How Low (and High) Can You Go?
Don Quixote on Feb 21 2008 at 9:19 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
The American Research Group reports that Bush’s approval rating has hit an all time low of 19%, with 77% disapproving. How can any Republican candidate dig out of such a deep hole?
Meanwhile, oil has been flirting with $100 a barrel. Every time oil prices hit new highs, Bookworm points out that, adjusting for inflation, a quarter of a century ago the prices were slightly higher. Is this really what we have come to, that our defense is that if we adjust for inflation and go back far enough in time we can prove things are only the second worst they have ever been? To even think like this strikes me as defeatist.
Since the energy crisis of the 1970s, we’ve had Democrat presidents and Republican presidents, Democrat Congresses and Republican Congresses in about every possible combination, and our dependence on foreign oil (and the price of that oil) has only gotten worse. I’ve expressed my own idea that we need to attack the matter on all fronts with nothing (not nuclear, not off-shore drilling, not new dams, not solar, not geothermal, not wind, not oil shale, not coal, not ethanol, not electric cars, not anything) off limits. But that does not seem to be a politically viable solution. Does anyone have any ideas on politically realistic solutions to our energy problems?
Email This Post To A Friend
28 Responses to “How Low (and High) Can You Go?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hello DQ,
I agree with your assessment of the situation and I agree with your stance of pulling out all the stops on energy. Nuclear, offshore drilling, windmills, hydroelectric— I think nothing should be ruled out and everything should be explored, alternative or otherwise. The fact that we’ve reached this state of near crisis with regards to energy and the fact that it’s not politically viable to expand our energy production on all fronts is simply a measure of how far the -isms have reached us.
Everyone likes to have cheap abundant energy, but not many people are willing to do anything for it, or else suffer anything for it. All the options you listed are viable in the physical sense, i.e. it can be done, in fact, but it environmentalists have blocked much if not most of it and “We the People” generally are not willing to live near power plants and refineries. That messes us real estate value.
I don’t know the solution to this. I don’t know if there is a solution short of catastrophe. Perhaps the solution our elites came up with is to dispossess the American middle-class and lower class and force them to use less energy by making it so expensive that only the affluent can afford it. Heck, one of the reasons our gas prices aren’t lower is because of all the extraneous environmental regulations and additives inserted into our gas.
Whether intentional or not, this is the cumulative effect of environmentalism. And I heard here recently that the state of California is proposing or has passed (I haven’t followed up) a measure allowing them to arbitrarily cap the amount of energy a household can use. The pretext is to avoid brown outs and black outs.
I hope it won’t take an economic depression for us to wake up to this reality. But if it does take a depression, would it be too late then?
Bookworm points out that, adjusting for inflation, a quarter of a century ago the prices were slightly higher.
[...] To even think like this strikes me as defeatist.
defeatist?…maybe I did not get what you meant by defeatist but for what it is worth here is what I have to say about it,
Where I live you can not find an apartment for less than 450$ a month, but when parents rented the first apartment in the late 1940s it was 15 $ a month.
It is impossible to compare those two different rents unless we also compare what the average income was in each period, and we compare the cost of living in each period.
If the average rent is 30 times higher today than it was in the 1940s, then we must verify if income is also 30 times higher before we can decide if an apartment was such a better deal back then.
Saying a barrel is at 100$ today ( or close to it ) and was X amount of dollars in 19XX in itself does not mean much if it is not “measured” against the average income and the cost of living.
This reminds me of people who tell me there are 20 times more murders in the USA than in Canada…
they are wrong because adjusted for population difference or put in percentage of total population, there is in fact approximately two times more murders and not 20 times more.
Saying there are 20 times more murders in the USA than in Canada is what I call
“a truth that tells a lie”.
I may as well say snow banks were higher when I was kid in the 1960s because they went above my head back then and do not now without saying I was four feet tall back then and I am 5′8″ now.
Why is it defeatist to put things in perspective?
How can any Republican candidate dig out of such a deep hole?
Bush needs to find somebody to execute, that’s how.
Is this really what we have come to, that our defense is that if we adjust for inflation and go back far enough in time we can prove things are only the second worst they have ever been?
OPEC is a monopoly. So thus their prices are automatically adjusted and thus stable historically, for the most part.
Unless you are willing to break up OPEC via military or political or economic means, your only choice is to build more nuclear power plants to decrease the 77% of crude oil used for energy burning purposes.
And the Democrats and the Left will be horribly against nuclear power, as you already know. Thus we’re at the same situation, either way. If you use military means, Democrats will object and undermine. If you use economic means, Democrats will call you a mercantile empire exploiting the weak and Arabic speaking people. If you use political tools against OPEC and oil, Democrats will accuse you of favoring Haliburton and Big Oil.
