Like Lemmings to the Sea - Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?

National Review Online ^ | April 16, 2008 | Roy Spencer

[neverdem]

---

---

April 16, 2008, 9:30 a.m.

Like Lemmings to the Sea
Will President Bush join in the chorus of dead-end energy proposals?

By Roy Spencer

Today’s announcement by President Bush on strategies to limit global warming has yet to come, but unless he is ready to unveil a new and miraculous source of energy that produces no carbon dioxide, one can only assume that he will simply be adding his voice to the many other lemmings who are calling for a mass migration to the nearest cliff from which we can all jump.

The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Prosperity requires access to abundant, affordable energy.  Thus, any mandated limits or taxes meant to slow the use of fossil fuels will limit prosperity as well, period.

The current wave of political pandering to public misperceptions about where our energy comes from would be funny if it weren’t so deadly serious. There is simply no way to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions as long as increasing numbers of people around the world desire to make a better life for themselves and their families. 

While the developed countries take for granted conveniences like heating, air conditioning, refrigerated food, and the freedom to travel, our politicians continue to feed the myth that we have any realistic alternatives to carbon-based fuels. With the possible exception of a very slow (several decade) transition from coal-fired power plants to nuclear ones, there are simply no other options that will make any measurable difference for future global temperatures.

Unfortunately, many businesses, including a few energy companies, are now joining in the fray. The illusion of “going green” as a way to Save the Earth might be a good marketing strategy, but it only reinforces the urban legend that Al Gore started in his movie by claiming that we can fix the global warming problem by buying compact fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid cars, and turning off the light when we leave the room.

These supposed solutions might make us feel better about ourselves, but the assumption that they will have an impact on global energy use is like assuming one plus one can equal one million. Yes, it is “doing something” about the problem, but it is doing something insignificant.

And all of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.

Instead, since Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like “pollutant.”

As the mass hysteria calling for an end to carbon dioxide production has accelerated, ethanol has arisen as the new messiah of radical environmentalism, promising to assuage our guilty enviro-consciences when we choose to starve more of the world’s poor.

Now is the time for the people to speak up. We need leaders who will tell us to stop running toward the edge of the cliff. That cliff is fast approaching, and unless someone has the courage to stand up for the rights of humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the momentum we have generated due to our irrational fears will cause us all to topple into the sea.

— Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.
— Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala.

[massgopguy]

I remember Rush reading a story on “Utopium”.

[stockpirate]

Tha answer is yes he will.

[neverdem]

Utopium for the Utopians, perfect!

[SatinDoll]

“The fastest method to repeal a bad or obnoxious law is its stringent application.” President Theodore Roosevelt.

Shine the light of truth on the subject of CO2, and then watch it shrivel to zero importance, my freinds.

[DoughtyOne]

While I do find some things to agree with this writer about, it seems that there are two sides to this green thing, and folks are drawn to the extremes of both sides like moths to light, and this guy is no different.

Greenies are idiots.

Those who claim that no benefit is to be gained by owning a hybrid are also idiots. Those who scoff at the benefits of wind, solar, or other complimentary energy savers are also idiots.

I happen to believe that nuclear power plants would be a great first move towards energy independence. That doesn’t convince me that it’s wrong to save energy in an assortment of other ways.

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

For the record, I don’t think car emissions are ruining the planet. I think providing funding to terrorists and the sympathizers of terrorists will.

We need to use a wise critical eye no doubt, but I’d like to see some suggestions instead of a constant stream of critcism for every idea that could cut even a few percent of the demand we have for oil.

[quant5]

This guy saying nuke energy and other alternatives being decades away is bullcrap. The goal of the Bush Admin was to replace 5% of our energy supply with ethanol. We did that with our agriculture and the writer is correct to assume we should stop using our corn crop from here.

Biodiesal, is not decades away, but indeed it does take several years for farms to spring up and add to the supply, although this is occuring rapidly. All regulations should be lifted on drilling our own supply. If I wasn’t in consumer healthcare (also a necessity item) then I would have bought a huge soybean farm or the land/equipment/help.

