Posts with the tag energy
About the Author
The concept of decadence continues being used in political discourse, especially by some on the Right. It is time that there be an intelligent refutation to these claims.
The word "decadence" is referred most commonly to the Roman Empire in its last stages. "Decadence" - meaning especially "loose" sexual behavior - is blamed for the collapse of the Roman Empire. This blame is wrongly placed. The Roman Empire became majority Christian under Constantine, in early 4th century AD, and became officially Christian under Theodosius three decades later, only to be conquered in 5th century AD. Which means that in Roman Empire's last century the "decadent" practices were no longer taking place. Instead, Roman Empire was conquered after it had become Christian; and during the period of 1st century and 2nd century AD, in which the practices deemed decadent were most common, Roman Empire was at its peak.
There does appear however to be a real reason for Roman Empire's failure, and it has nothing to do with anyone's private behavior. It is brainless economic and political practices and failure to embrace technological progress. In 20AD, a Roman inventor named Hero of Alexandria invented the steam engine. The Romans believed that his invention was uneconomical as slave labor was cheap and abundant enough for them. Instead of embracing technological innovation and its fruits - industrialization, prosperity, and military machines that would have made mincemeat of any invading army - the Roman Empire stuck to the ugly, short-sighted and wrong institution of slavery. This institution not only made life hell for three quarters of the population of Roman Empire but was an ongoing righteous source of hate and resentment against Roman Empire and against "the world."
America is not at risk of failure as a result of anyone's private behavior. Thomas Jefferson, who had children by a slavegirl, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who had affairs while in office, were all brilliant presidents, and America thrived under all of them. Rather the risk comes from those in America who deny scientific reality and want to do away with technological progress, particularly progress in the energy sector. There is any number of technologies that can fulfil people's energy needs at present and greater level with vastly less burden on the environment. The real threat to America does not come from people who have affairs, whether they be Democrats such as Bill Clinton or Republicans such as Newt Gingrich. It comes from entities such as the Texas Oil, that has for decades lied to the people and lobbied the government to deny reality and to sabotage technological progress.
It is of course people allied with these entities that blow the "decadence" horn the most; and what we are seeing here is the behavior of a criminal hiding his tracks. Precisely the wrong people get blamed for the problems being presently experienced, while the people who actually are responsible for these problems are not only not taking responsibility for them but are blaming them on the people who have nothing to do with them - indeed on the people who take oppositional stance to the people who are responsible for these problems. America is not at risk of failure as a result of some Americans not practicing social conservatism. America - and the rest of the world - is at risk as a result of some Americans engaging in brainless, destructive, short-sighted economic practices while attacking technological progress.
Many of these people are also hoping for an Armageddon in our lifetime. And now is the time to say no to that. If someone wants an Armageddon before the children being born now have grown up, then not only does he have no business claiming to have "family values" but he has less than nothing to offer for America's future. America, and the rest of the world, including the children now growing up, deserve a better future than that. And America needs leaders and people involved at all levels who have a better vision of the future in mind than a violent destruction in our lifetime of everyone and everything that lives.
If some Americans do not want to live the lifestyle pushed by the likes of Pat Robertson, then it is their right. This has nothing to do with the real problems that America - and the rest of the world - experiences presently. There is a real solution to problems presently taking place, and that solution is technological progress, especially in the energy sector. Fortunately there are enough people who understand this and are willing to make this happen, the Texas Oil and its machinations be damned.
The word "decadence" is referred most commonly to the Roman Empire in its last stages. "Decadence" - meaning especially "loose" sexual behavior - is blamed for the collapse of the Roman Empire. This blame is wrongly placed. The Roman Empire became majority Christian under Constantine, in early 4th century AD, and became officially Christian under Theodosius three decades later, only to be conquered in 5th century AD. Which means that in Roman Empire's last century the "decadent" practices were no longer taking place. Instead, Roman Empire was conquered after it had become Christian; and during the period of 1st century and 2nd century AD, in which the practices deemed decadent were most common, Roman Empire was at its peak.
There does appear however to be a real reason for Roman Empire's failure, and it has nothing to do with anyone's private behavior. It is brainless economic and political practices and failure to embrace technological progress. In 20AD, a Roman inventor named Hero of Alexandria invented the steam engine. The Romans believed that his invention was uneconomical as slave labor was cheap and abundant enough for them. Instead of embracing technological innovation and its fruits - industrialization, prosperity, and military machines that would have made mincemeat of any invading army - the Roman Empire stuck to the ugly, short-sighted and wrong institution of slavery. This institution not only made life hell for three quarters of the population of Roman Empire but was an ongoing righteous source of hate and resentment against Roman Empire and against "the world."
America is not at risk of failure as a result of anyone's private behavior. Thomas Jefferson, who had children by a slavegirl, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who had affairs while in office, were all brilliant presidents, and America thrived under all of them. Rather the risk comes from those in America who deny scientific reality and want to do away with technological progress, particularly progress in the energy sector. There is any number of technologies that can fulfil people's energy needs at present and greater level with vastly less burden on the environment. The real threat to America does not come from people who have affairs, whether they be Democrats such as Bill Clinton or Republicans such as Newt Gingrich. It comes from entities such as the Texas Oil, that has for decades lied to the people and lobbied the government to deny reality and to sabotage technological progress.
It is of course people allied with these entities that blow the "decadence" horn the most; and what we are seeing here is the behavior of a criminal hiding his tracks. Precisely the wrong people get blamed for the problems being presently experienced, while the people who actually are responsible for these problems are not only not taking responsibility for them but are blaming them on the people who have nothing to do with them - indeed on the people who take oppositional stance to the people who are responsible for these problems. America is not at risk of failure as a result of some Americans not practicing social conservatism. America - and the rest of the world - is at risk as a result of some Americans engaging in brainless, destructive, short-sighted economic practices while attacking technological progress.
Many of these people are also hoping for an Armageddon in our lifetime. And now is the time to say no to that. If someone wants an Armageddon before the children being born now have grown up, then not only does he have no business claiming to have "family values" but he has less than nothing to offer for America's future. America, and the rest of the world, including the children now growing up, deserve a better future than that. And America needs leaders and people involved at all levels who have a better vision of the future in mind than a violent destruction in our lifetime of everyone and everything that lives.
If some Americans do not want to live the lifestyle pushed by the likes of Pat Robertson, then it is their right. This has nothing to do with the real problems that America - and the rest of the world - experiences presently. There is a real solution to problems presently taking place, and that solution is technological progress, especially in the energy sector. Fortunately there are enough people who understand this and are willing to make this happen, the Texas Oil and its machinations be damned.
In 19th century England there was a group known as the Luddites who protested against technological development out of the belief that it would cost people their jobs. They have been proven wrong; technological development instead has created vast prosperity and better jobs. However there are people today who act in the same way as did the Luddites.
These people are the deniers and "skeptics" of global warming.
These are the people who want to stand in the way of progress in the energy sector in order to force continued reliance on outdated, destructive, inefficient technologies such as dirty coal and oil. Like Luddites they are backward; and like Luddites they are wrong. Progress in energy sector, like technological progress of 19th century and early 20th century, stands to create vast prosperity and much better jobs than there are in the energy sector of today. People will have all that they have now and much more, with vastly fewer destructive effects.
Many of these people claim that they speak for progress or for technology. That they do, shows the extent of their dishonesty. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will look toward the future not the past and create better technologies than what exists presently. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will support innovative and intelligent solutions that will deliver people greater utility than the technologies of today with much fewer destructive effects. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will embrace progress toward better technologies instead of forcing reliance on inferior and outdated technologies. A person who stands in the way of such progress is a Luddite.
The Luddites do not have a good reputation; and neither will the deniers and "skeptics" of global warming. They are wrong in every way that counts, and they are especially wrong to claim that they speak for progress or for technology even as they seek to force ongoing reliance on outdated technologies when there are many technologies that are much better. Real progress means going toward better technologies, not staying with inefficient and brainless technologies. And the stance of staying with dirty coal and oil is the stance of the Luddite.
These people are the deniers and "skeptics" of global warming.
These are the people who want to stand in the way of progress in the energy sector in order to force continued reliance on outdated, destructive, inefficient technologies such as dirty coal and oil. Like Luddites they are backward; and like Luddites they are wrong. Progress in energy sector, like technological progress of 19th century and early 20th century, stands to create vast prosperity and much better jobs than there are in the energy sector of today. People will have all that they have now and much more, with vastly fewer destructive effects.
Many of these people claim that they speak for progress or for technology. That they do, shows the extent of their dishonesty. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will look toward the future not the past and create better technologies than what exists presently. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will support innovative and intelligent solutions that will deliver people greater utility than the technologies of today with much fewer destructive effects. A person who actually is in favor of progress and technology will embrace progress toward better technologies instead of forcing reliance on inferior and outdated technologies. A person who stands in the way of such progress is a Luddite.
The Luddites do not have a good reputation; and neither will the deniers and "skeptics" of global warming. They are wrong in every way that counts, and they are especially wrong to claim that they speak for progress or for technology even as they seek to force ongoing reliance on outdated technologies when there are many technologies that are much better. Real progress means going toward better technologies, not staying with inefficient and brainless technologies. And the stance of staying with dirty coal and oil is the stance of the Luddite.
In his book "Earth in the Balance," Al Gore wrote that the people who were denying the global warming in 1980s were going to be penitent later for what they had done. He made an error common to humanitarians: Of overestimating people's character. As it stands, these people are not only not penitent but are aggressively denying reality of global warming even as we speak. And they have been maliciously attacking not only Al Gore, but also science itself, to which they owe their entire lifestyle, from TVs to computers to trucks and cars to phones to supermarkets; to which business owes everything that it sells; and without which capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of most basic commodities as it was in medieval Persia.
