Here We Go...

Anyone else concerned about our nation's slow but steady drift toward European socialism needs to read this lovely little article from The Times in England. As a fan of English Premier League football (soccer for you unenlightened savages) I pay more attention to British culture than most Americans, and I notice that a lot of our fads come from across the pond. It's all the rage in American liberal circles to aspire to the kind of progressive multicultural, politically correct, morally vapid, eco-nutcase mentality that has taken over the ruling class in England.

So what's next? Culling kids, apparently.

"Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
"Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population."

The Pickens Plan

I’ve been hearing an awful lot about the Pickens Plan lately, and although I’m a little bit skeptical of its viability, I thought I’d attempt an objective look at what this former oil man is proposing. I’ve been to the site, and read through the proposal. I’m a little uncertain about his assertion that “oil production has peaked.” Suffice it to say that estimates of global oil reserves have never been all that accurate, and no one really knows how much oil is in the ground right now. In fact, just look at this headline from earlier today.

Mr. Pickens, however, is right about a lot of things. The current high gas prices are the result of high demand and low supply, so the best solution to drive prices down is to either increase supply or decrease demand. Give him credit for at least getting the economics right – which is more than we can say for any Democrat in congress. He’s also correct in his assertion that we are far too dependant on foreign sources for oil - having the lifeblood of our economy in the hands of people who at best dislike us, and at worst want nothing more than to see us destroyed, is not at all ideal. So, what exactly does T. Boone propose?

Contrary to some assertions, the Pickens Plan never purports to be a permanent replacement for our current energy supply structure. This plan seeks to “buy us some time” in order to allow development of new, long-term alternatives for the future. According to the Pickens Plan website, studies have shown that “wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion.” Another $200 billion would be required to build facilities for transmission of this power to cities and towns.

My first response to those who want to see this type of power generation replace our current scheme is that wind, like solar power, cannot be relied on for continuous power generation. The wind doesn’t always blow…the sun doesn’t always shine, but I assume these kinds of contingencies have been included in the aforementioned studies. 20% at lease sounds more reasonable. The site also states that our nation currently relies on natural gas for 22% of our electrical production. The Pickens Plan proposes that we invest in wind power technologies in order to effectively replace natural gas in production of electricity. This would then free up the natural gas resources for use as vehicle fuel. This is where the plan looses me.

I don’t know a lot about Compressed Natural Gas vehicles, but one argument of proponents is that the technology is “already in place.” That is true. In fact, Canada tried, and failed, to get these vehicles to catch on in the 1980’s. A conversion can be done to standard Otto and diesel cycle engines, at a cost of several thousand dollars, depending on the vehicle, and new vehicles can and are being produced that run on natural gas instead of gasoline. Only one, however, the Honda Civic GX, is currently on offer in the U.S.

So let’s look at some of the drawbacks to CNG-powered vehicles. I’m not all that concerned about the whole emissions thing - I don’t necessarily buy into man-made climate change – so the bottom line is whether this is a viable alternative that can be cost effective.

First of all, it takes a lot more volume to store CNG than it does an equivalent amount of liquid gasoline. In other words, you have to have larger storage tanks in order to accomplish a range of travel between refueling that would be comparable to gasoline. The lack of infrastructure is also a serious problem. I don’t know about you, but I have never seen a natural gas refueling station. They do exist, but are not common in most parts of the country. Combine this with the reduction in range, and you have a big problem. This plan would require serious investment by the government, or private industry, in order to build up the necessary infrastructure to make conversion to CNG viable.

But what about natural gas supply in this country? Right now, 98% of the natural gas used in this country is from domestic supplies, according to Pickens. Almost all of that is used to generate electricity, and it’s generally done using combined cycle gas turbines, which have an efficiency of up to 60%. For the scientifically challenged, the efficiency of a cycle is the ratio of what you get out vs. what you put in (or net power output vs. required fuel input). CNG engines are internal combustion engines, and won’t see an efficiency of more than 20%. In other words, we’ll have to use even more natural gas to produce the same amount of power in vehicles. The Pickens site also claims that “domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of oil.” That may be, but how do we know that we have enough to replace the current demand for petroleum-based fuels, accounting for the loss in efficiency?

And what happens when natural gas reserves run out? I realize that this has been proposed as a temporary solution, and that at least makes it worth debating. But the cost would be astronomical, and I don’t see any private companies being willing to take the risk of investing in CNG as a replacement for gasoline…which means government – talk about inefficiency – which means higher taxes. I’m willing to make some changes if it means getting us off foreign oil, but the thing that makes the most sense right now is to drill. We have oil available in Alaska, off the coast, and elsewhere that we need to access and refine. We need to make a move towards implementing nuclear power as well. Solar and wind power should be pursued and implemented to the fullest extent possible, but they are not long-term replacements for our current energy structure. Neither is drilling for more oil. However, an approach that makes use of every available option can give us time to develop more realistic alternatives.

