliminate over 3 million American jobs.
President Obama has chosen to placate his left wing base by promoting the “Waxman-Markey global warming bill” over his stated goal of creating new jobs. A study by Charles River Associates concluded that if Obama signs off on this Congressional proposal to reduce CO2 emissions, it would have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy. “By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs.” Obama can only hope and pray that the creation of “Green Jobs” will at least partially offset this loss.
Rather than focus on available technological solutions, Obama says let’s burden hard working American consumers with another ill-conceived regressive tax! Who will ultimately pay for this brilliant plan? Consumers of course! This burden, however, will not be shared equally. The already economically hard-hit middle of the country, which is dependent on coal-fired plants for electricity, will be disproportionately taxed. The White House talks the talk when it comes to helping the economically challenged States of the “Rust-Belt,” but they sure don’t walk the walk.
The goal of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” is to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by the year 2020, and 83% by mid-century. In typical Congressional and Obama one-dimensional thinking they seem to have forgotten that it is global carbon dioxide production that we concerned about. American manufacturing which is already uncompetitive in the global market is about to become even less competitive.
Hooray we can reduce U.S. CO2 production by a miserly 17% by 2020. But by increasing the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. we will almost certainly demolish what is left of our manufacturing base and wind up outsourcing it to the least environmentally friendly country in the world, China. China has does not restrict CO2 for fear of making its manufacturing base uncompetitive.
China is by far the largest producer of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world. A conservative estimate is that for every molecule of CO2 we save in the United States, China, our surrogate manufacturer will incrementally produce 3 CO2 molecules. In net effect by making manufacturing to costly in the U.S. we may technically reduce our CO2 production by 17% but we will have our proxy China incrementally increase their CO2 production threefold - resulting in an real increase in the U.S. related carbon dioxide production of 34%.
America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with the new U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports. Experts predict - “It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment”. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would give U.S. refiners an incentive to import more fuel. With one bold sweep of Obama’s pen he can make us more dependent on foreign energy and cause a further deterioration in our balance of trade.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. In other words, there is no problem that a bureaucrat can’t solve, if only we would let them pass another regressive tax. That may well be the sum total of the creative thinking that has gone into the Obama “American Clean Energy and Security Act”. The Obama Administration proposes that companies buy a permit for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start of approximately $13 to $20 per ton. The permits could then be bought and sold. The theory behind this convoluted scheme is that it will somehow miraculously increase energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
We could solve this problem in any number of ways that would not unduly burden the consumer. Let me give you a few examples. In the United States we emit over 24 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person; in France they emit a little over 6 metric tons per person. So, let’s do it the French way and cut our emissions by nearly 75%. The centerpiece of France’s green strategy is of course clean nuclear power. France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. All the power you want 24/7 and no carbon dioxide. The excess energy produced in off-peak times can be used to charge electric vehicles at night or generate hydrogen from water as a means to power the future hydrogen economy.
Even the “green” Germans seem to have finally come to the conclusion that wind may be fine as a supportive source of clean energy, but it is limited by both scale and its inherent intermittent nature. This year’s German election will probably result in a reversal of its long standing anti-nuclear policy, as it has become increasingly clear that only dependable nuclear power can generate carbon dioxide free, base load electricity on a nationwide scale. In Europe, the population seems to have finally realized that for 30 years the Germans have talked green but only the French have acted green.
The technology to replace carbon dioxide-belching cars and planes with high-speed inter-city mass transportation has existed for more than three decades. Continuing on our French green theme, there is, of course, the TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse) high-speed train. Following the inaugural TGV service between Paris and Lyon, in 1981, the TGV network, centered in Paris, has expanded to connect cities across France and adjacent countries. TGVs link with Switzerland, and through the French Thalys network with Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The Eurostar network links France and Belgium with the United Kingdom.
The key to producing less carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is to use the fuel with the lowest carbon to hydrogen ratio. Coal is the least desirable because there are roughly 2 carbons for each hydrogen; oil is cleaner because it has the inverse ratio of approximately one carbon for 2 hydrogen molecules; and best of all is methane (CH4), with 4 hydrogen molecules for each carbon molecule. Natural gas is primarily methane. Thus, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions when natural gas is substituted for gasoline in an automobile is about 25-30%.
