 | Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #2 | The Oil Drum | POLL: CLU08 went through $114/bbl..so, in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will... |  |
A Plan for Increasing Your Carbon Emissions
Posted by Robert Rapier on August 11, 2008 - 9:11am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: energy policy, global warming, nancy pelosi, original, politics, spr [list all tags]
I recently received an interesting e-mail:
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Author of "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters
" will answer questions in a live discussion on washingtonpost.com today (Wednesday, Aug. 6 at 3 pm ET).
Pelosi will discuss the current political scene heading into the conventions, the message of her new book and other questions submitted by readers.
To submit questions and participate in the live discussion click here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/01/DI2008080102174.html
This seemed to me to be an ideal opportunity to question her on two issues that she is clearly passionate about, but seem to me to be diametrically opposed: Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and reducing carbon emissions. So, I submitted the following question, several hours prior to the chat:
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
Perhaps you could clarify an issue that is confusing to me. On the one hand, you have spoken passionately for the need to combat global warming by reducing our carbon emissions. This is clearly a priority for you, as well as for the Democratic Party. On the other hand, you have also come out strongly in favor of tapping oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring oil prices down. Given that high prices are causing the public to abandon SUVs and to embrace fuel efficiency and mass transit - exactly the sorts of things that need to happen if we are to reduce carbon emissions - how is your position on the SPR not completely at odds with your position on global warming? If in fact you push through your proposal on the SPR, won't that lead to increased consumption and therefore increased carbon emissions?
Had I been a bit more long-winded, I would have pointed to reports that gasoline demand is in fact down this year, breaking a multi-year trend of increasing demand. Or I could have shown many news stories showing record demand for Priuses while SUVs are not moving. Of course the reason demand is down is price-driven. Price is the most practical handle we have on moderating demand.
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi (or the person screening the questions) decided not to answer my question. Instead, they answered a question in which she could once more push for tapping the SPR!
Marietta, Georgia: Dear Madam Speaker,
Although this forum is primarily focused on your book, I cannot help but bring up an issue that is affecting each and every American. Why have the American people not seen energy legislation that lowers the price of gas?
Thank you
Nancy Pelosi: Now let's pivot from book questions to a topic many of you have raised: the high price of gasoline at the pump and what we can do about it.
Every American family is affected by the high price of oil and gas. It is our responsibility in Congress to protect the consumer and increase the domestic supply of energy. For the past 18 months, the Democrats in Congress have set forth an energy agenda. Some has been passed into law - and some has been blocked by the Republicans.
House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals.
Let me be very clear: drilling for oil in protected areas offshore will not bring down the price at the pump for 10 years - and then only 2 cents. To say otherwise is a hoax on the American people.
Here's what we can do:
1. Free Our Oil
We can have immediate price relief at the pump. Freeing our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will bring down the price of oil in 10 days. President Bush refuses to take this step for immediate relief.
10 years or 10 days - the choice is clear.
2. Use It or Lose It
Democrats passed the Drill Bill which says to Big Oil "Use it or lose it!" - drill in the 68 million acres in the lower 48 states or let someone else drill there. Also, "use it or lose it in Alaska. All of these areas have permits for drilling - and will produce oil sooner than drilling in protected areas offshore.
3. End Excessive Speculation Which Raises the Price of Oil
Democrats were part of a strong bipartisan vote was taken in the House but GOP leaders twisted arms to block passage.
4. Repeal the subsidies for Big Oil
With Big Oil making record profits, they do not need American taxpayers funding their drilling.
Instead we can invest in research, renewable energy, and tax credits for wind, solar and other renewables. This passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote - John McCain was absent that day but said he would have voted no.
5. Increase Our Energy Supply With Increased Use of Natural Gas - a cleaner energy source.
There is immediate relief for the consumer - if only President Bush would free our oil.