I appreciate Mr. Pickens’ efforts, and I honestly believe he means well. If nothing else, he has helped to instigate a necessary debate about this issue. I can’t wait to see what American ingenuity produces as a solution to this problem.

Time to DRILL

It really baffles me that we've let a minority of crazies prevent us from accessing the billions of barrels of oil in our own backyard for this long. It's taken $4/gallon gasoline to wake people up to the fact that we could be doing something about our dependence on anti-American terrorists for the lifeblood of our economy. (And yes, like it or not, our economy would collapse without a continued supply of oil) In fact, we could have done something about this years ago. If it wasn't for Bill Clinton, we'd be pulling oil out of ANWR right now.

I realize that finding our own supply of oil is not the complete solution to our energy problems. There are many factors contributing to the high cost of gasoline right now - for great analyses of these factors, see the many posts by blackhedd at Redstate - but one factor that everyone agrees is contributing significantly to the price of oil is the lack of supply. Combine the fact that, according to many experts, global oil supply has peaked for the first time ever, with China and India's explosion in demand for oil, and you only need a basic understanding of economics to realize that higher prices will result. Decreased supply + Increased demand = higher prices.

There are changes to the above equation which will result in lower prices: Decrease demand, increase supply, or both. Of course, the assumption that we remain true to free market principles of economics is taken for granted. Based on the rhetoric of some Democrats lately, that assumption may not be valid. The socialist's solution to this is simply have the government control the price, or even the supply, of oil. I'm too young to remember the 1970's, but from what I hear, that little experiment in price controls didn't go over well. We've already seen examples of Democrats' disdain for the free market with their mandating of fuel economy standards for vehicles, not to mention their outright ban of the lightbulb.

So, according to most "environmentalists", the best solution by far is to decrease our demand for oil. It's not that difficult - just stop using it, mkay? Right. I think we can all agree that, barring the discovery of a car that runs on B.S., that solution just isn't feasible right now. That's not to say we shouldn't be developing alternative fuels. The simple fact is that we are. Right now. It doesn't take a genious in marketing to realize that fuel-efficient is the new holy grail for vehicle manufacturers. You see, that's the beauty of free markets.

Suppliers are pretty good at reading what consumers want, and it's pretty obvious that consumers want an alternative to gasoline-based transportation. Evidence of the free market at work solving this problem is abundant. You can't watch a television show on any channel without seeing a commercial advertising eco-friendly or fuel efficient. The greatest minds in science and engineering are right now at work on this very problem, and guess what? They don't need the most inefficient bureaucracy ever established (our government) telling them what to do. Got that Pelosi? Let American businesses do what they do best. Innovate. And get the @%#! out of the way.

Now I feel better. The other solution, as mentioned above, is to increase supply. Here we see where common sense has once again - shock of all shocks - been cast aside by our hapless leaders in Washington. We can't access the billions of gallons of oil in our own country, relying instead on oil-rich nations who would like nothing better than to see our economy collapse. It's time to access that oil right now, if for no other reason but to buy us the time to let American ingenuity work out another solution. The simple announcement that we are opening up ANWR and other areas off the coast to oil exploration would produce an instant drop in the price of crude oil, and send a message to our suppliers in the middle east and elsewhere.

The technology now used to harvest crude oil is pretty remarkable, and leaves an almost negligible footprint on the surrounding environment. The Prudhoe Bay sight now in operation, right next door to the proposed ANWR sight, is a great example. The caribou population in the region has thrived since its inception, despite the ridiculous warnings from those opposed to the project.

Opening these regions to oil exploration is not a permanent solution to our problems. But it is a common sense approach to the current crisis, and would have an immediate impact on gasoline prices. We must continue to develop alternatives, but until we have something viable, this is really our only option.

Warner-Lieberman

So, it looks like the whole "green" craze is finally starting to catch on with more and more people. It seems like every other commercial we see on television these days makes some reference to the environmentally friendly properties of certain products. I don't watch a lot of television, but even I have noticed a marked increase in the number of times the "green" word is uttered in marketing schemes. I used to love the Discovery Channel, but it, along with The Weather Channel, seems to have become the new headquarters for Global Warming propaganda. More and more we see references to the idea of man-made "climate change" as common knowledge, or fact, when in reality it is merely unsubstantiated theory.