Natural gas may not be the perfect solution to our need for a clean transportation fuel but it is certainly a good one and one that can be deployed in tens of millions of standard size vehicles in a relatively short period of time. The perfect solution will take at least a decade or two to be developed for standard size cars and trucks.
Voltaire had it right: Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien or “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. While there are only about 130,000 Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV) in the U.S, there are nearly 4.5 million of these alternative fuel vehicles worldwide, mainly in Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Germany and India. In Italy alone there are more than 400,000 NGV’s, demonstrating that this is not a pie-in-the-sky idea, but one that is easily and quickly implemented.
This essay is too short to detail all of the viable technological solutions that could be applied to reducing carbon dioxide emissions that would be far superior to an unimaginative regressive tax such as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act”. So let me enumerate a few additional thoughts: geothermal energy can play an expanded role, hydroelectric plants should be built not dismantled, coal gasification should be expanded, and tidal power, which unlike wind is not intermittent should be developed, as well as the creation of an energy efficient smart grid.
Unfortunately, politician of both parties appear to have limited ability to think creatively and tend to rely on regressive tax schemes to solve all of mankind’s ills.
you seem to have conveniently left out the fact that poorer segments of the population will receive rebate checks from carbon credit sales
but hey, if something undercuts your argument, sweep it under the rug =)
June 29th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
also, you seem horrifically short sighted..
i would LOVE to only pay 20% more for gas in 2020
i mean… i would LOVE that!
June 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
The HAArp project to destroy a 30 mile area in time of war (so we are told) but in essence is the enforcement tool of the nwo fills the skies with jp8 jet fuel and then makes a microwave of the sky to move weather formats to create floods droughts and weather disasters including making hurricanes dance is a big environment problem and no one talks of it. For about the last 10 years they have been doing if all over the world and I believe that the heated skies cause the greenhouse effect. The earth is really in a cooling down phase. See earthpulse.com. If you see a white x in the sky you know they are spraying there . The chemtrails open up while contrails disappear im a couple of minutes.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hi! Are you interested in getting a banner/ header/ logo/ template/ business cards/ directory or article submissions or SEO works, for your site / blog for no money to improve your site quality, in return we require a blog review or text links from your site / blog http://www.cincinnatusblog.com. Approaching you through this form since I could not find out the email address. Please get back to me if you are interested. This is a special “New Project offer” from us.
Name: Evelyn Roberts
Email: evlinrobes@gmail.com
evlinrobes@yahoo.com
June 30th, 2009 at 4:14 am
@Kris
I think you missed the point - when your unemployed the few crumbs they throw you will not feed your family. No one is going to receive the $1,800 which is extra cost every family will pay for electricity, gas etc. And you can do all this by outsourcing manufacturing to China and actually increasing CO2 production - At best this is a 1,200 pages wacky left solution to a technical problem. The right is no more creative if you are wondering! It’s time to deal with the issues not pass regressive, uneconomic taxes.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Hi there, I am very pleased to see the French nuclear solution being promoted these days. It makes me smile because Americans have no idea about the cost of all the nuclear reactors that were built in the last 40 years. It was a huge undertaking, decided by the govt without much consultation. The cost of electricity was and is still quite high. Some of these plants will have to be renovated soon.. Now it looks like a decent idea but it costed a lot…of taxpayer’s money…and the lead time is quite long: about 8 years from conception to the first watt..That being said, it is a better idea than continuing to invest in coal without CCS..
June 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Nuclear is not a truly clean energy though. It has “waste”, which someone needs to figure out what to do with, and then you get into the question of “where do you put it, or what do you do with it?” Then if you solve that problem you need to look at the overall effect of how long it will take to build the plants and make them active. Then once you figure that, you have to look at the cost of building the nuclear plants. I mean if you’re going to talk numbers, then you should know that Nuclear plants are by far one of the most expensive forms of energy to build and produce.
Also, you make it sound like the bill only focuses on wind energy. That is not the case. It is meant to expand and develop all kinds of green technologies, not just wind.
The bill does and should address the upgrade of our power grid, so I am not sure why you are implying it does not. It’s one of the major parts of the bill and in itself will create thousands of jobs.
Don’t forget the protections in the bill to ensure that utility rates do not sky rocket for consumers by helping companies cover the costs of the transitions that they’re required to use.
It would also appear that the CRA report you mention is using skewed and inaccurate data, so perhaps it would have done some good to actually research and read the report you are referring to.