I must say that Number 5 is a surprise. I have long advocated that instead of recycling our natural gas into ethanol, it would be much more efficient to use it directly as fuel. As I have pointed out before, Brazil - the poster child for ethanol production - also has 8 times the number of natural gas vehicles on the road as we do in the U.S. They don't waste their natural gas separating ethanol from water. In addition to Brazil - Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, and India all have larger natural gas fleets than does the U.S. So for those who suggest that we don't have the infrastructure in place to manage this, maybe we can learn from India and Pakistan. So I agree with Pelosi on this point: As our supply of oil depletes, we can ease the decline with natural gas.
Number 1 on Pelosi's list is the very contradiction I asked about, Number 2 promotes a myth (there already is a 'use it or lose it' provision in the law) and is nothing more than pandering, Number 3 is again in contrast to her position on global warming (higher prices equal lower carbon emissions), and Number 4 says that oil companies should not be entitled to the same sorts of tax deductions afforded every other industry. I will let you all in on a little secret: Big Oil also deducts the salaries of their employees from their gross receipts, just like every other business. Maybe that 'subsidy' should be eliminated. Maybe their deductions for capital spending should be disallowed. More subsidies. But I digress.
But can anyone explain to me why championing action on global warming while also championing tapping the SPR is not blatantly contradictory? Anyone? Or why nobody in the Democratic Party seems to have the guts to speak out on this contradiction? Instead, Barack Obama - long opposed to tapping the SPR - has now embraced the party line and is calling for the same.
Actually, I think I know the answer to the contradiction. Proponents of tapping the SPR think that alternative fuels are going to rapidly scale up, displace petroleum with cheap ethanol, and the consumer won't have to suffer in order to bring fossil fuel consumption down. To that, I would point out that the Energy Information Administration - the source of Pelosi's claim that drilling in the OCS would only bring prices down by 2 cents a gallon - testified last year that they don't foresee that cellulosic ethanol is going to scale up to even a billion gallons by 2030.
The EIA also predicts that fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source of our energy supply for decades to come. So, the very agency Pelosi references in her argument for tapping the SPR is telling us in no uncertain terms that alternative fuels aren't going to ride to the rescue as petroleum supplies deplete. With that in mind, I believe it is impossible to reconcile a position of tapping the SPR with a position that reducing our carbon emissions is a high priority. It's like saying "I propose that the nation needs to go on a diet. And by the way, I also propose that we increase the supply of donuts to make them more affordable."
I just wish a politician would have the guts to step forward and address this contradiction.
A very good summary of the critical points of the arguments. I think (hope) the most optimistic assessment of the situation is that both parties are intentionally hiding their true thoughts/plans. All we’ll hear until pre-election is appeasement without substance and probably with little or no concrete action. Post-election is another matter. I doubt it would happen in much less than a year time frame but I would expect to see serious (both logical and foolish) policies being enacted at that point. How serious/quickly will probably be a function of fuel price/availability. The political leadership may be swayed heavily by self interest, but they are not stupid (at least collectively). As soon as this election cycle ends they’ll be positioning themselves for the next. Upon that there can be little doubt.
I’m not a doomer by any means, but between the Pelosi/Obama’s positions and McCain’s repeated use of the foolish phrase “energy independence” it’s difficult to believe we’re close to serious constructive political discussions. Unfortunately, looking towards DC these days for "guts" is akin to searching for chastity in a whorehouse: even if you find it I doubt it would survive very long.
First off, Jimmy Carter proposed the right strategy 30 years ago and was ridiculed for asking for a heavy tax to limit consumption of oil.
Secondly, the stupid war in Iraq has drained our resources, our worldly clout, and the supply of oil. Left unchecked, Saddam could have raised the supply side of the equation.
Pelosi is a turd--she took democracy "off the table." We so need new leaders--in the mold of ...Jimmy Carter (and Paul Volker). The country has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator--the big "W."
Politicians will say whatever they need to in order to get/remain elected. For example, from memory all candidates become in favour of ethanol when they visit the states that most benefit from it regardless of previous statements. They will say whatever they need to in order to secure their party's nomination and then become more "moderate" in order to win the floating voters.