The simple fact remains that there are just as many climate scientists who reject the idea that man-made climate change is even possible. Global Warming has become a religion to many, and for the most part, its proponents have come from the left. Supposedly, more and more conservatives, especially conservative evangelicals, are now being won over by the arguments for "doing something" to prevent this impending disaster. I hope to post more extensively on this topic in the near future, when I have time to truly address what I see as the motives behind this movement, and the potential consequences if too many people do give in to its demands.

But for now, lets look at the latest offering from those who would use government (that bastion of efficiency and excellence) to "solve" this supposed problem. Remember when those on the left joined in with Europe and the rest of the world to condemn our president as a heretic and earth-hater for not placing our government under the Kyoto protocol? That was fun. Well, it turns out that those earth-friendly nations under the Kyoto protocol actually increased their carbon emissions by 21.1% between 1997 and 2004, while the big bad U.S. only increased emissions by 6.6% - oops. So, now that we've seen how effective government regulation can be at reducing these emissions, let's take a look at the Warner-Lieberman legislation before congress. In particular, let's assume for a moment that the bill will have its desired effect (all evidence to the contrary aside) and actually decrease U.S. carbon emissions. What then?

Climatologists predicted a whopping 0.07 degree Celsius drop in global temperature would result from worldwide participation in Kyoto! So what would we get in return for this basically negligible drop in temperature? (I would be willing to bet that most of the equipment used to measure our earth's temperature has a margin of error greater than 0.07 degrees) The Heritage Foundation has done an excellent study, complete with a state-by-state breakdown of exactly what this bill would end up costing taxpayers. To paraphrase, this bill would wreak havoc on our already faltering economy nationwide. Check out the effect it would have on Georgia.

Prince Charles' Deadline

Thank God for the Prince of Wales. It had been so quiet on the "Celebrity Warns of Imminent Disaster Concerning Matters on Which They are Remarkably Unqualified to Speak" front. No doubt he read it on the internet...the Queen must be so proud. The United Kingdom, and the world, are truly fortunate to have such a brilliant scientific mind in such an important role.

Cross posted at Redstate.

What to do...

Well, the election picture seems to be finally taking some shape. I realize it's a long time until November, at least in terms of politics, but I can certainly see certain themes beginning to develop as we come closer to the Democratic nomination. First of all, I definitely see evidence that the long drawn-out Dem battle has given at least John McCain a shot at the White House. Whether that translates into anything other than a total bloodbath for Republicans down the line...well, not so much it seems. Before the knock-down drag-out between The Obamessiah and Hillary!, I saw very little chance for anything but a defeat for McCain. A perceived inability to excite the base (which still looks to be accurate), and the mind-altering Infatuation With Obama virus that had reached near epidemic proportions before the cure was introduced in the form of Rev. Wright Youtube footage, led me to believe that McCain's prospects were almost non-existent. But thankfully, the world was exposed to Rev. Wright's disturbed mind, and questions about Obama's judgment, if not character, were rightly raised. Despite what many in the media would have us believe, it has damaged Obama with a very large portion of the voting population. Too bad that doesn't seem to be contributing to a rise in the GOP brand...more on that later.

The other trend I see shaping up in this election is the distance McCain seems to be putting between himself and the conservative base. It's no surprise that he's moving to the center before the general election. Any candidate on either side knows they have to win the squishy middle of the voting public - those who could care less about the details of political policy or even politics in general until 24 hours before the election. But how well will this strategy work for someone who's support from the party's base was never really solidified? McCain seems to have forgotten, or just doesn't care, that hard-core conservatives, those who got out and beat the streets for W in 2000 and 2004, are having trouble getting behind his candidacy.

And thus, I find myself in a pickle. I really have tried to get fully behind McCain as a candidate. I joined his website email list, volunteered to help out at my local campaign office, etc. But every time I think I can get on board, he does something to deflate any enthusiasm I had built up. First, the N.C. GOP debacle; now, his apparent enthusiasm for saddling our already struggling economy with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol and cap-and-trade emissions control policy is a big turn-off. Don't get me wrong, we all know how successful Kyoto has been at actually accomplishing anything other than unnecessarily burdening economies. Take a look at the projected economic impact of policies designed to "fix" a problem that we can't even prove exists. And yet, John McCain is jumping on the Global Warming hysteria bandwagon instead of having the courage to stand up for a little common sense. I realize we Americans should be guilty about our success and clearly excessive use of natural resources, but the people in charge need to stay rooted in reality.

I just have to keep telling myself that McCain would be better than a surrendering socialist...maybe that'll get me through until November.

Cross Posted at Redstate.com