Here’s a link that describes some of the issues with their report - http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/cras_climate_cost_tempest_neve.html
It would appear that the only one sided, short sighted view is that of the author; you. You’re only looking at one piece of the pie, but if you add in the other truly clean and renewable energy options, it becomes much more clear.
You’re also underestimating the power of American innovation, as new technologies for clean energy are popping up almost daily to make their potential even better.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
You all seem to forget that if all the CO2 made by man’s burning of fossil fuels were eliminated, that the total reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only amount to .2 percent of the total greenhouse gas and would result in very minimal if any change. And for this we are going to spend billions of dollars, change our whole economy and lose whatever lead the US might still have in technology. Unsaid, is that 97 percent of the total greenhouse gas is nothing more than water vapor, which is created by the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth, primarily from the oceans. Nothing can be done about that, the earth has been warming for the last 10,000 yearsl, read any basic geological text and you will find that out. It is going to happen no matter how much we try to prevent it, and at what cost? This whole panic is absolutely absurd.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Kevin is a moron who hasn’t bothered to study nuclear. I spent nearly 20 years in it. The problems are not technical, they are political. Brought on by those who know nothing about it. Shame on you for stealing our future.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
i agree with the last 2 posts..
99% of nuclear waste can now be recycled for more energy. (ask france) the other 1% can be used for extremely valuable and in-demand medical isotopes. (ask canada)
nuclear is a long term investment.. and if we work at it, the efficiency/safety will only increase.. to an almost infinite end..
quote obama:
THAT I AM MOST FOCUSED ON WHEN I THINK ABOUT LONG TERM ECONOMIC POLICY…WE ARE STILL SEEING TOO MANY JOBS LOST…THAT’S WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO LAY THE FOUNDATIONS FOR LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH… WE’VE GOT TO FIGURE WHAT THE NEXT GROWTH ENGINE IS BEYOND CREDIT CARD DEBT, HOME EQUITY LOANS, AND DERIVATIVES…”
As laid out in the recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine, that “new growth engine” is CARBON CAP AND TRADE. Obama will solve the financial crisis with an environmental dictatorship putting millions to work in carbon-free windmills and solar, and in policing the emissions of carbon, at the same time as a new financial bubble in the $ trillions emerges around trading Carbon Credits to keep financial system going!!!???
these wind and solar technologies are hundreds of years old and have a very limited maximum efficiency.. they take up more space and require more energy to build than they are worth!!
learn about green fascism: http://larouchepac.com/greenfascism
July 6th, 2009 at 5:04 am
I suggest that everyone should go to http://www.friendsofscience.org and to watch thr video “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled” with an open mind of scientific inquiry. Climate is always changing and is a natural consequence related to sunspot cycles & cosmic rays rather than to man’s agency and carbon dioxide. In Earth’s evolution through geological time glacial ice ages have coincided with high concentrstions of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the “smoking gun hockey stick” graph for catastrophic Global Warming is based on a computing programing error and the Global Warming scare is just that -.a scare, there is no scientific basis- it seems.
Certainly we need to clean up our air and water pollution and our living environment but that is a different issue from Global Warming and carbon dioxide as the culprit. Recent global temperature trends are dropping and sea-ice in the polar regions are apparently thickening that seem to indicate that we may be heading towards a mini ice-age, rather than Global Warming.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I agree with Geologist’s comments and wish to provide additional details to strengthen Mr. Bologna’s reasoned arguments against false messiah’s of psuedo-environmentalism. While Mr. Bologna’s economic points are well taken, spending trillions to reduce human-caused CO2 will do much more harm than good and the damage extends far beyond economics.
Mr. Bologna’s logic is sound, except for the initial assumption, which is that CO2 is pollution. CO2 is not pollution, it is a trace atmospheric gas, necessary for life on this planet. When you exhale, the concentration of CO2 in your breathe is about 4% or 100 times higher than than the 400 ppm or 0.04% average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
There is no empirical evidence that humans cause any significant amount of global warming. :”Significant” is the key word here and it is used in its statistical meaning.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis; at best it is a very weak hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to qualify AGW as a theory. There is far better evidence which contradicts the AGW hypothesis. Proponents of the AGW hypothesis (e.g. Al Gore, James Hanson) have provided no reasonable explanations for these contradictions, nor will they debate the science with peers. Therefore, according to standard scientific method, the AGW hypothesis fails and must be rejected or revised.