I clearly remember Carter and thought reducing consumption was totally the obvious and right thing to do at the time since fossil fuels were finite (I didn't hear about PO or climate change then). Unfortunately over the years politicians did nothing and I forgot and was lulled into a false sense of "security" on the basis there couldn't be a problem if our leaders were ignoring it. Now over the last few years i have learned of PO, climate change, NPK, depletion of resources... and am pessimistic that politicians will do anything until the people demand action. Ggiven the voiciferous complaints over fuel prices that are still cheap i think it will be a long time coming.
There seems to be very little proper debate between the two parties, it's almost like name calling between kids with both sides trying to top the other's promises and show how they "feel" the people's problems and what they are going to do to "help" even if it is a crazy solution:-(
Bill O'Reilly exhibits a schizophrenia similar to Pelosis' He hates the oil companies, hopes that the high gasoline price will encourage conservation but wants lower gasoline prices for the poor working man.
As for helping the poor working folks I believe O'Reilly would be opposed to raising the minimum wage. What he really wants is lower prices for himself but not the ability of the poor to compete with him in the market place. There are much better ways to financially help the poor other than lowering fuel prices. To begin with they could give out more food stamps so they could use their cash as they see fit. Universal health care would be a big financial help to the working poor who make too much for medicaid but don't have any fringe benefits at their low wage jobs. There could be a vehicle swap program where the poor would junk there old gas guzzlers in exchange for a high mpg American made car. Doing these things means not having our troops spread around the world as well as higher taxes on the rich.
Robert,
The reason that there is no contradiction is that the oil in the SPR is already out of the ground, and the oil in presently exploited fields will almost surely be burned. In so far as climate activists are not insisting on shutting currently productive oil wells, how the oil is arranged does not make a difference.
This is probably a mistake. Conceding that the reamining easy oil is going to be used seems like a pretty sure fire way to get tarsands into huge levels of production. We would do better to leave the oil in the soil as the Green Party presidential candidate says. It looks fairly certain that we will have to pay for current and some past oil use with carbon sequestration. But, I'm pretty sure that before we stop buring oil, the oil in the SPR will be used rather than pumped back into the ground.
Chris
The reason that there is no contradiction is that the oil in the SPR is already out of the ground, and the oil in presently exploited fields will almost surely be burned.
The contradiction is not the burning of the oil in the SPR. It is the idea that tapping the SPR will drop prices, which will then spur demand. How one can champion both this action and taking action on global warming is baffling.
Aah, I was thinking that you might be confused there. From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years. So, if you have given up on the idea of not burning the oil and have decided to focus on coal then it does not matter if oil consumption is encouraged or discouraged by price. There isn't that much more of it and it is all going to get burned anyway.
As I say, I think that this is a mistake. We have to pay for any fossil fuels we burn with sequestration at this point so our best solution is to stop using fossil fuels ASAP even if we close down EROEI=100 oil wells.
But, burning the easy oil fast or slow is not a big issue if you have already admitted you can't do anything about it all being burned.
To me, the largest error to avoid with respect to oil is encouraging oil alternatives like corn ethanol, tarsands and oil shale. Keeping oil prices low can help with this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/06/oil-is-too-expensive.html
The sunsequent rapid run up in prices once we have transitioned off of oil should help to send new cars to the junk yard more than opening up these foolhardy alternatives. But, a worldwide effort to end oil use would be better.
Chris
"From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years."
I'd have to say that, as with Oil Production, it's about flowrates. I don't know how much the Atmosphere can or will 'clean' carbon out of the mix, but in this case, I'd say its really the flow of Co2 that reflects our emissions-habits, if you will. This tapping of the SPR would be both a signal and the actual tool for condoning more Driving and a BAU approach to our fuel usage. Pelosi, who probably just hasn't found a Cardigan that matches those sharp pantsuits, should nonetheless take a dangerous lesson from Amory Lovins and Carter and say that reducing consumption will BOTH reduce the amount of GHG we're putting into the air, and probably, with demand destruction, cut the cost of Gas.. while cutting your overall gas consumption and hence fuel bills right at the getgo. Hmm.. 3 solutions in one tactic.. but they'd rather die than really push that one. Then again, maybe Obama's going to surprise us and hang tough with his ridiculed but righteous 'Inflate your Tires' message.