There are people who continue equating oil and dirty coal with progress. They are practicing a Big Lie. Oil and dirty coal are no more progress now than horse and buggy was in the beginning of 20th century. True progress means moving to better technologies - smarter technologies - technologies that maximize utility and minimize destruction and waste. And that means, moving from oil and dirty coal to better technologies such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network. The stance of the oilman is in no way the stance of progress; it is the stance of the Luddite who wants to do away with progress because he thinks that with progress he will not have his job. Technological progress in early 20th century did not result in vast loss of life and property as is predicted by anti-clean-energy people; it resulted in vast growth in prosperity and jobs. The exact same stands to result from conversion to clean energy.
Capitalism, like all things human, can be done in any number of ways and carries potentials for all sorts of outcomes. There is a shortfall in present definition of capitalism: It fails to compute environmental costs. And this is responsible for the worst features in capitalism: Its failure to be incentivized away from blind, stupid, destructive practices such as burning the rainforest - and toward prudent, intelligent, practices that build upon innovation and ingenuity to maximize utility for people while minimizing destruction of what people have not created and cannot conceivably recreate.
No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to burn down rich, essential environments such as the Amazonian rainforest to build ranches that will become useless in two years. No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to leech gold out of mountains with mercury and kill the people who live downstream. No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to spew out vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so that it accumulates in the middle atmosphere to create an environmental crisis and goes into the ocean to kill all the fish. Humanity is smarter than that; and humanity can and should do better.
Far be it from me to advocate going away from technology or economics. Rather real progress must be embraced to move away from destructive technologies to better technologies. And economic activity must be done in such a way as to maximize ingenuity, intelligence and utility to the consumer while minimizing stupidity, destructiveness and blindness that destroys what one has not created and can't recreate to arrive at utility minimal to null.
Clean energy is progress, and anyone who claims to believe in progress has a logical duty to embrace clean energy. The anti-clean-energy stance is the stance of the Luddites. As for the claims that clean energy is "anti-human" - human being is not defined as "the being that burns oil." Far more essential to human advancement has been innovation, intelligence and ingenuity; and that means progress toward better technologies - progress in the energy sector as much as in all others.
The truly rational, human, progress-oriented stance is therefore an enthusiastic embrace of clean energy and its widespread implementation. It is this that will move the economy out of the doldrums and into real economic growth. And it will also minimize blind destructiveness and short-sightedness, preserving what people have not created and aren't capable of re-creating while maximizing utility, technological progress, and economic growth.
There are people who continue equating oil and dirty coal with progress. They are practicing a Big Lie. Oil and dirty coal are no more progress now than horse and buggy was in the beginning of 20th century. True progress means moving to better technologies - smarter technologies - technologies that maximize utility and minimize destruction and waste. And that means, moving from oil and dirty coal to better technologies such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network. The stance of the oilman is in no way the stance of progress; it is the stance of the Luddite who wants to do away with progress because he thinks that with progress he will not have his job. Technological progress in early 20th century did not result in vast loss of life and property as is predicted by anti-clean-energy people; it resulted in vast growth in prosperity and jobs. The exact same stands to result from conversion to clean energy.
Capitalism, like all things human, can be done in any number of ways and carries potentials for all sorts of outcomes. There is a shortfall in present definition of capitalism: It fails to compute environmental costs. And this is responsible for the worst features in capitalism: Its failure to be incentivized away from blind, stupid, destructive practices such as burning the rainforest - and toward prudent, intelligent, practices that build upon innovation and ingenuity to maximize utility for people while minimizing destruction of what people have not created and cannot conceivably recreate.
No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to burn down rich, essential environments such as the Amazonian rainforest to build ranches that will become useless in two years. No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to leech gold out of mountains with mercury and kill the people who live downstream. No, it is not intelligent, nor is it right, to spew out vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so that it accumulates in the middle atmosphere to create an environmental crisis and goes into the ocean to kill all the fish. Humanity is smarter than that; and humanity can and should do better.
Far be it from me to advocate going away from technology or economics. Rather real progress must be embraced to move away from destructive technologies to better technologies. And economic activity must be done in such a way as to maximize ingenuity, intelligence and utility to the consumer while minimizing stupidity, destructiveness and blindness that destroys what one has not created and can't recreate to arrive at utility minimal to null.
Clean energy is progress, and anyone who claims to believe in progress has a logical duty to embrace clean energy. The anti-clean-energy stance is the stance of the Luddites. As for the claims that clean energy is "anti-human" - human being is not defined as "the being that burns oil." Far more essential to human advancement has been innovation, intelligence and ingenuity; and that means progress toward better technologies - progress in the energy sector as much as in all others.
The truly rational, human, progress-oriented stance is therefore an enthusiastic embrace of clean energy and its widespread implementation. It is this that will move the economy out of the doldrums and into real economic growth. And it will also minimize blind destructiveness and short-sightedness, preserving what people have not created and aren't capable of re-creating while maximizing utility, technological progress, and economic growth.
The oil orientation makes the worst of all worlds. Nature is seen as only resources to burn with no sight for the future; man is seen as only there to burn nature with no sight for the future or respect for what made it possible for nature to exist. This results in the worst made of nature and the worst made of man. Nature is burned with no sight for the future and no respect for what made it possible; man becomes nothing but organ of blind destruction of what he can't recreate. What is created is the worst of all worlds, making the worst of man and the worst of nature.
Clean energy creates a much more fruitful arrangement. Nature is respected and left to grow in richness and beauty; man becomes an intelligent creator who uses his intellect to fulfil man's needs in a way that is more inventive, more prudent and less ruinous. Man's material wants are fulfilled through an intelligent, inventive process that allows him to have everything he has now and much more while vastly reducing the burden on the planet. Nature becomes the best it can be; so is man.
The result is an improvement in both man and nature. Man is made a better quantity; nature is allowed to exist and remain in a better shape. The outcome makes more of man and more of nature, achieving real , sustainable and profound improvement in both worlds.
Clean energy creates a much more fruitful arrangement. Nature is respected and left to grow in richness and beauty; man becomes an intelligent creator who uses his intellect to fulfil man's needs in a way that is more inventive, more prudent and less ruinous. Man's material wants are fulfilled through an intelligent, inventive process that allows him to have everything he has now and much more while vastly reducing the burden on the planet. Nature becomes the best it can be; so is man.
The result is an improvement in both man and nature. Man is made a better quantity; nature is allowed to exist and remain in a better shape. The outcome makes more of man and more of nature, achieving real , sustainable and profound improvement in both worlds.
The conventional histories blame the decline and fall of Rome on “decadence,” which they use to mean personal and sexual freedom. This explanation is transparently wrong. Rome was conquered after it had been Christianized and the practices deemed “decadent” had been outlawed. Which means that “decadence” was not, and could not have been, the reason for Rome’s collapse.
There was however a real reason for the failure of Rome. That reason was myopia. In 20 AD, 1800 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, Hero of Alexandria invented the steam engine. Beyond using it to move doors of a few temples, the Romans did nothing with the invention. They thought that slave labor was cheap and abundant enough for them. Because of this disastrous decision, the Romans failed to industrialize; failed to end the horrible institution of slavery in which lived three quarters of the population and which was the real ongoing source of hate and resentment against Roman Empire and against “the world;” failed to make military machines that would have made mincemeat of any invading army; and failed to become the undisputed world leader that they could have been to this day if they had thought ahead.
There are clear and present analogues between Roman Empire at the time of Hero of Alexandria and the world now. Science has made it clear that outdated, destructive, inefficient technologies such as oil and dirty coal are causing a climatic disaster. There are real solutions to this problem, and it does not mean going without technology. It means implementing on a significant scale the advanced, intelligent, abundant energy and water technologies such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network – technologies that will make it possible for people to have everything they have now and much more, while vastly reducing pollution and waste.
Of course the people who falsely blame the fall of Rome on “decadence” are the same people who are denying the climatic disaster. They are also the same people who have an apocalyptic worldview. And it is time to say to these people the clear and the obvious:
If you believe that burning the world will get you to heaven, boy do you have another thing coming.
The people who cause and take part in creating catastrophes such as global warming would of course relish in apocalyptic ideation. Such a worldview denies reality of the future and gives them the permission to do as much damage as they want to occasion without considering the needs of the people who come after themselves. These are of course the same people who claim to have “family values” and responsibility as they inflict on their children a poisoned planet and hope for an end of all life before their children have reached maturity.
It is time to say that this racket has gone on for long enough.
The world can move from this point in any number of directions. One is to learn the real historical lessons and implement the intelligent, constructive solutions that will extend the future indefinitely and toward better and better places – both for one’s country and for the rest of the world. The other is to go the way of the Romans and fall into decline. Christianity failed to save Rome, and it cannot be expected to save the world now. Applied intelligence however can do that and much more.
Implementing intelligent, constructive, abundant clean energy technologies will create a liveable world for one’s children, making the efforts that one has expended as parent pay off and be justified in having been made. It will also create a longer and better future for one’s country. Ultimately it is even better for the oil industry. Oil will last longer and be used to make higher-end goods such as plastics and pharmaceuticals, making more money for the oil companies and workers. The only people who will lose anything from clean energy is conmen who have been aggressively fomenting apocalyptic ideation; and I think I speak for most when I say that these conmen deserve to lose their credibility and their power to inflict destructive delusions upon humankind.
One can still believe in God, or in Jesus, or in Buddha, or in a new age, or in the Goddess, or in anything else that is believed. Only these beliefs cannot be allowed to stand in way of constructive solutions to real-world man-made problems, especially when the solution does not even require a change of lifestyle but rather a move to better technologies. Clean energy will benefit the economy as much as it will benefit the environment and will be for 21st century what electricity was for the 20th. And from this can be expected only the good, continuing indefinitely and improving life across regions and times.