There are no peer reviewed publications which provide real-world evidence of causal connection between human-caused CO2 and significant global warming. There are only computer models and those models do not provide accurate results even when the variables are replaced with known amounts. On the other hand, Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, has provided substantial evidence that water vapor (clouds) is the dominant gas responsible for the atmospheric greenhouse warming effect and further that the greenhouse warming effect attributable to human-caused CO2 is statistically insignificant. Statistically insignificant means that the effect of human-caused CO2 cannot be distinguished from random error in the measurement of the effect of the largest contributor to greenhouse warming, which is water vapor / clouds.
Confirming Professor Lindzen, the latest 2007 UN IPCC AR4 WG1 report states: “Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.” (Chapter 2, p. 135). This is the same UN IPCC report written by and used by climate alarmists. The UN IPCC reports conveniently drop water vapor and clouds from their list of “greenhouse gases” because humans have no chance to control such a massive natural process. The charter and funding for the UN IPCC is to find scientific support and to build political support for the political agenda which is to enable taxation of human energy use, especially carbon-based energy use. The UN IPCC is not a peer-reviewed science-based organization.
Human-caused CO2 only contributes 0.117 % of the total greenhouse effect. Natural water vapor and clouds are responsible for 94% of the greenhouse warming effect. The amount of CO2 in air and the amount of water vapour /clouds in air varies with temperature. Water vapour and CO2 absorb infrared radiation (heat) from the sun and emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere. But CO2 is a trace gas in atmosphere at less than 400 parts per million or 0.04%. The concentration of CO2 in air is far too low to cause any significant global warming. Furthermore human-caused CO2 from all sources is only 5% of the total CO2 in air. Doubling the amount of CO2 in air does not double the amount of greenhouse warming caused by the CO2.
Don’t be fooled by data on metric tons of CO2 produced by humans. Even though human caused CO2 has increased about 40% since the industrial revolution, the human-caused portion of the total is still small (5%), and the total CO2 is still very small at 0.04%. This total is more than 100 times less than toxic levels of CO2. On the other hand, this 0.04% of CO2 is important for growing plants.
Measurements in ice core samples reveal that warming increases long before CO2 concentration increases in atmosphere, hundreds of years before. The latest report by the UN IPCC is available online. The latest (2007) UN IPCC report, Chapter 6.4.1: “Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed Antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium.” (Mudelsee,2001). Clearly, the effect cannot occur before the cause.
Again, The EFFECT cannot occur PRIOR TO the CAUSE.
Reducing the trace amount of CO2 in air will reduce growth of plants. CO2 is a natural component of air, it is not pollution. The fallacy, the lie that has been created by AGW alarmists, is that CO2 is pollution. But, there is no peer reviewed evidence that CO2 at less than 0.04% (400 ppm) concentration is harmful to the environment. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence that a higher concentration of CO2 improves plant growth. In the geologic past, CO2 levels have been many times higher than present values and have sustained a large flora and fauna [Berner 1997;Berner and Kothaualla 2001; UN IPCC-AR4 2007, p. 441].
Some 176 experiments on trees and other woody plants reveal a mean growth enhancement of 48 percent for a 300 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 content [Poorter 1993; Ceulemans and Mousseau 1994; Wullschleger et al. 1995, 1997]. Higher CO2 concentrations have contributed to the sustained high growth of forests, foods and other agriculture in the last century.
The effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health and most living things on this planet. A warming of even 3ºC in the next 100 years would, on balance, would be beneficial to humans because the reduction of wintertime mortality / morbidity would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress-related mortality/morbidity [Laaidi 2006, Keatinge 2000].
Humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not significantly change global temperature. However, removing CO2 from the atmosphere can be confidently projected to reduce growth rates of plant life on this planet.
Evidence of warming is not evidence that the warming is anthropogenic. Evidence that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” does not necessarily support the hypothesis of global warming if the warming due to CO2 is statistically insignificant or offset by other variables. It should be obvious, but apparently is not, that facts such as melting glaciers and disappearing Arctic sea ice, while interesting, are entirely irrelevant to illuminating the causes of global warming. Any significant warming, whether anthropogenic or natural, will melt ice – often quite slowly. Therefore, claims that AGW is occurring that are backed by such accounts are simply confusing the consequences of warming with the causes – a common logical error. But such claims are used everyday in every media, including most regrettably the media published by the American Chemical Society.