It is not actually a flow rate problem if all the oil is to be burned. If we are going to take the flow rate to zero before all the oil is burned, then yes, you can cast it as a flow rate problem. But, the modeling that has been going on, where the finiteness of the oil resource is considered, does not look like BAU.
CO2 persists in the atmosphere for quite a while so it does not really matter if you spread out fossil fuel use to leave some for the future (Carter's idea way back) or if you blow right through it. The amount of warming depends on the total amount used. Right now, we've already used too much to avoid dangerous climate change if the most recent climate sensitivity estimates are accepted. So, we are already at the point where we must intervene to put carbon back in the ground. It thus make sense to leave as much carbon as we can in place in the ground. We won't have to clean that bit up. One could even consider the SPR as a form of sequestration and never burn it. But, I doubt we'll do that with the SPR.
We do need to cut our emissions. If we are not discussing cutting them to zero, we are wasting our breath. This is the reason that the SPR and its effect on price is unimportant. Price does not eliminate emissions, it only reduces them for the present and actually makes more carbon available in the long run because we'll go do stupid things like tarsands if the price is high.
I agree about cutting consumption by a significant amount right now to bring the price down. This also frees up funds for a speedier transition to zero oil use and zero emissions.
Chris
Hundreds of years. Detailed discussion and pretty pictures in the IPCC AR4
http://www.ipcc.ch/
While Pelosi's position makes little sense given the conflicting goal of addressing global warming, all these crazy positions, including McCain's and Obama's, come back to the requirement that politicians must be perceived as doing something about gas prices, regardless of the consequences.
The fundamental problem is that Americans cannot handle the truth. Is this a case of the chicken and the egg? Can they not handle the truth because they are never told it? Or do politicians not tell the truth because the people cannot handle it?
A politician who tells the full truth will be a former office holder or a person who chooses to run for office without the intention of being elected.
To find the truth, the people will have to go elsewhere. While Pickens, for example, probably doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, those on the right will listen to him. When he says we can't drill our way out of this mess, conservatives, especially Texans, will sit up and listen.
While we're at it, why don't we just drain the whole damn SPR and allow unlimited drilling. After that fails, maybe we can start getting down to the business of proposing and implementing approaches that actually have some chance of doing some good.
Both! The core problem for this nation is the pathetic education system and process. In spite of all the clamor about teaching critical thinking skills, I'm sorry to report that most of education is just job skills training or worse - busy work. Our education system has failed us horribly. Of course there is another, deeper chicken and egg problem here. Is our education system pathetic because that is the way society wants it to just focus on disciplinary detail memorization? Or is this focus the result of sheer scale phenomena - can't hire enough good teachers who understand how to teach critical thinking and why it is ultimately important.
A symptom I run into every quarter is the students' question: "What is it you are looking for?" Interpretation: what do you want me to memorize? They literally need a specification of what is right knowledge and what they should focus narrowly on for the test. Why? Because our schooling system systematically destroys their natural learning motivation with the test and grading systems that emphasizes reward for dutiful memorization (which is generally forgotten shortly after a course is completed).
People of average intelligence should be able to learn critical thinking skills sufficiently well that they are able to handle reasonably complex issues, especially when there is evidence to back up claims. But this isn't happening in this country. Our over-emphasis on professional skill sets and domain specific knowledge in disciplines has largely displaced critical thinking. And education has become a joke. And while we panic about Johnny and Judy not learning higher math (because everyone else in the world is) it isn't because this will increase their ability to think. No, it is because we are scared of losing our competitive edge in global markets, esp. high tech.