There was however a real reason for the failure of Rome. That reason was myopia. In 20 AD, 1800 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, Hero of Alexandria invented the steam engine. Beyond using it to move doors of a few temples, the Romans did nothing with the invention. They thought that slave labor was cheap and abundant enough for them. Because of this disastrous decision, the Romans failed to industrialize; failed to end the horrible institution of slavery in which lived three quarters of the population and which was the real ongoing source of hate and resentment against Roman Empire and against “the world;” failed to make military machines that would have made mincemeat of any invading army; and failed to become the undisputed world leader that they could have been to this day if they had thought ahead.
There are clear and present analogues between Roman Empire at the time of Hero of Alexandria and the world now. Science has made it clear that outdated, destructive, inefficient technologies such as oil and dirty coal are causing a climatic disaster. There are real solutions to this problem, and it does not mean going without technology. It means implementing on a significant scale the advanced, intelligent, abundant energy and water technologies such as the Hydrogen Transmission Network – technologies that will make it possible for people to have everything they have now and much more, while vastly reducing pollution and waste.
Of course the people who falsely blame the fall of Rome on “decadence” are the same people who are denying the climatic disaster. They are also the same people who have an apocalyptic worldview. And it is time to say to these people the clear and the obvious:
If you believe that burning the world will get you to heaven, boy do you have another thing coming.
The people who cause and take part in creating catastrophes such as global warming would of course relish in apocalyptic ideation. Such a worldview denies reality of the future and gives them the permission to do as much damage as they want to occasion without considering the needs of the people who come after themselves. These are of course the same people who claim to have “family values” and responsibility as they inflict on their children a poisoned planet and hope for an end of all life before their children have reached maturity.
It is time to say that this racket has gone on for long enough.
The world can move from this point in any number of directions. One is to learn the real historical lessons and implement the intelligent, constructive solutions that will extend the future indefinitely and toward better and better places – both for one’s country and for the rest of the world. The other is to go the way of the Romans and fall into decline. Christianity failed to save Rome, and it cannot be expected to save the world now. Applied intelligence however can do that and much more.
Implementing intelligent, constructive, abundant clean energy technologies will create a liveable world for one’s children, making the efforts that one has expended as parent pay off and be justified in having been made. It will also create a longer and better future for one’s country. Ultimately it is even better for the oil industry. Oil will last longer and be used to make higher-end goods such as plastics and pharmaceuticals, making more money for the oil companies and workers. The only people who will lose anything from clean energy is conmen who have been aggressively fomenting apocalyptic ideation; and I think I speak for most when I say that these conmen deserve to lose their credibility and their power to inflict destructive delusions upon humankind.
One can still believe in God, or in Jesus, or in Buddha, or in a new age, or in the Goddess, or in anything else that is believed. Only these beliefs cannot be allowed to stand in way of constructive solutions to real-world man-made problems, especially when the solution does not even require a change of lifestyle but rather a move to better technologies. Clean energy will benefit the economy as much as it will benefit the environment and will be for 21st century what electricity was for the 20th. And from this can be expected only the good, continuing indefinitely and improving life across regions and times.
Someone has asked me on another forum why scientists don't go on global warming denier forums: in his words, "What are they scared of?" The answer is that they are not scared. They don't go to these forums for the same reason that scientists aren't usually seen addressing ridiculous statements of Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden or Glenn Beck. Most scientists see it their role to achieve knowledge, not bang heads with people who don't want it. Further, most legitimate scientists, unlike global warming deniers, don't have much time on their hands and don't want to waste it talking to people who are not interested in the truth and would use any bit of knowledge that they get to make bigger and more convincing rackets.
I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to know what happens when one raises carbon emissions while cutting down the trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Nor am I affiliated with UN, the Obama government or the "liberal media," but I know how much each party is superior in its values and conduct to those who want them dead. I also know enough about politics to know the extent to which right-wing conmen like to deceive people and how many people believe their rackets. So I will address some of the most common denier claims here and let the chips fall where they may.
Claim: The volume of the Antarctic ice has grown bigger.
Answer: Density of ice increases the colder it gets and decreases the warmer it gets. Increase in temperature in the Antarctic, where temperatures are extremely low, reduces the density of the ice and thus increases its volume. Not only is this consistent with global warming; it confirms it.
Claim: There is no ocean acidification/adding carbon dioxide to water does not make water acidic.
Answer: Yes it does. The reaction is CO2 + H2O -> H(+) + HCO3(-) . Water is split up and creates unattached hydrogen ions and carbonic acid. Ocean acidity has increased by 30% over pre-industrial levels, with over one third of that change in the last decade and a half.
Claim: There is no noticeable accumulation of atmospheric CO2.
Answer: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315 parts per million to 385 parts per million from 1960 to present. That's over 25% during the last five decades.
Claim: There have been cyclical fluctuations in temperature across decades.
Answer: The amplitude of these fluctuations is much smaller than the consistent upward trend that has taken place over the last century. It is much like watching the Standard & Poors' index since 1940 and observing cyclical risk fluctuation around a consistent upward trend. Over the last century, the increase has been 0.9 Celsius. Over the last two decades, it has been 0.3 Celsius.
Claim: Since most temperature stations are in the cities, urban heat effect is responsible for these measurements.
Answer: Urban heat effect has been calculated to comprise 0.002 Celsius per decade, or 0.02 Celsius over the last century. This is a minuscule fraction of the temperature rise that has occurred, accounting for less than 3% of the total temperature rise.
Claim: Global warming is not global / is only significant in some areas.
Answer: This conclusion is based on inadequate data. In measurements 1950-present, global warming is in fact global, with warming areas covering a majority of the Earth's surface and both hemispheres (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).
Claim: Sun spot cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: Over the last 50 years, sun spot activity has decreased.
Claim: The temperature has been rising since the last Ice Age.
Answer: The total rise in temperature since its bottom during the last Ice Age, over a period of 18,000 years, has been 15 Celsius. That amounts an average rise of 0.09 Celsius per century. That compares with the rise of 0.9 Celsius over the last century, or a rise ten times faster than the average rise in temperatures since the last Ice Age.
Claim: Changes in solar radiation are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: No sustained changes in solar radiation have been detected in 60 years. What has been observed is ten-year cycles around a constant base rate.
Claim: Most heat winds up in the oceans.
Answer: That it does as well. The heat content of oceans has been shown to be rising dramatically, and at a rate confirming the predictions.
Claim: The temperature rises have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Answer: The analysis of the heat content of different ocean basins has revealed changes in heat content consistent precisely with the predicted greenhouse effects and excluding any other possible source.
Claim: A small change in the gases in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate.
Answer: Nothing is small about a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2.
Claim: Oceans are not rising.
Answer: Oceans have been rising by 1.8 mm a year for the last century and 3 mm a year in the last decade. Many low-lying areas are experiencing constant flooding, and some islands in the Pacific have already been submerged.
Claim: Sea level rise is at the same rate as over the last 2000 years.
Answer: The average rate of sea level rise for the 3000 years preceding last century was 0.1 to 0.2 mm a year. That is in contrast to 1.8 mm per year since 1900 and 3 mm per year since 1990. This rate is 9 to 10 times the 3000 year average for the last century and 15 to 30 times the 3000 year average in the last two decades.
Claim: El Nino of 1997-1998 contributed most of the recent rise in sea level.
Answer: If that were true, then every El Nino would do the same thing. The data from satellite measurements shows a rise of 50 mm since 1995, or approximately 3 mm per year, with no significant deviation for the El Nino years (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/).
Claim: Temperature trend at Mauna Loa shows no correspondence with CO2 trend.
Answer: Actually it does, as does global temperature. Both show a consistent upward trend.
Claim: CO2 concentration rises and falls all the time.
Answer: Never this fast. A 25% rise in 50 years is unprecedented.
Claim: The increase in CO2 is natural.
Answer: No natural causes have been found for a 25% rise in CO2 over 50 years - not now, not in the past. Manmade CO2 emissions have been increasing consistently as has manmade deforestation, creating an obvious source.
Claim: CO2 is not a major factor in temperature.
Answer: In analysis of ice cores revealing global temperature and CO2 concentration, it was shown that temperature and CO2 concentrations move in tandem with each other, with changes in temperature preceding changes in CO2.
Claim: What we are seeing is similar to previous times of changing temperatures.
Answer: In the past temperature changes, changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2. Presently, the opposite is the case. Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 25% over the last five decades. If this was a normal climate change, there would have been a corresponding temperature rise sometime between 1500 and 1800 AD. There has not been.
Claim: Previous temperature cycles were caused by natural changes in CO2.
Answer: Previous temperature cycles - known as Milankovitch Cycles - were caused by changes in the earth's orbit amplified through a feedback loop. A small shift would take the earth slightly closer to the sun, the temperatures would rise slightly; as a result of which rise snow and glaciers would melt to reflect less sunlight into the sky while oceans would release more gas, and bogs and tundra would melt, releasing methane and CO2 to reflect more sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth warmer. A small shift would make the earth slightly away from the sun, more snow and glaciers would accumulate to reflect more sunlight into the sky, less gas would be released by tundra and bogs to reflect less sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth colder. In all cases, changes in CO2 took place after, not before, changes in temperature.
Claim: CO2 is only a minor factor in global warming.