My point is that the cost of oil is too high and rising because we are politically unwilling to do anything about it. I don’t have a problem with putting things into perspective, so long as we don’t use it as an excuse to do nothing. Perhaps “defeatist” is the wrong word (I struggled and couldn’t come up with a better one). But I’m concerned with a perspective that says if the problem is only the second worst it’s ever been it’s not really so bad. I grew up in an America that attacked problems and overcame them, instead of consoling itself that the problems aren’t the worst ever and using that as an excuse to do nothing. I think the tendency to use “perspective” to excuse problems is symptomatic of the overall negativity that has crept into our thinking.
By the way, perhaps that is Obama’s appeal. We have no idea what the practical content of his politics is (though we suspect it’s far left, based on his limited voting record) but we respond favorably to his optimistic, positive outlook. That we are willing to grasp at such a weak straw says how much we want to believe in a positive America again. Yet, we don’t believe. In our hearts, I think most Americans believe that America’s best days are behind her. How sad.
[...] [Discuss this post with DQ over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
DQ. Who is this we who responds favorably to Obama’s optimistic and positive outlook? I don’t respond to Obama any more than I respond to the comics on Sunday Morning. I realize that neither are based on reality. (Well, I do respond to favorably to Red & Rover, even though I recognize it for what it is)
Regarding the energy situation, it seems that sadly, the American people and American politicians have become so accustomed to having it all, without too much effort, that we are very slow to respond to this challenge, just as we have ignored other situations for too long. I suppose that we are beginning to focus more seriously, and develop more workable alternatives than burning food in our fuel tanks–but we don’t know how long before these initiatives will pay off .
In the mean time, to bridge the gap, I have written to all of my elected reps to urge them to take serious actions; including drilling for oil within our borders and contiguous off shore areas. I know my effort will have no effect, but that is about all I can do at this point.
One of the primary arguments I stressed was that through our dependence on foreign oil we are enriching countries who wish us ill. This argument stands alone without regard for effects of fuel-cost inflation on our economy. Despite the obvious fact that the cost of fuel is relatively moderate compared to earlier times, we have (perhaps foolishly) built an economy dependent on cheap and plentiful fuel that we consume in an egregiously wasteful manner.
Concerning Oldflyer’s comment, “In the mean time, to bridge the gap, I have written to all of my elected reps to urge them to take serious actions; including drilling for oil within our borders and contiguous off shore areas. I know my effort will have no effect, but that is about all I can do at this point.”
Just because you know a given action will fail is no reason not to try. If I thought that I’d never comment here again.
Right Helen, that is why I wrote. Will you?
That was a very nice comment, Helen! There is a reason I really like you even though we disagree fundamentally on practically everything. Oldflyer, if she did, it would probably be to cancel out your letters. My guess is she’s opposed to off-shore and, maybe, on-shore drilling. I’d encourage her, anyway. We all need to make our voices heard, even if the politicians aren’t listening.
For sure, ethanol won’t solve any problems–this boondoggle suggests that our politicians are too influenced by voting blocks to deal realistically with energy problems. Ethanol eats up more energy to create than it produces, and it’s wreaking havoc with our wheat crops, causing inflation as farmers switch to corn for dollars.
But I’m concerned with a perspective that says if the problem is only the second worst it’s ever been it’s not really so bad.
It’s not as optimist an attitude as you might like. Personally, I don’t think that is Bookworm’s position or reason for her statements concerning historical problems with oil.
I think the tendency to use “perspective” to excuse problems is symptomatic of the overall negativity that has crept into our thinking.
In order to solve a problem you first have to figure out what the problem is, which requires perspective. In this case, negativity is only a detriment to solutions if you are negative about there being a solution.
Even if a person has a positive attitude about solving the energy crisis, like maybe Obama, they are still going to create a negative result and a negative attitude because their priorities are not with the solution.
Thus a vice a versa, a person pointing out the negatives and detriments to any solution, can still achieve positive results so long as his priority is in coming up with solutions to the problem: not with coming up with more problems to justify political power.
By the way, perhaps that is Obama’s appeal. We have no idea what the practical content of his politics is (though we suspect it’s far left, based on his limited voting record) but we respond favorably to his optimistic, positive outlook.
I actually wrote the above portion of my comment before reading this quote of yours, Don.
No Oldflyer, I probably won’t. Each of us has to pick his/her battles not because we don’t care about other things but because time is finite, which Is why I have decided not to answer every question posed. I have a right to the pursuit of my own happiness. I choose to be optimistic. It pleases me.
It should be noted that the number one supplier of our oil is Canada. Our west contains the same type of oil that would just about make us independent.