There is a fundamental error in logic that suffuses AGW. For example, someone puts forth the reasonable claim — “If it’s raining then the streets will become wet.” The consequent (“the streets will become wet”) reasonably follows from the antecedent (“it’s raining”). But it would not be reasonable to say, “If the streets became wet then it rained.” — and to do so would be an example of a simple error in logic: the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Yet, that logical fallacy is repeatedly used, albeit in a more subtle form, throughout AGW. Here are some examples of that error in elementary logic: If the Arctic ice cap melts then it’s a result of global warming. If the sea levels rise to dangerous levels then it’s a result of global warming. If there are more intense hurricanes then it’s a result of global warming. If there are more frequent severe tornados then it’s a result of global warming. If the polar bears are threatened then that too is a result of global warming (melting the ice which the bears need for support). A few weeks ago, Al Gore testified in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and that testimony was a 4 hour harangue of hysteria-creating examples following exactly this logical fallacy. No Senator asked Gore for evidence which shows human-caused CO2 is connected to the alarmist images and forecasts he presented.
Eminent physicist Freeman Dyson is celebrated in a recent article in New York Times Magazine, titled “The Civil Heretic.” Dr. Dyson is dismissive of the global warming hypothesis and its protagonists. “Al Gore’s just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers.”
Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”
“The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large,” Dyson said. “By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Physics Department, University of Hartford and 2004 Chair of the New England Section of the American Physical Society titled his open letter to that Society, Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism: A Corruption of Science.” And “Anthropogenic emission of CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. FALSE, regardless of the widespread claims, because of the massive amount of scientific evidence and analysis which contradict such claims.”
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Committee AR4 Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
Thirteen renowned scientists, including three UN IPCC scientists, have written to UN Secretary General Ban and the head of the UN IPCC demanding that the deception be stopped and the UN IPCC be disbanded. I have a copy of the letter if you would like it.
Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, who has authored over 150 refereed publications, rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to US Senate EPW committee on January 18, 2008.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. More than thirty-one thousand (31,000) American scientists, putting their names and credentials on the line, including more than 9,000 PhD’s have signed this simple petition:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. “
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The list of US signers is here: http://www.petitionproject.org
The petition was circulated with a letter from Professor Frederick Seitz. Frederick Seitz, a physicist, was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world.
A full page open letter to Obama was published in the New York times, signed by more than 100 international scientists. I can forward a pdf of this to anyone interested. Names and positions of all scientists are listed. These scientists state that Obama is incorrect on global warming.
I am interested in protecting the environment. This is best done by making all energy sources more efficient which simultaneously makes the energy source cleaner environmentally. Energy users can also be incented to use/burn carbon fuels more efficiently. Efficient combustion of hydrocarbons produces only CO2, water and elemental carbon. That atmospheric carbon is great fertilizer and has many uses. Nuclear power can be a great thing when done correctly. But, it is technically, ecologically and economically impractical to replace carbon-based fuels entirely with any currently known technology. The science is not there yet. The earth will run out of nuclear fuel thousands of years before it runs out of hydrocarbon fuels. The earth is still producing far more carbon fuel than is being consumed. There is more carbon fuel in the continental US than the largest oil fields in Saudi Arabia; in other words, self-restriction by US of production and use of its internal carbon fuels worsens US and worldwide economy and exacerbates tensions in the middle east. More progress will be made on real environmental issues when we stop wasting resources on non-problems foisted on us by charlatans, politicians and scientists who have not bothered with science and facts which contradict their theories and models.
The Cap-and-Trade tax recently passed by the US House (and supported by the Obama administration, all but 30 Democrats and 7 Republicans) will have no significant effect on global temperature and no significant effect on pollution. Yet, if passed, it would be the largest tax increase in history, causing huge prices increases in everything that uses energy, and the largest transfer of wealth, power and personal liberty from individuals to the government in history. This legislation does no good for the earth, but it does enrich a politically connected group of industries and politicians while harming you and your family and the earth.
Indeed, let’s use reason to bring reality to this messianic world and lets begin using reason on first assumptions and data.
If you would like to read journal articles, powerpoint presentations and other references on any of the points in this email, I will be happy to send these to you. Feel free to forward this email to any of your contacts and friends.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am