) a fanatical treehuggin' leftie.
quote:
It is understandable that we Americans feel an almost reflexive need for unanimity in trying times like these. As a nation, we are rightly consumed with responding to the terrorist attacks on September 11th.
But, at some point -- and I think we're beginning to get there -- we need to take a long-term view even as we are reacting to the current
crisis. Really important domestic issues facing us before all of this happened -- education, energy and the environment, health care --
still have the same dimension and consequence. But we have to recognize that it's much more difficult to discuss and debate them in
the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Unfortunately, disagreement is sometimes characterized as unpatriotic during times such as these and open,
thoughtful discourse is somewhat muted. The gravity of the current situation is not lost on any of us and we all want to do what's right
to insure our national security. It is with this in mind that I felt compelled to write you today.A handful of determined U.S. senators, encouraged by the White House, are arguing that national security requires the Senate to rush a
pro-oil energy bill into law. They have vowed to hold up normal Senate business and attach the bill to every piece of legislation that comes
to the Senate floor. So far they have failed in what The Boston Globe is calling "oil opportunism." But with President Bush, himself, now calling for rushed passage of this disastrous bill, intense pressure is building on Senate leaders to succumb to the emotions of the
moment. Using our national tragedy as an opportunity to advance the narrow interests of the oil lobby would not be in the best interest of
the public. This bill, already passed by the House, would not only open the Arctic Refuge to oil rigs, it would also pave the way for
energy companies to exploit and destroy pristine areas of Greater Yellowstone and other gems of our natural heritage. As important, it
would do nothing to address energy security.I'm asking for your immediate help in stopping this legislation. After reading my letter I hope you'll take action at http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic/index.asp?src=ab0110a and then forward this letter to your friends and colleagues.
Last spring, the Bush administration and some members of Congress said we had to pass the president's oil-friendly energy bill because we
were facing the most serious energy crisis since 1973. But here we are, a mere six months later, and the energy crisis has vanished. Due
to a slowing economy and falling demand, the prices for gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil have plunged. Meanwhile, the much-feared "summer of blackouts" in California never happened, largely because consumers and businesses made dramatic cuts in energy
use by launching the most successful statewide conservation campaign in history.With no energy crisis to scare us with, the administration and pro-oil senators are now promoting their "Drill the Arctic" plan under the
guise of national security and energy independence. Don't buy it. It would take ten years to bring Arctic oil to market, and when it
arrives it would never equal more than two percent -- a mere drop in the bucket -- of all the oil we consume each year. Our nation simply
doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to energy independence or even to affect world oil prices.We possess a mere 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we consume fully 25 percent of the world's oil supply. We could drill the
Arctic Refuge, Greater Yellowstone, and every other wildland in America and we'd still be importing oil, still be paying worldwide
prices for domestic oil, and still be vulnerable to wild gyrations in price and supply. As The Atlanta Constitution put it: "Burning through
our tiny oil supply faster will not make our country more secure." I'd go further: increasing our dependence on oil, whether that oil comes
from the Persian Gulf or the Arctic Refuge, practically guarantees national *insecurity*. And we know that it will bring more habitat
destruction, more oil spills, more air pollution, and more global warming. The public health implications will be devastating.If our nation wants to declare energy independence, then we have no choice but to reduce our appetite for oil. There's no other way. We need to rely on smarter and cleaner ways to power our economy. We have the technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon. If we phased in that standard by 2012 we'd save 15 times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over 50 years. We could also give tax rebates for existing hybrid gas-electric vehicles that get as much as 60 mpg. We could invest in public
transit. We could launch an "Apollo Project" to bring fuel cells and hydrogen fuel down to earth, allowing us to begin the mass production
of vehicles that emit only water as a by-product. The list goes on and on.In this climate of national trauma and war, it is up to us -- the people -- to ensure that reason prevails and our natural heritage survives intact. The preservation of irreplaceable wildlands like the Arctic Refuge and Greater Yellowstone is a core American value. I have
never been more appreciative of the wisdom of that value than during these past few weeks. When we are filled with grief and unanswerable
questions it is often nature that we turn to for refuge and comfort. In the sanctuary of a forest or the vastness of the desert or the silence of a grassland, we can touch a timeless force larger than ourselves and our all-too-human problems. This is where the healing begins. Those who would sell out this natural heritage -- this
spiritual heritage -- would destroy a wellspring of American strength.