Answer: On Planet Venus, where the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide, the surface temperature is 464 Celsius and the surface pressure is 92 times that of Earth. It became that way, from an original state much similar to that of Planet Earth, because carbon produced was not being absorbed and accumulated in the atmosphere to result in present conditions. On the Earth, CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Doubling the CO2 concentrationhas been computed to cause, by itself, a 3 Celsius rise in temperature - a rate which corresponds with the 0.7 Celsius rise we have seen from the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1960. This rise in temperature, if sustained, has the capacity to lead to a feedback cycle in which rising temperatures result in melting of glaciers and snow, reducing the reflection of light away from the Earth and further heating up the planet.
Claim: The Earth has been colder and hotter before.
Answer: These changes were accompanied by vast changes in ocean levels and in ecosystems. For people living now, most of whom live in low-lying areas, these changes mean vast loss of life and property. And if the feedback mechanism were to activate, the result would be disastrous.
Claim: Some places in the world are having cold spells.
Answer: Erratic weather events are very much a predicted effect of the destabilization of climate accompanying global warming. Cross-world averages show a consistent upward trend in the world's temperatures.
Claim: Carbon dioxide increase has positive effects, such as making trees and plants grow. This ameliorates the effects of carbon emissions.
Answer: This claim is based on reforestation of American Northeast over the last few decades, which has taken place because the region has had a reprieve from logging since early 20th century and has nothing to do with CO2. The forest growth in US Northeast is offset by deforestation of tropical regions. In fact carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise at a consistent rate. For the situation to ameliorate significantly through the mechanism of trees and plants growing and absorbing CO2, areas that are desert, such as the Sahara, would need to become forests, and slash-and-burn agriculture in the rainforest would have to stop. Both are feasible at current level of technology, but it actually has to be done.
Claim: People cannot affect something as vast as planet Earth.
Answer: Yes they can. Amazon rainforest alone loses the area the size of Greece every six years, and half the world's animal and plant species have been lost in the last two centuries. We are in the middle of the fastest extinction in the history of the planet, all due to human activity. The same is true for global warming.
Claim: Mammoths, termites, etc., have produced lots of methane.
Answer: Nothing coming from mammoths or termites begins to compare to the deadly double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforests that people have been doing to cause global warming.
Claim: Trees absorb carbon dioxide.
Answer: Which is why raising carbon dioxide emissions while cutting down the rainforest creates carbon dioxide with no trees to absorb it. The deforestation is making the problem worse.
Claim: The predictions of global warming are inconsistent with one another.
Answer: The 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 by 2000, along with accompanying warming of the planet, was predicted in 1950s by both American and Soviet scientists. It has come true. The change in the heat content of the oceans, and the amount of the change in the heat content of the oceans, has been confirmed precisely matching the original predictions. As to the seeming difference between other predictions, in fact there is none. There simply are many variables. Glaciers melt, ocean levels rise. Glaciers melt and re-route ocean currents, climate changes take place in areas affected by these currents. The first has happened already.
Claim: Hackers revealed that two scientists at UN were fudging data / NASA's James Hansen revised data.
Answer: That two people at UN and one person at NASA were doing wrong says nothing about a fact that was known long before these three had anything to do with it and that is affirmed not only by thousands of legitimate scientists who have nothing to do with UN or NASA but also by industry leaders who have opposed environmental agenda for decades.
Claim: Scientists have written peer-reviewed papers against global warming.
Answer: None of these scientists have been major contributors to climate science. The 700 or so papers written represent less than 5% of papers written on the subject. They have about the same credibility in the field as Richard Gardner does in psychology and Karl Marx does in economics.
Claim: Global warming is a ploy to create one world government or to create big government.
Answer: Neither is require to solve the problem. Solutions to global warming can be put into place by private sector as easily as by public sector, and with different entities doing it in different parts of the world.
Claim: Scientists at UN have made up global warming to pursue global domination by a Satanic New World Order conspiracy.
Answer: Scientists knew about global warming since 1980s. The right-wing government of the time wanted nothing to do with it, denying creation of clean-energy solutions that would have cheaply and easily solved the problem. Now, solutions will be that much more difficult, and much irreversible damage has already been done. All thanks to the American Right that denied the truth in the first place and many of whose adherents are continuing to deny it now.
Claim: Global warming is a giant hoax.
Answer: In fact, it is denial of global warming that has been a vast hoax perpetrated by Republican governments, Texas Oil, and conmen who deny the validity of science while benefiting from it daily as does everyone in the West. This problem was first predicted in 1938, gathered more evidence and predictive ability in 1950s, and was common knowledge in 1980s, when it should have been solved, cheaply and easily, through creation of high-intelligence, high-technology clean energy solutions. Instead it was denied, and now because it has been denied the world is facing great loss of life, great loss of property, and irreversible damage, none of which had to be if this problem had not been denied and been acted upon when it was discovered.
Claim: God will fix this.
Answer: People created this problem, people must solve this problem. It is not fair to ask God to clean up our mess.
Claim: There is no global warming. These are the end times.
Answer: People have choice as to what world to have, and for how long to have it. It is only the end times if you make these the end times by destroying life on earth. The stance of destroying the planet will not earn you any favor with God or with any power with any concept of righteousness. And if you continue this stance, you have everything to fear for your soul if the end times ever are to arrive.
Claim: It would be expensive to do anything about it / people would have to lose what they have.
Answer: There are technically and economically sound technologies that can provide all of people's present and much more energy needs through processes that are not destructive to the environment or are much less destructive than current technologies. Some of these technologies carry vast economic benefit, both short-term and long-term, along with their environmental benefit, while delivering greater convenience and utility than technologies of today. And these technologies can be put into place by the private sector as easily as they can be put into place by the government, resulting both in job and prosperity growth in the present and significant economic gains over the long term. This can be done without even involving the government for anything except this:
Refusing to give into lobbying by Texas Oil.
I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to know what happens when one raises carbon emissions while cutting down the trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Nor am I affiliated with UN, the Obama government or the "liberal media," but I know how much each party is superior in its values and conduct to those who want them dead. I also know enough about politics to know the extent to which right-wing conmen like to deceive people and how many people believe their rackets. So I will address some of the most common denier claims here and let the chips fall where they may.
Claim: The volume of the Antarctic ice has grown bigger.
Answer: Density of ice increases the colder it gets and decreases the warmer it gets. Increase in temperature in the Antarctic, where temperatures are extremely low, reduces the density of the ice and thus increases its volume. Not only is this consistent with global warming; it confirms it.
Claim: There is no ocean acidification/adding carbon dioxide to water does not make water acidic.
Answer: Yes it does. The reaction is CO2 + H2O -> H(+) + HCO3(-) . Water is split up and creates unattached hydrogen ions and carbonic acid. Ocean acidity has increased by 30% over pre-industrial levels, with over one third of that change in the last decade and a half.
Claim: There is no noticeable accumulation of atmospheric CO2.
Answer: Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315 parts per million to 385 parts per million from 1960 to present. That's over 25% during the last five decades.
Claim: There have been cyclical fluctuations in temperature across decades.
Answer: The amplitude of these fluctuations is much smaller than the consistent upward trend that has taken place over the last century. It is much like watching the Standard & Poors' index since 1940 and observing cyclical risk fluctuation around a consistent upward trend. Over the last century, the increase has been 0.9 Celsius. Over the last two decades, it has been 0.3 Celsius.
Claim: Since most temperature stations are in the cities, urban heat effect is responsible for these measurements.
Answer: Urban heat effect has been calculated to comprise 0.002 Celsius per decade, or 0.02 Celsius over the last century. This is a minuscule fraction of the temperature rise that has occurred, accounting for less than 3% of the total temperature rise.
Claim: Global warming is not global / is only significant in some areas.
Answer: This conclusion is based on inadequate data. In measurements 1950-present, global warming is in fact global, with warming areas covering a majority of the Earth's surface and both hemispheres (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).
Claim: Sun spot cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: Over the last 50 years, sun spot activity has decreased.
Claim: The temperature has been rising since the last Ice Age.
Answer: The total rise in temperature since its bottom during the last Ice Age, over a period of 18,000 years, has been 15 Celsius. That amounts an average rise of 0.09 Celsius per century. That compares with the rise of 0.9 Celsius over the last century, or a rise ten times faster than the average rise in temperatures since the last Ice Age.
Claim: Changes in solar radiation are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: No sustained changes in solar radiation have been detected in 60 years. What has been observed is ten-year cycles around a constant base rate.
Claim: Most heat winds up in the oceans.
Answer: That it does as well. The heat content of oceans has been shown to be rising dramatically, and at a rate confirming the predictions.
Claim: The temperature rises have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Answer: The analysis of the heat content of different ocean basins has revealed changes in heat content consistent precisely with the predicted greenhouse effects and excluding any other possible source.
Claim: A small change in the gases in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate.
Answer: Nothing is small about a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2.
Claim: Oceans are not rising.
Answer: Oceans have been rising by 1.8 mm a year for the last century and 3 mm a year in the last decade. Many low-lying areas are experiencing constant flooding, and some islands in the Pacific have already been submerged.
Claim: Sea level rise is at the same rate as over the last 2000 years.
Answer: The average rate of sea level rise for the 3000 years preceding last century was 0.1 to 0.2 mm a year. That is in contrast to 1.8 mm per year since 1900 and 3 mm per year since 1990. This rate is 9 to 10 times the 3000 year average for the last century and 15 to 30 times the 3000 year average in the last two decades.
Claim: El Nino of 1997-1998 contributed most of the recent rise in sea level.
Answer: If that were true, then every El Nino would do the same thing. The data from satellite measurements shows a rise of 50 mm since 1995, or approximately 3 mm per year, with no significant deviation for the El Nino years (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/).
Claim: Temperature trend at Mauna Loa shows no correspondence with CO2 trend.
Answer: Actually it does, as does global temperature. Both show a consistent upward trend.
