Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Americans Have Spoken: We Want Clean Energy

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted December 12, 2007.


So why are the Republicans threatening to filibuster the best chance we have?
Advertisement

Last Thursday, the US House of Representatives passed, by a 235-181 vote, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This new energy bill includes measures that would increase car fuel mileage, restore taxes on Big Oil to pay for investments in solar, wind and energy efficiency, and mandate that electric utilities generate 15 percent of their power using renewable energy.

On Friday, the same bill passed the Senate by 53 votes in favor to 42 opposed. Republicans then threatened to filibuster, raising the bar for passage to 60 votes. The Senate will work on revisions and is expected to bring a modified bill to the floor sometime this week, but giant corporations are working overtime to trash as much of the renewable energy substance as they can.

The renewable electricity mandate and the oil tax package are the two provisions attracting the most opposition, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calling them "twin millstones ... around its neck."

According to a Bloomberg report, Rudy Giuliani's lobbying firm has taken a leading role in trying to "strangle" the bill on behalf of the utility and oil industries.

Despite the blockage in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was widely praised for passing the renewable energy and efficiency provisions, and Democrats are touting the achievement as an illustration of what they would accomplish on climate change and energy independence if given control of government in 2008.

Following the Senate vote, Senator John Kerry flew to Bali to discuss climate policy with world leaders and to let them know he is convinced that "the politics of 2009 in the United States are going to be just night and day, different from where we have been before." Commenting on the Senate vote, Kerry said, "The energy vote today -- and the message the Roadblock Republicans risk sending far and wide across the globe -- is a gigantic reminder why we're still one election away from bringing the biggest and boldest change to Washington."

Proponents of the House-passed energy bill have called it a "down payment" on a climate change strategy. With the "down payment" now in jeopardy, climate activists organized by the US Climate Emergency Council (USCEC) planned to conduct a sit-in today inside the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The activists will demand that McConnell meet with them to discuss retaining strong support for renewable energy in the revised Senate energy bill.

A recent analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) confirms that the House bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The study found that the legislation would prevent over 190 million metric tons of global warming pollution in 2020 -- equivalent to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road in that year.

The UCS study also shows the bill to be effective at reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, finding that full implementation of the measures will save about 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020 - half of what the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf. Even after paying for the necessary fuel economy technology, the study finds, in 2020 American consumers will save $22 billion in energy costs.

And then there are the jobs. While no one is predicting the exact number of jobs this energy bill would create, Democrats are saying that major investments in renewable energy could create three million green jobs over 10 years. With its renewable electricity mandate and expanded production tax credits for wind and solar energy, the House-passed energy bill would almost certainly spark such major investment. The package also creates a program to train a quality workforce for "green" collar jobs such as solar panel manufacturing and installation.

On the other side of the energy divide, a report released by the American Petroleum Institute (API) in November says that energy bill provisions would destroy five million jobs by 2030.

Pete Morton, a senior resource economist for the Wilderness Society, called it "a biased study that only looks at the costs but not the benefits of the proposed legislation."

The API study claims that closing tax loopholes for Big Oil will cause an increase in energy prices that will slow economic growth, leading to the job losses. But the bipartisan Congressional Joint Economic Committee found that closing the $13.5 billion in tax loopholes would have no effect on oil production decisions and, consequently, no effect on consumer prices for gasoline and natural gas.

Big Oil and its friends claim that restoring the oil industry's tax burden will leave the industry short of funds needed to develop new oil and gas resources. But Daniel J. Weiss of American Progress says, "This ignores the over half a trillion dollars in combined profits earned by the big five oil companies since 2001... The $13.5 billion in tax breaks, collected over a decade, is less than three percent of these companies' total profits over the last seven years. BP, Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil each had more than $13.5 billion in profits during the first three quarters of 2007. The closed loopholes are a drop in the barrel compared with big oil profits."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: renewable energy, clean energy, coal, oil, global warming, climate change, al gore