What's worse, their rush to exploit the wildness that feeds our souls won't do a thing to solve our energy problems.
I have - for once - tried to sit down and rationally voice my opinion on this subject, lest it turns into yet another mud-throwing contest... the level of polarisation here is high enough as it is.
*Climbs on soapbox*
From a historical standpoint, economies do not develop as a result of mass consumption of non-renewable resources. Ireland, for example, was covered in forests long ago. The forests were consumed. The farmland turned to swamps and bogs. Production was lost while, at the same time, alternative means of production were ignored (waterpower, for example) because of the almost complete dependence upon wood.
The example, of course, is not completely relevant to the current situation. Drilling for oil does not, in general, destroy a large amount of farmland. The general principal, however, applies quite well--reliance upon non-renewable resources to the exclusion of other potential resources will cripple and eventually destroy a civilization or, in the shorter term, an economy.
Consider as an alternative example the Soviet Union. From the 1940's on, one of the primary focuses was military strength--the costs of which were essentially "wasted" money because they did nothing to advance society in general. As an analogy (albeit a poor one), it was equivalent to paying to grow an extra, vestigial arm. It had no practical use, yet it cost an incredible amount of money that could have been invested in more productive ways.
American reliance upon oil is similar. Oil is a nonrenewable consumable resource. When it's gone, it's gone.
First, consider the time frame we're talking about. Oil deposits came from plants between 35 and 135 million years old. Man has only lived on earth (presuming science is correct) for approximately 2 million years. There is nothing to suggest that, from a kinetic standpoint, man will ever see the day when modern plants will be converted into oil.
Secondly: Again, the plants that oil came from were anywhere from between 35 and 135 million years old. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that modern-day plant life will ever turn into oil. Scientists (mostly geologists) think they've figured out a possible way that ancient plants could have turned into oil--high pressure, high temperature as massive amounts of plant life were buried for a "long" period of time. When it comes down to it, however, those are just theories. There is nothing to suggest that there wasn't a certain type of bacteria or fungus responsible for oil formation, or that oil isn't actually a complex mixture of dinosaur poop and plants. Further, there's nothing to suggest that ancient plant life was actually chemically similar to modern-day plants such that modern-day plants are physically possible to turn into oil.
Oil generates a lot of energy per unit volume. But even the most efficient combustion engines are physically incapable of being more than about 25% efficient. That is to say, 75% of the energy in oil is WASTED as heat in internal combustion engines. And there's actually no way to improve that efficiency--thermodynamics guarantees it. So if, for example, more effort were put into development of methane or hydrogen fuel cells (which can actually be MORE THAN 100% EFFICIENT!!!) instead of lobbying to keep the world dependent upon oil they would quickly become practical alternatives to oil/gasoline.
As to the projection that 100 years' (estimated) worth of oil remain in currently-discovered fields.... Check the source's numbers and calculations and assumptions. You'll find that they ignore the massively-growing demand for oil and oil byproducts in the third world (who of course want a standard of living comparable to that in typical first-world countries like america, Britain, Germany, etc.) Further, the simple fact that there is oil in the ground does not suggest that America will continue to have access to it.
What productive ends come from the current reliance on oil and oil derivatives? None whatsoever, so long as the benefits of a cheap, convenient energy source are only invested in perpetuating the use of that energy source. The rapid advancement due to the availability of oil and fossil fuels in general is essentially wasted if we as a society/country/civilization make no significant attempts to move beyond a reliance upon that non-renewable resource.
Consider, however, the progress of the industrial revolution in Britain. Water power led to engineering advances which made coal a practical alternative to reliance upon hydrodynamic power. Coal led to advances which allowed the use of oil (most of these advances occurred in the U.S.). Use of oil has led to advances in plastics and polymers--which are a significant stepping stone in the development of practical, economically-feasible fuel cells, solar cells, etc. Technology is currently (essentially) frozen in the dependence upon oil because investment in advancement is dwarfed by investment in keeping the world dependent upon oil.