Claim: CO2 concentration rises and falls all the time.
Answer: Never this fast. A 25% rise in 50 years is unprecedented.
Claim: The increase in CO2 is natural.
Answer: No natural causes have been found for a 25% rise in CO2 over 50 years - not now, not in the past. Manmade CO2 emissions have been increasing consistently as has manmade deforestation, creating an obvious source.
Claim: CO2 is not a major factor in temperature.
Answer: In analysis of ice cores revealing global temperature and CO2 concentration, it was shown that temperature and CO2 concentrations move in tandem with each other, with changes in temperature preceding changes in CO2.
Claim: What we are seeing is similar to previous times of changing temperatures.
Answer: In the past temperature changes, changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2. Presently, the opposite is the case. Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 25% over the last five decades. If this was a normal climate change, there would have been a corresponding temperature rise sometime between 1500 and 1800 AD. There has not been.
Claim: Previous temperature cycles were caused by natural changes in CO2.
Answer: Previous temperature cycles - known as Milankovitch Cycles - were caused by changes in the earth's orbit amplified through a feedback loop. A small shift would take the earth slightly closer to the sun, the temperatures would rise slightly; as a result of which rise snow and glaciers would melt to reflect less sunlight into the sky while oceans would release more gas, and bogs and tundra would melt, releasing methane and CO2 to reflect more sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth warmer. A small shift would make the earth slightly away from the sun, more snow and glaciers would accumulate to reflect more sunlight into the sky, less gas would be released by tundra and bogs to reflect less sunlight back to the earth. All of these factors in feedback mechanism would make the earth colder. In all cases, changes in CO2 took place after, not before, changes in temperature.
Claim: CO2 is only a minor factor in global warming.
Answer: On Planet Venus, where the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide, the surface temperature is 464 Celsius and the surface pressure is 92 times that of Earth. It became that way, from an original state much similar to that of Planet Earth, because carbon produced was not being absorbed and accumulated in the atmosphere to result in present conditions. On the Earth, CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere. Doubling the CO2 concentrationhas been computed to cause, by itself, a 3 Celsius rise in temperature - a rate which corresponds with the 0.7 Celsius rise we have seen from the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1960. This rise in temperature, if sustained, has the capacity to lead to a feedback cycle in which rising temperatures result in melting of glaciers and snow, reducing the reflection of light away from the Earth and further heating up the planet.
Claim: The Earth has been colder and hotter before.
Answer: These changes were accompanied by vast changes in ocean levels and in ecosystems. For people living now, most of whom live in low-lying areas, these changes mean vast loss of life and property. And if the feedback mechanism were to activate, the result would be disastrous.
Claim: Some places in the world are having cold spells.
Answer: Erratic weather events are very much a predicted effect of the destabilization of climate accompanying global warming. Cross-world averages show a consistent upward trend in the world's temperatures.
Claim: Carbon dioxide increase has positive effects, such as making trees and plants grow. This ameliorates the effects of carbon emissions.
Answer: This claim is based on reforestation of American Northeast over the last few decades, which has taken place because the region has had a reprieve from logging since early 20th century and has nothing to do with CO2. The forest growth in US Northeast is offset by deforestation of tropical regions. In fact carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise at a consistent rate. For the situation to ameliorate significantly through the mechanism of trees and plants growing and absorbing CO2, areas that are desert, such as the Sahara, would need to become forests, and slash-and-burn agriculture in the rainforest would have to stop. Both are feasible at current level of technology, but it actually has to be done.
Claim: People cannot affect something as vast as planet Earth.
Answer: Yes they can. Amazon rainforest alone loses the area the size of Greece every six years, and half the world's animal and plant species have been lost in the last two centuries. We are in the middle of the fastest extinction in the history of the planet, all due to human activity. The same is true for global warming.
Claim: Mammoths, termites, etc., have produced lots of methane.
Answer: Nothing coming from mammoths or termites begins to compare to the deadly double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforests that people have been doing to cause global warming.
Claim: Trees absorb carbon dioxide.
Answer: Which is why raising carbon dioxide emissions while cutting down the rainforest creates carbon dioxide with no trees to absorb it. The deforestation is making the problem worse.
Claim: The predictions of global warming are inconsistent with one another.
Answer: The 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 by 2000, along with accompanying warming of the planet, was predicted in 1950s by both American and Soviet scientists. It has come true. The change in the heat content of the oceans, and the amount of the change in the heat content of the oceans, has been confirmed precisely matching the original predictions. As to the seeming difference between other predictions, in fact there is none. There simply are many variables. Glaciers melt, ocean levels rise. Glaciers melt and re-route ocean currents, climate changes take place in areas affected by these currents. The first has happened already.
Claim: Hackers revealed that two scientists at UN were fudging data / NASA's James Hansen revised data.
Answer: That two people at UN and one person at NASA were doing wrong says nothing about a fact that was known long before these three had anything to do with it and that is affirmed not only by thousands of legitimate scientists who have nothing to do with UN or NASA but also by industry leaders who have opposed environmental agenda for decades.
Claim: Scientists have written peer-reviewed papers against global warming.
Answer: None of these scientists have been major contributors to climate science. The 700 or so papers written represent less than 5% of papers written on the subject. They have about the same credibility in the field as Richard Gardner does in psychology and Karl Marx does in economics.
Claim: Global warming is a ploy to create one world government or to create big government.
Answer: Neither is require to solve the problem. Solutions to global warming can be put into place by private sector as easily as by public sector, and with different entities doing it in different parts of the world.
Claim: Scientists at UN have made up global warming to pursue global domination by a Satanic New World Order conspiracy.
Answer: Scientists knew about global warming since 1980s. The right-wing government of the time wanted nothing to do with it, denying creation of clean-energy solutions that would have cheaply and easily solved the problem. Now, solutions will be that much more difficult, and much irreversible damage has already been done. All thanks to the American Right that denied the truth in the first place and many of whose adherents are continuing to deny it now.
Claim: Global warming is a giant hoax.
Answer: In fact, it is denial of global warming that has been a vast hoax perpetrated by Republican governments, Texas Oil, and conmen who deny the validity of science while benefiting from it daily as does everyone in the West. This problem was first predicted in 1938, gathered more evidence and predictive ability in 1950s, and was common knowledge in 1980s, when it should have been solved, cheaply and easily, through creation of high-intelligence, high-technology clean energy solutions. Instead it was denied, and now because it has been denied the world is facing great loss of life, great loss of property, and irreversible damage, none of which had to be if this problem had not been denied and been acted upon when it was discovered.
Claim: God will fix this.
Answer: People created this problem, people must solve this problem. It is not fair to ask God to clean up our mess.
Claim: There is no global warming. These are the end times.
Answer: People have choice as to what world to have, and for how long to have it. It is only the end times if you make these the end times by destroying life on earth. The stance of destroying the planet will not earn you any favor with God or with any power with any concept of righteousness. And if you continue this stance, you have everything to fear for your soul if the end times ever are to arrive.
Claim: It would be expensive to do anything about it / people would have to lose what they have.
Answer: There are technically and economically sound technologies that can provide all of people's present and much more energy needs through processes that are not destructive to the environment or are much less destructive than current technologies. Some of these technologies carry vast economic benefit, both short-term and long-term, along with their environmental benefit, while delivering greater convenience and utility than technologies of today. And these technologies can be put into place by the private sector as easily as they can be put into place by the government, resulting both in job and prosperity growth in the present and significant economic gains over the long term. This can be done without even involving the government for anything except this:
Refusing to give into lobbying by Texas Oil.
We must support solar and renewable energy resources,to keep our planet clean for future generations(www.twitter.com/hlmelsaid)
Having dealt with deniers of global warming, who have in many cases been highly aggressive and unprincipled, I have come up with a quick checklist of what one needs to say if faced with a denier of global warming. The following are responses to some of the claims I have heard.
Claim: What's wrong with Siberia becoming 2 degrees hotter?
Answer: Very small proportion of the world's population lives in cold climates, whereas billions live in hot climates. For vast portion of the world's population, global warming means floods, hurricanes, destruction of cities and farmland, and vast loss of life and property.
Claim: Some places in the world are having cold spells.
Answer: Erratic weather events are very much a predicted effect of the destabilization of climate accompanying global warming. Cross-world averages show a consistent upward trend in the world's temperatures.
Claim: Mammoths, termites, etc., have produced lots of methane
Answer: Nothing coming from mammoths or termites begins to compare to the deadly double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforests that people have been doing to cause global warming.
Claim: Trees absorb carbon dioxide.
Answer: Which is why raising carbon dioxide emissions while cutting down the rainforest creates carbon dioxide with no trees to absorb it. This carbon dioxide then goes into the oceans, where it makes them acidic and kills the fish, and into the atmosphere, where it reflects the sun's rays bouncing off the earth's surface back to the earth, causing the earth to become hotter.
Claim: A small change in the gases in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate.
Answer: There are many factors that, if changed even a little, would not make possible for life or even universe to exist. The world is exquisitely balanced and can be thrown off balance by very minor changes. And nothing is minor about the vast rise in emissions of carbon gases combined with vast rainforest deforestation.
Claim: Earth has been hotter and colder before.
Answer: At no time in the past was there as much human population as there is now. The heating of the world - along with disastrous erratic climate events brought on by global warming - will result, and already result, in vast loss of life and property, which the previous cycles did not. The accompanying acidification of the oceans and rising of ocean waters compounds the problem.
Claim: Sun spot cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: Sun spot cycles do not begin to explain why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in 800,000 years, nor do they begin to explain why oceans are turning to acid. Double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and rainforest deforestation does.
Claim: Natural warming and cooling cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: As previous.