As to ethanol, it is now pushing our food prices higher. There is a company in another Chicago suburb that has found a way to create ethanol from garbage, including tires, from a bio-bug. GM recently became an investor in this company.
The market should be allowed to explore new avenues of energy independence without government intervention.
I live about 20 miles from one of the last nuke plants built (Braidwood plant for ComEd) and the property values have not suffered. There are many new innovations in nuke construction that lower their footprints and increase safety. Pebble reactors are the latest, this type even lessens the waste from them.
Until we as country get serious about our energy independence, we will continue to be enslaved by foreign entities.
DQ, I am all too familiar with Helen’s views. On the other hand I doubt seriously that she gets around on a mule or a bicycle–exclusively. So, she should have a stake in my position.
The hypocritical “not in my backyard” mentality is so very out of date. I would expect that any rational person would recognize that while we investigate alternatives, we are going to consume vast quantities of oil for the forseeable future. We better prepare ourselves to be more nearly self-sufficient.
Rockdalian, it is true and very fortunate that we do have a fairly stable supply of oil in western Canada. Fortunately, they did not object to developing their resources in Alberta; nor did they object to drilling off the coast of Newfoundland in the ’90s. Fortunately for the Brits, they also decided to drill in the North Sea back in the 70s. However, did you notice what happened to the price of a barrel of crude immediately after Hugo Chavez threatened to cut off Exxon/Mobil’s supplies last week? Our gasoline prices subsequently jumped about $0.45/gal in a few days. This is a glaring example of the situation I cited wherein we depend heavily on a country ruled by a Dicator who detests the U.S. and has proven eager to hurt us. While he spits at us, we enrich him so that he can build his armed forces and export his nastiness to neighboring countries.
Oldflyer, You say, “I am all too familiar with Helen’s views.” What are my views?
Helen, I should not have said that, because frankly, your posts have historically been as amorphous as the speeches of Barack Obama and, therefore, your views as ambiguous. So, I apologize for divining meaning where there may be none.
I grant you that if experience is a guide, I should expect a standardized and meaningless reply from each of my elected reps–with one exception. However, being of an undaunted optimistic nature, and incurably committed to representative government, it makes me feel better after I express my views on issues that I feel are particularly important. I believe that continued dependence on foreign oil in the present, and forseeable, international climate, simply because we do not have the will to exercise all reasonable options, is one of those issues. I close by saying that while it is easy to ignore a relatively few voices, if each citizen would expend a bit of the available, if finite, time by corresponding with their politicians, we may actually enjoy more representative government.
I woulkd of course point out that Bush doesn’t need to try to overcome such numbers - he isn’t running for anything.
Hmmm, dunno what happened there - it went biffing off and posted all on its own.
Anyway, to finish the thought, it’s amusing all the harping the MSM is doing about GW’s low approval ratings, and it’s even more amusing to see the democrats castigate him. (Pss’t! Hillary! Barry! Why are you running against him - he’s not running against you! In fact: he’s not running!) You know, that hole, deep or not, is entirely irrelevant to the man: he retires with a pretty good pension in ten months.
Like motivating professional athletes: you can’t. Win or lose, they’re paid.
It matters not how much oil is extractable from either the Alberta or the Colorado tar sands: the fact of the matter is that it will eventually be gone. If it isn’t gone in our life-times (which it isn’t, there’s plenty) still, it will be an issue for our great-great grandchildren to deal with. Or maybe only the one “great” grandkids - the point is: some day it’s going to be gone for someone. So knowing that, wouldn’t you think it might be smart to begin planning for something else?
A good part of the political problems throughout the world have been engendered because our idiot politicians have been cheerfully transferring much of the wealth of the western world into the hands of a bunch of fairly uncivilized camel jockeys for the last fifty years - which is something that should probably stop.
Is the problem at the breaking point? Don’t know, everybody’s point is different - but I do recall paying $8 a gallon in England and Italy in 1975, ‘76, & ‘77. Compared to that, current conditions are a breeze and in fact a bargain. If that’s engaging in Bookworm unwarranted optimism, well: it’s also engaging in simple truth: that’s what it cost there and then.
But I agree with how negative our thinking has become. Boy, it does seem as though there are a lot of things we “can’t” do these days, which is not the attitude for which this country became famous. I don’t know where the American “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” attitude has gone - but that is how problems are solved. When JFK announced we’d be on the moon in a decade, we barely had the ability to reliably get a guy into orbit. But you’ll note: we did it.
Today we might not. (Though I was really heartened when the Navy put a shot across the bows of Russia and China the other day by casually blowing the falling satellite apart - welcome to Star Wars, kids! The MSM and the politico-scientists were asking 17 paragraph questions ending in “can it be done?” to which the Navy was simply answering: “yeah.” When the time came, boom! “Yeah” is right!)