So it really is all about the money making. The human mind is now fully the slave of the economic system. And our kids really are 'just another brick in the wall.' [Pink Floyd]
So neither the people nor the politicians have the capacity to dig out the truth. The people need to hear that everything is going to be fine, if we just... The politicians need to tell people we will be just fine if we just... Circular causality. Feedback with amplification. The race to the bottom. You get the picture.
Question Everything
George
The level of education is directly correlated to the
amount of control the goverment has over its subjects.
When the gov feels a lower level of control...it severely restricts education.
When the gov senses higher control...it raises or allows a higher level of education.
George.Mobus I wont insult your level of intelligence
by listing ad-nauseum all the instances of evidence.
The goverments paranoia sometimes inadvertently
constrains higher education of the masses to its detriment on many several occassions.
(No paranoid goverment officials were harmed in the production of this statement)
Great post. Gets quite deep towards the root of all evil. Large corporations do not need critical thinkers, they need wage earning, mindlessly consuming, indebted up to their eyeballs, yes-people. And they have found their ways to have them... Sadly higher quality education is preserved for the chosen few of the elite.
George - you wrote:
Given your position as a U Wash faculty member and because in that position one can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, I'm curious what advice you give to fix this problem. This problem falls into a faculty member's "sphere of influence" because faculty are ultimately responsible for determining all aspects of a university's curriculum - its content, delivery, sequence, requirements and so on - from the individual courses they teach to the department to the college curriculum committee to the university faculty senate, which approves all courses and degree requirements.
Any papers that you recommend? Most every discipline has one or more journals devoted exclusively to papers on improving teaching and learning, some of which are freely available on-line.
Likewise, any key books that you recommend reading? A set such as Ken Bain's "What the Best College Teachers Do", 2004, L Dee Fink's "Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses", 2003, or Wiggins and McTighe's "Understanding by Design"?
Any innovative professors that you recommend paying attention to? Innovative faculty such as Eric Mazur, the Harvard "clicker" physics professor with his "Confessions of a converted lecturer", Richard Felder, NC State professor emeritus of chemical engineering awarded 1 of 5 Outstanding Engineering Educators of the Century, and Richard Hake, Indiana University Emeritus Professor of Physics who has written much about improving science teaching. People with good ideas on how to fix this problem are out there.
Any particularly good blogs on this that you'd recommend, such as Stanford and MIT's Tommorrow's Professor Blog?
Accrediting groups are moving to using outcome assessment as the basis for accreditation rather than assessing program delivery. What can the student do as a consequence of the curriculum rather than what were they exposed to. Concerned stakeholders can provide input to accrediting groups, such as ABET, to correct these problems as well.
JMG3Y,
All that you point to is based on a premise I actually reject. That is that we 'teach' anything at all. People are natural learners and starting at a young age are explorers eager to understand their world. They don't start out in grade school thinking "I have to learn computer science so I can get a good job." You see I am railing against the very basis for the modern school system. Namely that we are supposed to teach disciplinary knowledge. The best practices approach to what are good teaching methods, etc. is still based on the premise that we need to produce students in the name of economic progress. Good teachers are as much defined by buying into that premise as by the results they get.
When I teach computer science I am indeed part of the problem. I signed a contract to teach the discipline as best I can. I do, however, rebel against the standard approach to teaching. Almost everything in the curriculum I 'guide' students through is now based on discovery of principles and application in projects. Come into one of my lectures and your as likely to find me at the back of the room with a number of students in the front acting out the roles of different parts of an operating system managing other students representing processes. They work in groups and have to write scripts for a play that is intended to show younger students how an OS works. In other words I try to turn them into teachers (of the guide type) as they learn how an OS works.
I also pre-warn my students each quarter that if they are married to the process of figuring out what I want so they can pass a test then they are likely to NOT like my classes (lets face it, they have been trained in this regimen for their entire lives so not a few of them prefer it - which is why some professors get good student evals because they play by the rules students have come to know and love!) I don't lecture so much as ask questions that force students to think and synthesize. I ask a lot of open ended questions that many students are uncomfortable with, at least initially. They just want to know the 'right' answer so they can regurgitate it later.