Claim: People cannot affect something as vast as planet Earth.
Answer: Yes they can. Amazon rainforest alone loses the area the size of Greece every six years, and half the world's animal and plant species have been lost in the last two centuries. We are in the middle of the fastest extinction in the history of the planet, all due to human activity. The same is true for global warming.
Claim: Hackers revealed that two scientists at UN were fudging data.
Answer: That two people were doing their work incompetently says nothing about a fact that was known long before these two people had anything to do with it. and that is affirmed not only by scientists who have nothing to do with UN but also by industry leaders who have opposed environmental agenda for many decades.
Claim: Scientists at UN have made up global warming to pursue global domination by a Satanic New World Order conspiracy.
Answer: Scientists knew about global warming since 1980s. The right-wing government of the time wanted nothing to do with it, denying creation of clean-energy solutions that would have cheaply and easily solved the problem. Now, solutions will be that much more difficult, and much irreversible damage has already been done. All thanks to the American Right that denied the truth in the first place and many of whose adherents are continuing to deny it now.
Claim: God will fix this.
Answer: People created this problem, people must solve this problem. It is not fair to ask God or Gaia or any other agency to clean up our mess.
Claim: There is no global warming. These are the end times.
Answer: People have choice as to what world to have, and for how long to have it. It is only the end times if you make these the end times by destroying life on earth. The stance of destroying the planet will not earn you any favor with God or with any power with any concept of righteousness. And if you continue this stance, you have everything to fear for your soul if the end times ever are to arrive.
Claim: Global warming is a giant hoax.
Answer: In fact, it is denial of global warming that has been a vast hoax perpetrated by Republican governments, Texas Oil, and conmen who deny the validity of science while benefiting from it daily as does everyone in the West. This problem was known in 1980s, and it should have been solved, cheaply and easily, in 1980s, through creation of high-intelligence, high-technology clean energy solutions. Instead it was denied, and now because it has been denied the world is facing great loss of life, great loss of property, and irreversible damage, none of which had to be if this problem had not been denied and been acted upon when it was discovered.
Claim: It would be expensive to do anything about it / people would have to lose what they have.
Answer: No, people would not have to lose what they have. In fact, there are technically and economically sound technologies that can provide all of people's present and much more energy and water needs through processes that are not destructive to the environment or are much less destructive than current technologies. Some of these technologies carry vast economic benefit, both short-term and long-term, along with their environmental benefit, while delivering greater convenience and utility than technologies of today. And these technologies can be put into place by the private sector as easily as they can be put into place by the government, resulting both in job and prosperity growth in the present and significant gains in efficiency over the long term.
Claim: You can talk the talk, what are you doing to walk the walk?
Answer: Working with an inventor of a technically and environmentally beneficial technology called the Hydrogen Transmission Network.
Hydrogen Transmission Network site:
http://www.adda-enterprises.com/HTNwebsite/home.htm
Comprehensive site addressing arguments of global warming deniers: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Claim: What's wrong with Siberia becoming 2 degrees hotter?
Answer: Very small proportion of the world's population lives in cold climates, whereas billions live in hot climates. For vast portion of the world's population, global warming means floods, hurricanes, destruction of cities and farmland, and vast loss of life and property.
Claim: Some places in the world are having cold spells.
Answer: Erratic weather events are very much a predicted effect of the destabilization of climate accompanying global warming. Cross-world averages show a consistent upward trend in the world's temperatures.
Claim: Mammoths, termites, etc., have produced lots of methane
Answer: Nothing coming from mammoths or termites begins to compare to the deadly double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforests that people have been doing to cause global warming.
Claim: Trees absorb carbon dioxide.
Answer: Which is why raising carbon dioxide emissions while cutting down the rainforest creates carbon dioxide with no trees to absorb it. This carbon dioxide then goes into the oceans, where it makes them acidic and kills the fish, and into the atmosphere, where it reflects the sun's rays bouncing off the earth's surface back to the earth, causing the earth to become hotter.
Claim: A small change in the gases in the atmosphere cannot affect the climate.
Answer: There are many factors that, if changed even a little, would not make possible for life or even universe to exist. The world is exquisitely balanced and can be thrown off balance by very minor changes. And nothing is minor about the vast rise in emissions of carbon gases combined with vast rainforest deforestation.
Claim: Earth has been hotter and colder before.
Answer: At no time in the past was there as much human population as there is now. The heating of the world - along with disastrous erratic climate events brought on by global warming - will result, and already result, in vast loss of life and property, which the previous cycles did not. The accompanying acidification of the oceans and rising of ocean waters compounds the problem.
Claim: Sun spot cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: Sun spot cycles do not begin to explain why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than in 800,000 years, nor do they begin to explain why oceans are turning to acid. Double-punch of uncontrolled carbon emissions and rainforest deforestation does.
Claim: Natural warming and cooling cycles are responsible for the climate change.
Answer: As previous.
Claim: People cannot affect something as vast as planet Earth.
Answer: Yes they can. Amazon rainforest alone loses the area the size of Greece every six years, and half the world's animal and plant species have been lost in the last two centuries. We are in the middle of the fastest extinction in the history of the planet, all due to human activity. The same is true for global warming.
Claim: Hackers revealed that two scientists at UN were fudging data.
Answer: That two people were doing their work incompetently says nothing about a fact that was known long before these two people had anything to do with it. and that is affirmed not only by scientists who have nothing to do with UN but also by industry leaders who have opposed environmental agenda for many decades.
Claim: Scientists at UN have made up global warming to pursue global domination by a Satanic New World Order conspiracy.
Answer: Scientists knew about global warming since 1980s. The right-wing government of the time wanted nothing to do with it, denying creation of clean-energy solutions that would have cheaply and easily solved the problem. Now, solutions will be that much more difficult, and much irreversible damage has already been done. All thanks to the American Right that denied the truth in the first place and many of whose adherents are continuing to deny it now.
Claim: God will fix this.
Answer: People created this problem, people must solve this problem. It is not fair to ask God or Gaia or any other agency to clean up our mess.
Claim: There is no global warming. These are the end times.
Answer: People have choice as to what world to have, and for how long to have it. It is only the end times if you make these the end times by destroying life on earth. The stance of destroying the planet will not earn you any favor with God or with any power with any concept of righteousness. And if you continue this stance, you have everything to fear for your soul if the end times ever are to arrive.
Claim: Global warming is a giant hoax.
Answer: In fact, it is denial of global warming that has been a vast hoax perpetrated by Republican governments, Texas Oil, and conmen who deny the validity of science while benefiting from it daily as does everyone in the West. This problem was known in 1980s, and it should have been solved, cheaply and easily, in 1980s, through creation of high-intelligence, high-technology clean energy solutions. Instead it was denied, and now because it has been denied the world is facing great loss of life, great loss of property, and irreversible damage, none of which had to be if this problem had not been denied and been acted upon when it was discovered.
Claim: It would be expensive to do anything about it / people would have to lose what they have.
Answer: No, people would not have to lose what they have. In fact, there are technically and economically sound technologies that can provide all of people's present and much more energy and water needs through processes that are not destructive to the environment or are much less destructive than current technologies. Some of these technologies carry vast economic benefit, both short-term and long-term, along with their environmental benefit, while delivering greater convenience and utility than technologies of today. And these technologies can be put into place by the private sector as easily as they can be put into place by the government, resulting both in job and prosperity growth in the present and significant gains in efficiency over the long term.
Claim: You can talk the talk, what are you doing to walk the walk?
Answer: Working with an inventor of a technically and environmentally beneficial technology called the Hydrogen Transmission Network.
Hydrogen Transmission Network site:
http://www.adda-enterprises.com/HTNwebsite/home.htm
Comprehensive site addressing arguments of global warming deniers: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
As economic gloom and doom continues to spread, both the policy makers and private enterprise are overlooking a viable, feasible way to lift the economy in the present and to realize vast savings over the long term.
What if I were to tell you that there is presently a technology that will allow people to have limitless, convenient, guiltless, on-demand water and energy through a process that does not create toxic waste, does not destroy anything irreplaceable, does not pollute, and does not harm the environment?
What if I were to tell you that this technology has been successfully reviewed by scientists and found not only technologically feasible, but economically viable as well?
What if I were to tell you that this technology can be for 21st century what electricity was for the 20th?
The technology is Hydrogen Transmission Network (http://www.adda-enterprises.com/HTNwebsite/home.htm). Solar power will drive electrolysis of ocean water, breaking it into component hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen will be released into the air or bottled and sold; hydrogen will be sent through special glass-coated pipes, monitored by a network of sensors and valves, to every home, every farm, every shopping center, every office building, every industrial installation, to react safely with oxygen in the air, creating clean energy and clean water at once.
Conveniently, on-demand, abundant, affordable, and totally harmless to the planet.
Hydrogen Transmission Network will allow people to have all the water and energy they have now and much more, in a way that is totally harmless to the environment. It will facilitate vast economic growth as it is put into place and vast savings over the long run as two unwieldy infrastructures - the electric grid and the water delivery system - are replaced with a single seamless network of hydrogen pipes. Instead of relying on its present mixture of coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric installations, the hydrogen infrastructure will need, depending upon the size of the market, one or several oceanside electrolysis plants as its source. And the delivery mechanism, instead of the present high-voltage lines that waste the bulk of electricity that goes into them, will be hydrogen pipes that are next to lossless and that will for that reason realize vast economic savings, especially in transmission over long distances.
Hydrogen Transmission Network will also remove the burden on freshwater resources, which are in many places inadequate or running out, and tap into the water of the ocean, which is in no risk of running out anytime in the foreseeable future. The water taken from the ocean will be matched by the water created in the reaction and then recycled into the environment. Hydrogen Transmission Network will make it possible to irrigate areas that are now desert, creating fertile farmland to feed the growing population and forestry to absorb atmospheric CO2. And through a process that not only lets you have everything you have now, but makes it possible to have still more.