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Drain America First Act
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Energy Independence and Security Act should be renamed
the Drain America First Act because reducing America's
dependence on foreign oil MEANS using up American oil first,
leaving us at the mercy of OPEC. The concept of energy
independence is just plain stupid as long as vehicles use petroleum
fuels. Instead of energy independence, we should leave
American oil in the ground and Drain the Middle East First. We
should go for 100% dependence on foreign oil so that we can keep
American oil in the ground. People who own oil wells are
driving the legislation, NOT patriotic Americans. People who
want to Drain America First are traitors. Remember that
Germany lost the last world war, in part, because it ran out of oil.
If we Drain America First, there will soon come a time when we
cannot defend our country because we have no fuel for our tanks
and airplanes. As long as we still have oil in the ground, the price
per barrel OPEC can charge has an upper limit. When American
oil is gone, there is no upper limit to the price of oil. As long as
vehicles use petroleum fuels, there is zero energy security.
Energy security is a delusion and a scam by American oil
producers. Forget that delusion and get used to interdependence.
Then do research on alternative ways to provide power to
vehicles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

34% of CO2 is from COAL fired power plants
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I have told you before, the #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal
fired power plants. And, the emitters of the most toxins are: coal
fired power plants, leaf fires, roses, lilacs and other pollinators,
molds...........

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A book you need to read
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changeing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.
Back cover - Table of contents - Introduction by James Lovelock -

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A book you need to read Posted by: eddiemyboy1
Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

www.ecolo.org

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major aeas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmnetal problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Truth about Nuclear Power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Table of Contents
Preface of the English edition by James Lovelock
INTRODUCTION
An environmentalist For Nuclear energy

PART I :

THE ATOMIC PARADOX

CHAPTER 1: Nuclear energy: it's cleaner than you think.

CHAPTER 2: A well-designed nuclear power plant has little effect on the
environment.

CHAPTER 3: The risk of accident is reduced by strict quality and safety standards.

CHAPTER 4: Safe management of nuclear waste.

CHAPTER 5: A nuclear power station is not an atomic bomb.

CHAPTER 6: Managing the planet's energy as best we can.

CHAPTER 7: The economic and strategic advantages of nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 8: The real enviromental issues lie elsewhere: starvation, malnutrition,
political unrest in third world countries, drugs, alcohol and cigarette addictions,
destruction of tropical forests, chemical pollution of the environment, urban
wastes, overpopulation…

CHAPTER 9: The example of France, the world's leader in nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 10: Nuclear fusion: an almost unlimited supply of clean energy for the
future?

CHAPTER 11: No to nuclear war: for an end to nuclear weapons and the spectre
of nuclear war.

CHAPTER 12: The environmentally friendly solution to transportation problems:
electric vehicles.

CHAPTER 13: Modern, efficient, and intelligent environmental program: pro-
nuclear green movements for tomorrow.

CHAPTER 14: Errors to avoid.

CHAPTER 15: For better information - and against disinformation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy PART II:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 12, 2007 11:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IN FAVOR OF BETTER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

Principal dates in the history of nuclear power. What is an atom? The principle of
nuclear fission. The principle of nuclear fusion. What is radioactivity? What is
radiation? How we can protect ourselves from radioactivity and radiation.
Different types of radiation. The difference between irradiation and radioactive
contamination. The natural disintegration of uranium 235 to lead. The natural
disintegration of uranium 238 to lead. Units of measurement of radioactivity and
irradiation. How do we measure radioactivity? Permitted and lethal doses of
irradiation. The effects of intense irradiation on the human body. Authorized limits
for human irradiation. A few examples of received doses. Natural radioactivity is
considerably different from region to region. Average natural irradiation by region
in France. The Chernobyl accident. International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) -
classification of nuclear accidents and incidents. Irradiation resulting from the
Chernobyl accident. The medical use of radiation. Doses of radiation delivered
during some medical radioisotopic examinations. Comparison of the effect of
nuclear arms, of nuclear medicine and of the nuclear power industry. How a
nuclear power plant operates. Diagram of a PWR nuclear power unit. Nuclear fuel.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. How to prevent accidents in a modern nuclear
power plant. Three successive confinement barriers isolate nuclear fuel from the
environment. Countries possessing nuclear arms and the problem of their
proliferation. The half-life of some radioactive substances. The irradiation of food
products. Authorized food irradiation table. What to do in case of a nearby nuclear
accident war (or atomic bomb explosion).

 
CONCLUSION:

LET'S BUILD A BETTER WORLD NOW.

Some useful addresses - Abbreviations - Bibliography.