Regulations should be eased to allow private companies to build nuke plants with the new pebble design, which has reduced chance of a meltdown to 1 in BILLION. Plus, the amount of nuclear waste has been reduced from pounds per month to kilograms. Easy enough to find ways to gather the total aggregate and launch the waste towards the sun. Solar is becoming big using sun powerered steam turbines. Hydrogen cars already exist. The Honda hydrogen vehicle can be leased next year for $600 a month but only several thousand vehicles exist. No doubt, the cost will come down, way down as time progresses and not decades away. Wind, tidal and river powered turbines emit almost zero emissions and are now economical compared to $70 oil never mind $114 dollar oil. Same with oil shale. What is needed now is investment dollars as government subsidies which by the way would create millions of jobs and as we eventually become an exporter, create trillions in wealth to pay things like healthcare and SS (in other words, pay for the promises made to the baby boomers).

Now here is the real problem: What is lacking is the political will to subsidize more of the effective alternative energy sources and drill domestically. Why? The real reason is not global warming. The real reason is politicians being lobbied by big oil and envriowhackos (same thing these days). With inside information at there fingertips, these politicians invest in big oil.

Google the Siberian Flats. 700,000 times the amount of carbon was emitted as is current in our atmosphere now to create a 9 degree increase in the atmosphere which indeed caused global calamity. But this happened over MILLIONS of years. So to hear that our tempature will rise 9 degrees because of manmade carbon in 40 years is beyond ABSURD.

Want to see the country be energy independent? Create a law that says no U.S. politician or family member can invest in energy while in office and two years afterwards. Then and only then will you see the U.S. become energy independent. When will this occur? When citizens demand heads on pikes and that day is not too far away as individuals and companies go bankrupt on bad fiscal (Socialism) and energy policies (greed).

[sand88]

Greenies are idiots.

I used to think that. Now, I truly believe they are evil to their core. I pray that every human being pushing this AGW lie will burn for an eternity in the bottom rungs of Hell.

The ultimate result of doing what the evil left wants is the outright destruction of our civilization. This will inevitably result is war and civil war around the world. I pray the Warriors of the world will visit the ultimate justice on these AGW freaks.

[quant5]

Well said DoughtyOne, I always like your straight forward insights.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[DoughtyOne]

I do think there is a core that is pure evil. We agree there. There are also a lot of pie-eyed college age itiots doint what’s cool for mother earth. Gak.

[SoothingDave]

Plus, the amount of nuclear waste has been reduced from pounds per month to kilograms.

Care to rephrase that? 1kg = 2.2 lb

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Quant5. I appreciate it.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes Mr. Spencer, our president has succumbed to the prevalent disease in Washington: Necrotizing Brain Rot.

[sand88]

This guy saying nuke energy and other alternatives being decades away is bullcrap.

Thank you for an informative posting. I believe that Mr. Spencer was factoring in a 20+ year delay caused by the environuts and govt regulators :) If government got out of the way, there would be a quick solution.

[Thickman]

I agree with you mostly, DoughtyOne, with a couple of exceptions . . .

“Greenies are idiots.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Those who claim that no benefit is to be gained by owning a hybrid are also idiots. Those who scoff at the benefits of wind, solar, or other complimentary energy savers are also idiots.

BENEFITS, YES. ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, NO. AT LEAST NOT WITHOUT TAX INCENTIVES. HYBRIDS DON’T DELIVER ENOUGH FUEL SAVINGS TO OFFSET THE INCREASED COST OF THOSE VEHICLES VS. COMBUSTION ENGINE MODELS. JUST COMPARE THE COST OWNERSHIP OF A FORD FOCUS VS. A TOYOTA PRIUS - YOU DON’T GET YOUR MONEY BACK IN GAS SAVINGS WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDED COST AND MAINTENANCE.

I happen to believe that nuclear power plants would be a great first move towards energy independence. That doesn’t convince me that it’s wrong to save energy in an assortment of other ways.

AGREED. GOOD LUCK GETTING THAT PAST THE GREENIES THOUGH.

I realize this will get both sides mad at me, but Jeez folks, I’m tired of coming to the forum to see folks trash every single idea except burning more oil.