Other solutions (clean coal; nuclear; solar; geothermic) are piecemeal, and most have negative side effects such as nuclear waste or unanticipated seismic activity. Hydrogen Transmission Network is a complete solution and delivers two sets of utilities - water and energy - at the price of one. It is feasible using present technologies, and is without negative side effects, either to the economy or to the planet. Instead, it stands to be the basis of a sustainable growth that will take the economy and the technology into the new millenium - delivering all the utility of the present technologies and much more, while doing away with their destructive side effects.
A solution to economic crisis; a solution to energy crisis; a solution to water depletion, unsustainable carbon emissions, and poisoning of the environment; all in one.
Hydrogen Transmission Network.
The integrated energy and water solution for the new millenium.
What if I were to tell you that there is presently a technology that will allow people to have limitless, convenient, guiltless, on-demand water and energy through a process that does not create toxic waste, does not destroy anything irreplaceable, does not pollute, and does not harm the environment?
What if I were to tell you that this technology has been successfully reviewed by scientists and found not only technologically feasible, but economically viable as well?
What if I were to tell you that this technology can be for 21st century what electricity was for the 20th?
The technology is Hydrogen Transmission Network (http://www.adda-enterprises.com/HTNwebsite/home.htm). Solar power will drive electrolysis of ocean water, breaking it into component hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen will be released into the air or bottled and sold; hydrogen will be sent through special glass-coated pipes, monitored by a network of sensors and valves, to every home, every farm, every shopping center, every office building, every industrial installation, to react safely with oxygen in the air, creating clean energy and clean water at once.
Conveniently, on-demand, abundant, affordable, and totally harmless to the planet.
Hydrogen Transmission Network will allow people to have all the water and energy they have now and much more, in a way that is totally harmless to the environment. It will facilitate vast economic growth as it is put into place and vast savings over the long run as two unwieldy infrastructures - the electric grid and the water delivery system - are replaced with a single seamless network of hydrogen pipes. Instead of relying on its present mixture of coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric installations, the hydrogen infrastructure will need, depending upon the size of the market, one or several oceanside electrolysis plants as its source. And the delivery mechanism, instead of the present high-voltage lines that waste the bulk of electricity that goes into them, will be hydrogen pipes that are next to lossless and that will for that reason realize vast economic savings, especially in transmission over long distances.
Hydrogen Transmission Network will also remove the burden on freshwater resources, which are in many places inadequate or running out, and tap into the water of the ocean, which is in no risk of running out anytime in the foreseeable future. The water taken from the ocean will be matched by the water created in the reaction and then recycled into the environment. Hydrogen Transmission Network will make it possible to irrigate areas that are now desert, creating fertile farmland to feed the growing population and forestry to absorb atmospheric CO2. And through a process that not only lets you have everything you have now, but makes it possible to have still more.
Other solutions (clean coal; nuclear; solar; geothermic) are piecemeal, and most have negative side effects such as nuclear waste or unanticipated seismic activity. Hydrogen Transmission Network is a complete solution and delivers two sets of utilities - water and energy - at the price of one. It is feasible using present technologies, and is without negative side effects, either to the economy or to the planet. Instead, it stands to be the basis of a sustainable growth that will take the economy and the technology into the new millenium - delivering all the utility of the present technologies and much more, while doing away with their destructive side effects.
A solution to economic crisis; a solution to energy crisis; a solution to water depletion, unsustainable carbon emissions, and poisoning of the environment; all in one.
Hydrogen Transmission Network.
The integrated energy and water solution for the new millenium.
Every stop to ask yourself why you are a Democrat? This may seem an obvious question to some, but it isn't for me. I would say I am a Democrat, because I agree with the majority of the Democratic platform. I am a great supporter of the President more over, because I firmly believe in his priorities.
Currently the Senate budget committee is making a concerted effort to not fund these priorities in the upcoming budget plan. They are on TV telling me that is not the case, but frankly that is a crock of shit. Funding for health care reform is either a direct line item in the budget, or it isn't. Right now they are in the process of saying it isn't. Funding for energy reform, cap and trade, and education reform are either line items or they are not. Right now they are removing them as direct line items. They are claiming that this is just a disagreement on deficit spending, but I don't believe any of it. This is the same special interests writing legislation, that we have seen every time these issues begin to get addressed. Read More »
Currently the Senate budget committee is making a concerted effort to not fund these priorities in the upcoming budget plan. They are on TV telling me that is not the case, but frankly that is a crock of shit. Funding for health care reform is either a direct line item in the budget, or it isn't. Right now they are in the process of saying it isn't. Funding for energy reform, cap and trade, and education reform are either line items or they are not. Right now they are removing them as direct line items. They are claiming that this is just a disagreement on deficit spending, but I don't believe any of it. This is the same special interests writing legislation, that we have seen every time these issues begin to get addressed. Read More »
Appeared on iReports used in CNN's news coverage
Dear President Obama,
I welcome you as our new president. I would like to assist you in redirecting Americans toward a bright new future. I feel you must inspire people into believing that the future is bright. And it is! It is bright if you show us the wisdom of making a National Security move to decentralize our energy sources. We need to offer interest free loans to building owners in this country to convert their buildings into energy sources instead of energy consumers.
This new effort to become energy independent, reduce global warming, and revitalize our economy is timely and incredibly important. All of these outcomes could be achieved in your first term if you use the creativity and energy of our citizens to cause this to occur.
When FDR shifted our focus towards developing hydroelectric energy and national park improvements we responded and a new economy developed around tourism. It is now time to lead us toward homes which are energy producers. We have the ability to make this change in paradigm. We only need to be focused. That is what our leadership does for us. You focus us toward an end goal.
We the people of the United States have no desire to continue the old economy. It was based upon an energy which will soon do serious damage to our planet and its atmosphere if we continue to use it. We must make a shift away from fossil fuels. When making this major shift from an oil based economy to a renewable energy economy, we need to have our focus renewed frequently. This is what leadership is all about and I can see clearly that you have that skill.
Thank you for what you do.
Al Jesse
Roth: Wind power excellent source of energy
OPINION
by Jim Roth
Guest Columnist March 2, 2009
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recID=96396
“Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains” – when writing that famous line in the song Oklahoma!, who knew that Rodgers and Hammerstein were talking about wind energy? Truth be known, at the time they wrote the song neither had even been to Oklahoma. However, their characterization was very accurate and still is today. Oklahoma has now found a way to harness the wind as it sweeps down the plains and turn it into usable, clean energy in the form of electricity. Read More »
OPINION
by Jim Roth
Guest Columnist March 2, 2009
http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recID=96396
“Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains” – when writing that famous line in the song Oklahoma!, who knew that Rodgers and Hammerstein were talking about wind energy? Truth be known, at the time they wrote the song neither had even been to Oklahoma. However, their characterization was very accurate and still is today. Oklahoma has now found a way to harness the wind as it sweeps down the plains and turn it into usable, clean energy in the form of electricity. Read More »
Companies, such as General Electric, should start producing smaller residential/commercial wind turbine and solar systems in mass quantity.
These wind/solar units/systems would be tailored for the various climate regions in the U.S..
They would be installed on as many residential housing and commercial units as possible at their cost. General Electric could start with their own employees and retirees (a great new benefit).
Instead of our Federal government sending us a small stimulus check, the checks would go to the companies building and installing these energy systems. Of course, there would be an over-sight agency.
Instead of massive wind turbine systems being installed by a few select companies; these smaller systems would be installed and maintained by locally trained businesses (create jobs).
The manufacturer retains ownership of the system, and therefore maintains it at their cost. This forces the companies to produce efficient and quality systems.
These new wind/solar systems would have a battery or ? storage system in each residence/business. Excess energy production would be sent back to the power grid, but instead of the residential or business owner receiving credit or money, it would go to the wind/solar manufacturer to help pay for new technology/reduce costs, earn profits.
The residential/business owner doesn\\\'t get a free ride. Their energy usage profile is determined from their past year\\\'s energy bills/costs. A free system doesn\\\'t mean they can exceed their energy usage. In fact, after a year\\\'s time, the residental/commercial owner would have to reduce their energy usage, say by 5-10% each year after up to 50% (or more). How? By taking their energy savings and up-grading their appliances, using electricity to heat water or to cook with (reduces coal, oil, and natural gas consumption). Increasing the efficiency of their home/business insulation, heating and cooling systems, etc. All creating or sustaining manufacturing and trade jobs.
The residence/business becomes energy independent (or nearly). Less energy (created by our dependence on oil, etc.) is being consumed, our energy systems virtually pay for themselves after time, creating jobs and economic profit.
This is no joke!!!
Michael R. Reilly
(First posted on my Facebook Profile 2/25/09)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=699893845&ref=profile#/profile.php?id=699893845&ref=profile
These wind/solar units/systems would be tailored for the various climate regions in the U.S..
They would be installed on as many residential housing and commercial units as possible at their cost. General Electric could start with their own employees and retirees (a great new benefit).
Instead of our Federal government sending us a small stimulus check, the checks would go to the companies building and installing these energy systems. Of course, there would be an over-sight agency.
Instead of massive wind turbine systems being installed by a few select companies; these smaller systems would be installed and maintained by locally trained businesses (create jobs).
The manufacturer retains ownership of the system, and therefore maintains it at their cost. This forces the companies to produce efficient and quality systems.