Even so, my CS classes are more like ordinary school than I like. I still have to play the role of power teacher. And I have to push them through subjects we claim they will need to know whether they like the subject or not. Though I will say I think I have more success getting students really interested in OS or architecture than many others.
Contrasted with that, my Global Honors classes are totally different. Since we are not there to go deep into a discipline, rather we are trying to integrate across several disciplines. I bring some core connection (systems science) guidelines but the students bring their various understandings and we, as a group, explore various topics - like education. I try to help them see obscured connections, e.g. between peak oil and climate change adaptation (where will the energy come from to do the work). What happens in these classes is that students bring questions after doing some individual and group investigations and what 'lecturing' I do is just trying to point them in the direction of finding answers via the systems approach.
Uniformly the students come out of those classes feeling like they've just discovered a whole new way to look at the world. We have two graduating classes now, and most of the students are going on to work in environmental areas, or education in underdeveloped countries. When they finish they relate to me as a helper or facilitator, but not someone who decides what they should know. (I should say I get by with this because systems science is a pretty good framework for learning new things, but it is also a natural way to look at things once it is made explicit in their minds, which is my job.)
I don't see ABET (especially) or any accrediting body wanting input of the kind I would offer! They are dedicated to the standard model but just want to act as a quality assurance process. I am advocating an entirely different purpose for education.
But what I am doing to start toward fixing the problem is, with colleagues, designing a new major in Systems Science. A BA in SS will formulate a qualitative basis for getting students to think systemically (we call it the 21st Century form of critical thinking). A BS will provide a quantitative basis for tackling real systems problems. Some of the basis and justifications for this approach can be found in a series of four articles here, here, here, and here.
Ultimately my feeling is that we need to re-envision the purpose of education, especially K-12, but also baccalaureate-level, as development of the person's understanding of their world - all parts of it. It doesn't mean they are going to become experts on everything there is. They will become effective generalists, better positioned to learn any specific knowledge they would need to become disciplinarian. But they would be in charge of their own education at an earlier stage in life. See "An Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Gerald M. Weinberg, pp 43-47 for a discussion of the advantage of becoming a generalist first. Essentially, someone armed with this kind of education can easily become deeply disciplinary in just about any knowledge-based field they would like to pursue.
This probably isn't what you expected based on my reading of your comment. But I did try to answer all of your concerns.
Regards
George
George - because I read your website, particularly your CV, first your response is closer to what I expected than you might think. Having been at Western, you likely crossed paths with Pinkie Nelson who has similar thoughts on re-visioning K-14 education. I'd still appreciate any pointers to resources on how to do a better job. On the other hand, I suspect you may have dismissed Fink and Bain out of hand. I read Weinberg a while back so I'll need to go back to read those pages. I particularly applaud your efforts in the area of developing better energy flow modeling and I presume you've looked at Odum's work. By the way, I expect we crossed paths as undergrads.
JMG3Y
Send me an e-mail.
George
Tactics and Strategy are two different things. The police have the strategy of protecting the lives of the citizens. Would you call them hypocritical if they shoot a man to death who is firing an assault rifle on a crowd of people?
Politicians must work inside public perception. That is the game board. You don't like that game board? Then you must change public perception.
The public believes what the oil companies are saying (they would not lie before congress would they?). Limitless supplies of non-conventional oil. Prices due to oil speculators. So why not tap the SPR? Why not wipe out all the long positions? Why not refill the SPR later with limitless unconventional oil?
If price is a momentary pain, why not ease it while planning the transition to a low carbon economy via non-market mechanisms? California leads the nation in efficiency and it did it without using the market driven price lever.
Do you mean electrical efficiency? We have some of the highest utility rates in the country outside of New England. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html I'd call that a market driven price lever. We also had the hard lesson of rolling blackouts, and not only during the 2000-2001 power crisis. So we've had both rationing by supply and rationing by price.