So we can still do stuff, but the paralysis in the face of declining oil has just been surprising. And it is, of course, primarily political paralysis. Individual people are out figuring out how to make salt water burn to produce power, but government? Waste of breath…
I believe the best answer to world-wide energy needs is fusion power, but it is AT LEAST one hundred years away. Research remains slow and very frustrating; the technology to produce fusion power remains beyond our capabilities. The EU is leading the effort, not the U.S., which saddens me.
Once we succeed in mastering fusion power, we have enough deuterium in our oceans for 150 billion years of power.
It is incredibly safe - no possibility of meltdown or runaway - and as long as we stay away from using tritium, does not produce radioactive materials with long half-lives.
I think everyone is looking for a short-term answer to the problem, however. Not my pipe-dream of fusion…
Oil is marketed as a commodity, making the use of its energy very expensive. Production is constrained to keep the price high. As more and more of the world develops technologically, at current production rates, oil consumers will pay more and more of their GDP to oil producers. That is a very volatile situation geopolitically. Food, clothing and shelter are the three basic necessities, but in a technologal society energy and transportation are the fourth and fifth necessities. If the costs of energy rise and rise, energy and transportation consume more and more of our dollars - do you agree this will lead to crises in the near future?
I don’t have an answer. Oil requires refinement, and refineries are nasty places. No one wants refineries nearby. Yet we have to have them.
Politicians aren’t paid to plan for the futures of children that will someday vote for the politician’s descendents.
The fastest way to get fusion technology is to conquer the entire world and combine them into one nation, with one law.
That way, you don’t have potential scientific geniuses starving out in the streets of Zimbabwe because some dictator got it into his head he could be master of the universe.
With 6 billion people that don’t have to go working day jobs just to break bread, you have a much higher likelyhood of acquiring scientific talent given sheer statistics.
Iran, for example, is discouraging their women from entering universities. All the energy spent to hobble women in Iran could be spent towards researching productive fields for humanity.
The reason why fusion power, cold or hot, is so far into the future is because the earth being unified through fire and war are also far far into the future.
Unless something from outside the solar system introduces a new variable, the conditions that produced an American Civil War or the US Constitution, won’t repeat themselves for some time. And you need another America to produce scientific breakthroughs above what would be normally expected of warring states. Each state in the union does not worry about having to spend bucks on defense and spycraft to defend against their neighbors. All the energy that could have gone into competition now goes into cooperation. America, thus, functions entirely different from the rest of the world, whom are not in a state of being part of a unified polity. Europe, for example, with Kosovo and all, are still busy trying to compete and mess up each other. France and Russia and Britain have been doing this for centuries, wasting all the manpower and resources that could have been put into scientific and technological progression.
Now they speak of the European Union, the so called “non-expansionist” Empire. As if they deserve the title of empire in any shape or form given their squabbles.
I just posted a comment with a lot of linked sources, which did not go through. What are the rules for that? For example, there is one blog which will pass a post w two links , but not one with three.
While I disagree with most of the NYT editorial page, they do have some good articles from time to time. Here is one on on wind energy from today.
At the end of 2007, Texas ranked No. 1 in the nation with installed wind power of 4,356 megawatts (and 1,238 under construction), far outdistancing California’s 2,439 megawatts (and 165 under construction)
One issue which the NYT article pointed out, is that in the US, the best source for wind energy, the Great Plains, is far from the population centers which use energy, necessitating investment in transmission lines.
The National Research Council, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, recently published Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. For those who are concerned about the effect of wind energy on bird populations, here is the study’s conclusion.
“Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths—less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005)”
The cost of wind energy according to a Powerpoint presentation (040602_DeMeo_Why_Utils_Should_Invest.ppt) on the American Wind Energy Association Website , went down from 40¢/ kwh in 1979 to 3-5¢/ kwh in 2004. A more recent look in (awea.org/pubs/documents/Outlook_2007.pdf) in 2007 put the cost of wind energy at 8-10¢/kwh, competitive with other sources. Because these come from the American Wind Energy Association, there may be some bias. Nonetheless, the statement that the cost of wind energy has gone down drastically in the last 3 decades with improved turbine design, is a valid one. Precisely what the cost is now, can be debated.
While we have a “free market”, it is taxed and regulated by the government. The issue of subsidies applies not only for wind energy, but for ethanol, coal, nuclear , and petroleum.
One link for post will go through. Two links will be moderated, and anymore will probably be spammed.
The government should be using those “subsidies” to finance territorial and economic control of natural and human resources.
As numerous countries in Africa have shown, there is no economy without controlling and stabilizing the territory and the people on that territory.