About the Author - Acknowledgments - Other publications by Bruno Comby

Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. http://www.ecolo.org/

http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame The Democrats
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 13, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, the Democrats refused to filibuster bills to which they were opposed. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans are filibustering every bill they don't like. If the Democrats had used the filibuster when the Republicans were in the majority, there would probably have been an elimination or at least severe restriction of this procedure. Because of the Democrats' usual wimpy behavior when they could have filibustered, we now suffer under rule of a right wing minority. All I can say is, a pox on both of them, VOTE GREEN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer to UndergroundPirate
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in
the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time,
given that private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to
reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO]
facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and
religion would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

PS: I almost took a job at Numec in 1968, just after I graduated from Carnegie-
Mellon University with a B.S. in Physics. I worked for the army as a civilian
physicist in the army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. I DO know
something about nuclear. This is not a disinformation campaign.
UndergroundPirate, are you working for a coal company? Where did you get
your degree? Can you prove it to us? Nuclear power is the only way to avoid
extinction. Prof Nathan Lewis can't provide base load power without nuclear
right now.

American nuclear engineers have not been idle for the past 60 years. We have
TWO types of reactors that cannot melt down. We have reactors that run on so-
called "waste."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer2 to UndergroundPirate
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
UndergroundPirate, Professor Lewis's lecture is very interesting, but we don't
have until 2050 to start doing something. See the chart on page 274 of "Six
Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015 to BEGIN REDUCING our CO2
output and we have until 2050 to actually reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The
peak of our CO2 production has to happen in the next 8 years. Sorry, but we
can't wait for Dr. Lewis's research, no matter how interesting. If we don't follow
the schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take
the control of climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, and we could go extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to 400
parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks. The
natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000
H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

Yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist with experience in
the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects.

Yes, I like wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy. They are inadequate to
meet our needs with current technology.

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Background radiation lesson for underground pirates
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
Nobody is going to die from nuclear fuel that should be reprocessed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hackbut
Posted by: hackbut on Dec 17, 2007 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we should do what we can to make power as intelligently as possible, and while in my view I am getting sick of the auto company's intransigence in favor of continuing to make Hummers, large pick-up trucks, etc. I am also fed up with the elitist leftists who want to do all of this with little regard to the effect of their ideas on ordinary people. One of their saints is Al Gore with nary a word about how much energy he uses as he jets around the world in private planes. Same with their movie star pals.

I live in Atlanta where we are running out of water to drink and because of the past victories of the environmental lobby, billions of gallons are being released downstream to protect mussels while we are apt to go thirsty, and we can't build new reservoirs in a reasonable amount of time because of environmental laws.

The people who spearhead a lot of this environmental overkill are likely the same people who, because of their wealth, will never be affected by the shortages and increased costs that many of their policies will cause, but since when has the left ever been concerned about ordinary people?

If you doubt this just count the bodies historically in Russia, China and Cambodia. Once a Volvo-dring, Fiji-water-drinking leftist intellectual gets an "idea" he'll run with it and ordinary people be damned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mussels vs Atlanta
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 20, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hackbut, I'm on your side and against the mussels. You are right about some of
the people who think they are ecologists but aren't. They are more like eco-
cultists. The anti-nuclear movement is also cult-like. The problem is that they
don't do the math, so they act on instinct and emotion instead of thought, and they
want perfection. Perfection doesn't happen in this universe. You can only
optimize your chances. There are no guarantees.

The drought in Atlanta will only get worse. If you want water to drink, you had
better consider moving north while you can still sell your house in Atlanta. I am
considering moving from Illinois to Canada or Alaska for the climate. Please read
"Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. Download a summary from:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4
/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of
-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
The 1930s dust bowl is only a sample of what we are going to get with global
warming at only 1 degree centigrade. Great damage has been done, but we still
have 8 years before natural positive feedbacks lead to our extinction. Sea level
will continue to rise even if we disappear right now, but that is "minor" compared
to poison gas bubbling out of the ocean and killing almost everything.

See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, but we can avoid going extinct by 2100, and maybe we can avoid the fall of
civilization. We have to hold the CO2 level to 400 parts per million to have a
75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks. We are at 380 parts per million
now. The natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

On the fall of civilization, read "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed" by Jared Diamond. When civilization collapses, times get really ugly.
I am reading this book now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]