Yes, electrical efficiency. Europe has the highest gasoline prices, but the market does not set those prices, the government taxes are what boosted the prices. California has many programs to reduce energy use paid for by raising the price. That would not happen without regulation, so I refer to it as non-market.
I think you have it backward. We do have efficiency programs like grants to subsidize CFLs and buy back 2nd refrigerators, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the high cost of gas fired electricity. We use gas for a whopping 44% of our generated electricity. Installed capacity is even higher because gas power plants are for peaking.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05ca.xls
Tactics and Strategy are two different things. The police have the strategy of protecting the lives of the citizens. Would you call them hypocritical if they shoot a man to death who is firing an assault rifle on a crowd of people?
Of course that's a completely faulty analogy. A better analogy would be someone opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds who fires an assault rifle into a crowd of people.
And Goals are something else again. The police have a GOAL of protecting the lives of the citizens. They use strategies such as public awareness campaigns, visible patrols, beat walking, being armed, and so on, to achieve their goals. When they come upon a specific situation they use tactics such as dispersing a crowd, directing traffic, or restraining or shooting a violent person.
A goal is an end, a strategy is a path to that end, and a tactic is a step along that path.
--
JimFive
The tapping of the SPR is more in line with Caesar and returning armies throwing out goodies to the crowds. It's beyond pandering. More along the lines of "let them eat cake". The thin crust of american society that makes up the political class are not touched by our energy situation. They are only interested in exploiting whatever they can to maximize their own return. EROI on a personal level. Our political party represents business only. Textbook fascism.
Every "solution" from the powers that be will make matters worse. Nothing short of a major paradigm shift will suffice and by definition the "powers that be" cannot even consider real solutions because that would negate their power base.
Much of the structure we built during our growth phase is now counterproductive and must be torn down. As long as it stays in place - Pelosi being an example - the longer and farther we go in the wrong direction. Chaos and destruction are necessary for rebirth. Gaia dances with Shiva.
I think there is some intuitive understanding of that. Cindy Sheehan is on the ballot opposing Pelosi. The Democrats have funded (probably via Schumer) a long legal battle to keep a similar independent off the Senate ballot in Maine - an independent that supports impeachment, single payer health care, out now, cuts to military, yadda yadda - all of which the Democrat does not support. All of which a low energy future would require. We need a Collapse party - like Dmitry Orlov discusses - and it is not the Democrats; they are old and in the way.
cfm in Gray, ME
Hi Dryki;
Each time I follow a politics thread here, I've thought about the bumper sticker "Don't wait for our leaders- to do the right thing."
I want us to reform politics in this country, but I don't even think it can happen anywhere near the ballot box now. We have to force them to follow us, while we put our energy into the movements that need to form, instead of banging our heads against either of the Parties.
I just heard Nader speaking on Cspan the other night, and while his message is essentially the same as in '04 and '00, it is no less salient. to whit; The Parties listen to Corporate Interests. Period. They create soundbites to placate their respective bases and rally the 'credulous troops', but every action they will undertake will be aimed at the benefits designed by the corporations and major lobbying concerns.. and we're not them.
I think we need to oppose and IGNORE the network debates and find new forums for valid debates where they have to weigh in against third and fourth parties, etc,.. Libertarian, Green, 'Independent' whatever..
My Election-day bumpersticker needs to go back on the car now.. it has a big, Red Computer Eye in the middle and says, 'HAL.. did you get my vote? HAL?'
Bob
(the Tomatoes are huge!)
I agree with the commentor above who uses the words "textbook fascism". That nails the essentials. The proper alternate path is the one the citizens of several European countries use, particularly France. Workers go into "riot and anarchy" mode and bust up some furniture, often randomly, just often enough to keep the politicians sufficiently scared of them to actually pay attention to their collective wishes. Hence French workers looking absolutely amazed at N. American workers terms and conditions.