These new wind/solar systems would have a battery or ? storage system in each residence/business. Excess energy production would be sent back to the power grid, but instead of the residential or business owner receiving credit or money, it would go to the wind/solar manufacturer to help pay for new technology/reduce costs, earn profits.
The residential/business owner doesn\\\'t get a free ride. Their energy usage profile is determined from their past year\\\'s energy bills/costs. A free system doesn\\\'t mean they can exceed their energy usage. In fact, after a year\\\'s time, the residental/commercial owner would have to reduce their energy usage, say by 5-10% each year after up to 50% (or more). How? By taking their energy savings and up-grading their appliances, using electricity to heat water or to cook with (reduces coal, oil, and natural gas consumption). Increasing the efficiency of their home/business insulation, heating and cooling systems, etc. All creating or sustaining manufacturing and trade jobs.
The residence/business becomes energy independent (or nearly). Less energy (created by our dependence on oil, etc.) is being consumed, our energy systems virtually pay for themselves after time, creating jobs and economic profit.
This is no joke!!!
Michael R. Reilly
(First posted on my Facebook Profile 2/25/09)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=699893845&ref=profile#/profile.php?id=699893845&ref=profile
Obama to announce environment, energy team
By Deborah Charles Deborah Charles
45 mins ago [Dec 14th, 2008 at 5:35 pm EST]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081214/pl_nm/us_usa_obama
CHICAGO (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama, who has vowed to adopt an aggressive approach to global warming and the environment, will hold a news conference on Monday to announce his picks to lead the effort.
Obama will hold a news conference at 5 p.m. EST on Monday to talk about "the nation's energy and environmental future," his transition office said on Sunday.
At the news conference Obama is expected to name Nobel physics laureate Steven Chu as his energy secretary and former Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner as the head of a new council that will coordinate White House policy on energy, climate and environment, Democratic sources have said.
Obama is also expected to announce he has chosen Lisa Jackson, the chief of staff for New Jersey's governor, to run the EPA and Nancy Sutley, a deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. ...
Obama has said energy and environmental matters would be important to his administration, and he wants to spend billions of dollars to promote alternative energy sources and create millions of green energy jobs.
News of who would make up Obama's energy and environment team began trickling out last week and the choices were applauded by environment groups.
The team will be charged with developing policies to reduce carbon emissions blamed for global warming. They will also work on developing new sources of energy and creating new jobs. ...
Read More »
This was initially my recommendations starting back in April 2008.
1.The American Manufacturing Credit
2.Global Warming Reduction Act.
3.Home Purchase Credit
4.Savings and Investment Provision
5.Capital Gains and Losses Equity Provision
6.Alternative Energy Development Provision
7.Global Warming Reduction Act.
8.Oil and Gas Exploration provision
9.$5.00 barrel tariff on imported OPEC oil
10.Iraq War Debt Reduction Act Read More »
1.The American Manufacturing Credit
2.Global Warming Reduction Act.
3.Home Purchase Credit
4.Savings and Investment Provision
5.Capital Gains and Losses Equity Provision
6.Alternative Energy Development Provision
7.Global Warming Reduction Act.
8.Oil and Gas Exploration provision
9.$5.00 barrel tariff on imported OPEC oil
10.Iraq War Debt Reduction Act Read More »
The campaign schedule has been pretty intense over the last week and will continue to be so until the BIG day on Tuesday, November 4th. I want to congratulate everyone for putting so much effort into this year's election, not just for an individual campaign, but for the entire Democratic ticket. I've seen people in every community throughout the 5th district working to make sure the message is getting out.
I want to remind everyone it is important that we finish strong. Don't take anything for granted, ignore the polls and work like the polls show our candidates 5 points down. Remember, while all indications show Barack Obama will be our next president, if we believe the polls, Al Gore would be concluding his second term or we would be working to re-elect President John Kerry right now. Read More »
I want to remind everyone it is important that we finish strong. Don't take anything for granted, ignore the polls and work like the polls show our candidates 5 points down. Remember, while all indications show Barack Obama will be our next president, if we believe the polls, Al Gore would be concluding his second term or we would be working to re-elect President John Kerry right now. Read More »
There is a chicken egg problem with energy independence. There are vast energy sources from wind, solar, and wave located in states that are distant from energy consumers. No one wants to invest in building generation if there is no way to transmit the electricity in bulk to customers in distant locations. No one wants to build the transmission without the generation capacity that could utilize it.
With the Fed having expended nearly all its bullets in the form of rate cuts, all eyes are on Congress to for a massive fiscal stimulus that would inject $300 billion into the economy so that we will not slip into a deep depression that will cost the country trillions in lost GDP. Lots of ideas on how to blow that much money. Lets take a moment and think about actually getting something back for our money. Rather than pay the money out as tax rebates (why send the money back via Wallmart to China?), we could pay for a national electricity transmission grid capable of moving electricity in bulk from coast to coast. The project would be massive, along the lines of Eisenhower's construction of the national system of freeways. Large number of construction, steelworkers, and linemen will be required.
The benefits are multiple. This is not a make work project- we clearly all understand by now that relying on our own energy means we will stop hemorrhaging money to pay for energy from outside the US.
More importantly, the project will pay for itself. By surcharging electricity transmitted on this national grid, the system will be made to pay for itself within a decade. That means 300 billion need not be added to the national debt.
The requirements for building the massive number of towers- the steel and aluminum cabling required will require a Herculean effort from our industry. It will generate a million jobs short term.
After the November election, let's put Congress back to work and ramrod through a bill to build the National Electrical Transmission Grid.
Included must not just be authorization for the money, but authorize the federal project to override the authority of state and regional agencies to hamstring or otherwise delay the project. This is an interstate commerce issue with economic recovery and national security implications. Nothing must be allowed to stand in its way.
Department of Energy (CERTS) report "Our National Transmission System Today and Tomorrow"
Cleveland.com article "Transmission grid limits wind power's potential"
Both the Republican candidates claim that the VP nominee has energy experience because Alaska produces nearly 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. They both have made this claim several times on the campaign trail. First of all, even if this were true, which it is not, this fact does not qualify the Republican VP as an energy expert any more than the fact that she can see Russia from her front door qualifies her as a foreign policy expert.
Alaksa's share of domestic energy production was 3.5% according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And as far as all the energy CONSUMED in the U.S. and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4%
AGAIN WE THE PEOPLE, WITH OUR ECONOMY IN THE HOLE THAT IS, SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ELECTING TWO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DO ANY BETTER THAN THIS WITH NUMBERS AND/OR BASIC TRUTH TELLING. THE LAST THING WE NEED IN OFFICE ARE DUMB AND DUMBER--MORE OF THE SAME.
source:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
The promise of new jobs is one of the main points for transitioning the US economy toward self-sufficiency. "Green Jobs" as they are called, are going to power the new economy. This all depends on how and what information you might be looking at of course.
Manufacturing jobs are highly subject to energy costs and labor costs. Where labor and energy can be had for less, the likelihood those jobs can move elsewhere is highly probably as we've seen in the past few decades. Service and engineering jobs that are location dependent are more likely to endure.
It is without debate that the nuclear energy industry will continue to expand and advance, if not in the United States, then elsewhere in the world. An adversarial business atmosphere toward nuclear energy will prompt the industry to do what all global businesses do -- go where the money is.
It would be a great tragedy indeed if the recent tide of change in the nuclear industry was reversed and America's intellectual base for nuclear energy was lost to China and France.
The recent article in USA News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/08/14/the-new-hot-job-nuclear-engineering.html) covers the resurgence of nuclear engineering students in universities. This is encouraging news as it shows that young people now see the potential of nuclear energy to contribute toward a thriving economy and career opportunity.
The article makes this point in closing:
Even if the American nuclear renaissance isn't fully realized, universities have a role to play in the burgeoning global market for nuclear energyâ€"a force even the U.S. political machine can't stop. The United States still has some of the best training in nuclear safety standards of any country in the world, and foreign students comprise almost 50 percent of the enrollment in some U.S. engineering departments. These international students are expected to return home with some of world's top training.
In my opinion that is the whole point of the article. We must recognize that peaceful civilian nuclear energy is here to stay. The less we understand, accept, and embrace that reality, the more economic uncertainty and loss of scientific credibility we will risk.
Manufacturing jobs are highly subject to energy costs and labor costs. Where labor and energy can be had for less, the likelihood those jobs can move elsewhere is highly probably as we've seen in the past few decades. Service and engineering jobs that are location dependent are more likely to endure.
It is without debate that the nuclear energy industry will continue to expand and advance, if not in the United States, then elsewhere in the world. An adversarial business atmosphere toward nuclear energy will prompt the industry to do what all global businesses do -- go where the money is.
It would be a great tragedy indeed if the recent tide of change in the nuclear industry was reversed and America's intellectual base for nuclear energy was lost to China and France.
The recent article in USA News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/08/14/the-new-hot-job-nuclear-engineering.html) covers the resurgence of nuclear engineering students in universities. This is encouraging news as it shows that young people now see the potential of nuclear energy to contribute toward a thriving economy and career opportunity.
The article makes this point in closing:
Even if the American nuclear renaissance isn't fully realized, universities have a role to play in the burgeoning global market for nuclear energyâ€"a force even the U.S. political machine can't stop. The United States still has some of the best training in nuclear safety standards of any country in the world, and foreign students comprise almost 50 percent of the enrollment in some U.S. engineering departments. These international students are expected to return home with some of world's top training.
In my opinion that is the whole point of the article. We must recognize that peaceful civilian nuclear energy is here to stay. The less we understand, accept, and embrace that reality, the more economic uncertainty and loss of scientific credibility we will risk.
Sarah Palin requisitioned quite a bit of money for Alaska's aerial shooting of wolves program. According to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, she is an enemy to animals there.
Posts