AGREED, BUT THEY NEED TO BE VIABLE IDEAS. AFTERALL, OIL IS PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE NOW, IT’S RELATIVELY CHEAP AND ABUNDANT (IF THE GREENIES WOULD JUST LET US TAP IT).

For the record, I don’t think car emissions are ruining the planet. I think providing funding to terrorists and the sympathizers of terrorists will.

AGREED. LET’S PUMP AMERICAN OIL - WE HAVE ENOUGH TO LAST 1,000 YEARS (THAT’S PLENTY OF TIME FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO SUPPLANT THE OIL ECONOMY MANY TIMES OVER).

We need to use a wise critical eye no doubt, but I’d like to see some suggestions instead of a constant stream of critcism for every idea that could cut even a few percent of the demand we have for oil.

I’M ALL FOR ELECTRIC CARS BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD NUCLEAR PLANTS IF YOU WANT THEM TO BECOME THE STANDARD BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE THAT CAN PRODUCE THAT MUCH ELECTRICITY AT THIS TIME.

I’M ALL FOR SOLAR IMPLIMENTATION. THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING COST-EFFECTIVE WITHOUT GOV’T SUBSIDIES, BUT SOLAR ALONE WON’T CUT IT.

I’M EXCITE ABOUT THE NEW HONDA CAR THAT RUNS ON HYDROGEN EXCEPT THAT IT EMITS THE MOST PERVASIVE AND EFFECTIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR). . . . HAD TO GET ONE JOKE IN HERE.

[RightWhale]

there is simply nothing we can do

There is much to do. First, join the conversation, get a seat at the table. Get some real scientists in there and give Hansen the boot. The USA needs to not only join in but dominate. This cannot be done by doing nothing since the rest of the world except Russia, China, India and other productive economies are already in line at the World Court to sue the USA for whatever scam with whatever controlling legal authority they can come up with.

[Chameleon]

Roy Spencer may be a lot of things, but he certainly isn’t an idiot, and he is a bonafide expert’s expert on this topic...Indeed, he is the one responsible for the best satellite data sets available that measure global temperature.

I’m all for decreasing our need for foreign oil...But anyone who thinks we’ll get there through conservation is being totally unrealistic. We have tons of coal, and coal could easily power our future power plants (cheaper than nuclear) and be liquified to run in our cars. Problem is, coal releases CO2.

If the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy, coal is the obvious answer - except for that it is the boogeyman of global warming.

Spncer’s point isn’t that energy conservation is bad. His point is that it will have no measurable imapct on the global CO2 released, and thus global warming. This isn’t idiocy - it is just realism....Just as it is realist to assert that energy conservation by itself will have little impact on our need for foreign oil.

I’m all for energy conservation.

But I’m also well aware that half the world lives without modern conveniences like electricity, refrigerators, air conditioning, heater, cars, telephones, etc.

100 years ago, nobody had these luxuries.

On current trajectories, 100 years from now, everyone will have them.

The idea that we’re going to prevent people in developing countries from entering the energy age because of environmental concerns is laughable.

The global warming solutions all require raising the price of energy - thus making it less affordable, and restricting progress in the developing world. That proponents of more expensive energy can say with a straight face that they want to raise energy prices to benefit the world’s poor is truly astounding.

Whether and how much CO2 heats up the planet is an experiement that will be run regardless of the futile schemes beurocrats invent to try to regulate global supply and demand of energy.

[Realism]

You must also believe that things such as indoor water, sanitary sewers and treatment plants, landfills, water treatment systems are also the work of evil doers. Is your world round or do you insist that it is flat?

[penowa]

"The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Prosperity requires access to abundant, affordable energy."

CO2 has nothing to do with anything. The purpose is NOT to shut down the global economy, just the economy of the U.S. Our own gov't has placed a stranglehold on OUR abundant affordable energy. Meanwhile, China, Russia, Cuba, M.E., S.A., etc. have no plans to shut down their attempts to secure the energy they need to grow. All that remains to be seen is whether or not with the assistance of our own gov't the rest of the world can bring us to our knees and destroy us without ending up in as bad or worse shape than we're going to be.

Gonna be a lot of long cold winters in our future.