They simply wouldn't put up with it.
It all makes me wish I could cry.
Incidentally, has anyone else seen this presentation from July 15, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPP7o6uG8Y
"Steven Koonin, the chief scientist for BP and former provost of CalTech, describes the energy challenges facing the world and suggests the development of advanced biofuels and a new generation of nuclear power as alternatives to fossil fuels."
More here, including PDF from presentation:
http://clients.mediaondemand.net/bp/
Mr. Koonin follows idea that there's plenty of fossil fuels left, conventional and otherwise, and the argument we'll (eventually) have peak oil by above ground limitation. I don't think he offered any clear defense how we can maintain current flow rates of oil past the peak production of conventional oil. Anyway, still worth watching as a good comprehensive summary of "the other side", including considerations of carbon taxes and their affect on which fuels we "choose".
He showed one graph of fuel costs with progressively higher carbon taxes, showing $20/ton as a standard crossing point, the lower limit that is needed to make any difference at all in fuel choices. He also said something quite surprising, that a $20/ton carbon tax would only add about $0.30/gallon for gasoline. Something like that, and surprising since it's clear that price increase would appear to have no affect at all on curbing consumption.
He gave good examples, comparing our improved efficiency, but offset by expanded capacity - larger refrigerators, larger cars, etc.
Oh, thinking of all that, I just feel pity for Pelosi.
She's standing on a cliff, dreaming of wonderful things she could do, playing a chess game of contradictory demands, and so the "inconvenient truth" of our limited real choices must be too much to bear except through denial. Politicians are motivated by power, a belief in solutions. How do they admit there are no acceptable solutions?
California Attorney General Jerry Brown was published today in the Op-Ed section of the Wall Street Journal with an article explaining the need for the United States to reduce foreign energy dependence. In a 800-word article, Jerry Brown explains his answer to the question of "what would you do with $10 billion to help improve the status of the world?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121841566182528579.html?mod=googlenews_w...
In his op/ed, Brown implies that the US's current $1+ Trillion cost for energy of all types is "perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from one people to another in all human history," that it is all transferred, which is a lie. Second, the point-at-issue, as noted by a WSJ Header, is "How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?", for which Brown never offers us any thesis statement, until, finally, at the end of his fourth paragraph he says: "America must take the lead in dealing with global energy and climate challenges, and at the same time vastly strengthen its own economy and security." He then goes on with examples of how he would spend this $10 Billion in the USA to improve the world's status.
As for the $10 Billion, I would put it to use through microloans for ecologically beneficial locally managed projects worldwide that focus almost exclusively on pollution (including carbon) abatement.
Excellent commentary.
My question and this applies (I think) equally well to other high level politicians in the rest of the world when it comes to energy decisions:
Are these politicians:
1) Using the erroneous data and as such do not see the potential gravity of the situation, therefor allowing themselves to get lost in political logrolling and popularity contents of minor importance
OR
2) Fully aware of the probability of the situation getting very serious and their current proposals having minuscule effect, and as such acting as if nothing is wrong, but perhaps doing some other preparations behind the scenes?
OR
something else 3) What exactly?
So are the proposals due to ignorance, smoke-screening or due something else completely?
I think the answer to your question is mostly number 1. I've been reading the Oil Drum for the past six months, and I'm starting to realize how much I do *not* know about the economics and production of oil. The average person doesn't even know how much that they don't know. Forget about the Hubbert Curve, or the cost of extracting energy, it's all due to "speculators", "currency fluctuations", or getting gouged by Big Oil. And I doubt if *any* of our legislators -- European or North American -- are particularly well-informed, either. Most of their information comes from lobbiests and policy experts with axes to grind (and I'm afraid the oil companies are being tremendously short-sighted, so I don't think their lobby is giving our politicians accurate information). Even if a politician is well-informed, as a politician you have still have work within the belief framework of your constituency -- or in a democracy you get voted out, losing to a yahoo who says he has a quick fix.