Ten years ago, energy from a coal power plant was about 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). Oil was 5.2 cents per kWh. Hydroelectric power was 4.9 cents per kWh. Windpower was something like 6 cents per kWh, although that number is somewhat inflated because the few wind-power companies were investing heavily in equipment at the time. Solar power (heated water turbine generation) was something like 7 cents per kWh (again, inflated due to equipment costs).
Since that time, the costs of coal and oil power have gone up due to increased fuel costs and increased costs due to environmental controls. I don't know the exact increases offhand, but you can probably figure it out if you look at the kWh cost on your bill, if you get your electricity from a coal or oil power plant. The costs of solar, hydro, and wind power have all decreased as the technology became more mature. Wind and solar, of course, decreased more than hydro because hydro is a well-established method of generating power.
But, in the end, whether or not a particular method of generating electricity is more or less expensive than some other method is entirely irrelevant.
"Why?" you ask....
Consider.... The power companies each have what amounts to a local monopoly. You cannot, in general, decide to buy your electricity from the lowest-cost distributor because there is no real competition (yes, I know there are exceptions--I'm speaking in general terms). So the power company essentially has a free hand in what type of plant they will set up, dependent on geography and the like of course.
Which again raises the question, "why oil?" Especially given the alleged dedication of oil companies to find alternatives.
As to use of oil/gasoline in cars... First of all, gas/electric hybrid technology has been around a long time (20 years or so), but it is not used in the gross majority of cars made nowadays. Why not? There has been talk of requiring such efficiency-increasing measures to be included in vehicles, but nothing ever seems to come of it.... Why not? Because every time that the topic is brought up, the oil lobby does an amazing job of smashing it. If everyone got 60 or 70 or even 80 miles per gallon of gas (god forbid!) oil companies would sell far less gasoline.
Note that the point that "oil would last longer" doesn't factor into the equation. What interest do oil CEO's have in making oil last longer? They won't be around in 150 or 200 years to make money off of it! If, however, oil is burned, burned, burned NOW, the oil companies make a massive amount of money for the current stockholders/executives/etc.
As to the idea that oil companies spend a lot of money on researching alternatives to oil.... First of all, although the number may at first seem large, consider it in relative terms. Oil companies spend literally tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in america alone on lobbying against increased environmental controls, including what they spend to buy politicians. Although I don't know the numbers, I would guess that oil companies spend only a fraction as much on developing alternatives to oil. In all likelihood, oil companies spend more advertising that they are looking for alternatives than they actually spend on the search for alternatives....
Felt good to finally get that off my chest.
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
quote:
. Due to a slowing economy and falling demand, the prices for gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil have plunged.
Low gas prices are due to the fact that nobody's making jet fuel because nobody's flying because of the terrorists, but production hasn't slowed. The prices would still be at $1.50 a gallon otherwise.
quote:
We have the technology right now to increase fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon. If we phased in that standard by 2012 we'd save 15 times more oil than the Arctic Refuge is likely to produce over 50 years. We could also give tax rebates for existing hybrid gas-electric vehicles that get as much as 60 mpg. We could invest in public transit. We could launch an "Apollo Project" to bring fuel cells and hydrogen fuel down to earth, allowing us to begin the mass production
of vehicles that emit only water as a by-product.
Absolutely correct (except for the fuel cell bit. I think maybe he means using solar power stations). As your Dictator, I will do these things.
quote:
From a historical standpoint, economies do not develop as a result of mass consumption of non-renewable resources.
Er.. so, the Industrial Revolution was a fluke, then?
quote:
(which can actually be MORE THAN 100% EFFICIENT!!!)
No it can't. Nothing can. That violates all the laws of Thermodynamics. Someone is fibbing to you.
quote:
Although I don't know the numbers, I would guess that oil companies spend only a fraction as much on developing alternatives to oil.
If you don't know the numbers, what you say is only an uninformed opinion. Find out.