What energy policy

Unintended Consequences......

Most often there are unintended consequences to what we do. The folllowing is a summary of what these will be if the nations of the world continue to go forward with their efforts to curb what is commonly known as Global Warming.

First, lets review some of beliefs shared by many:

1. We are running out of the two, most valuable natural resources which drives worldwide economies, oil and coal.

2. There are alternatives to both oil and coal "just around the corner".

3. Nuclear power should not be part of any effort to meet our future energy needs

4. Human activity causes global warming and must be addressed.

These beliefs are enough to begin with, and all can be challenged.

Are we running out of oil and coal? If we go back no further than three decades there were claims we would run out of oil by the year 2000. Yet, today we have projections greater then we had at that time.

And, most recently Shell Oil raised its projection of oil in the Gulf of Mexico by 50%. So many of these last projections are proved wrong, yet it doesn't stop the continued understating of the amount of natural resources the planet holds or the advances in technology which allow for the discovery of oil in areas once thought to be dry, or the processes which allow for the extraction of oil from shale.

Are there alternatives "just around the corner"? Not hardly, and perhaps not even in the distant future. First, the internal combustion engine has been with us for over one hundred years, and despite the efforts to come up with a better alternative we are still dependent on it, and the oil which keeps it running.

Consider this. Since Henry Ford produced his first car, the Wright brothers took flight at Kitty Hawk, Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic, radar and television were invented, planes traveled faster than the sound barrier, development of the atomic bomb, large computers, launched a satellite to let us "see" the world, landed man on the moon, launched a space shuttle, created the personal computer, created entire cities in areas where no life could previously survive, allow instant access to a world of knowledge with the development of the Internet, and finally, provided billions of people wireless communication with cell phones.

All the above was accomplished in the same century we have been unable to find an efficient and affordable replacement for the gasoline engine.

Why the aversion to nuclear power? This has puzzled me considering the advances in safety and the forty year record of success, especially in Europe. Even the debate over how to handle nuclear waste can be tossed aside as France and Germany have demonstrated with their ability to recycle it .

Additionally, with such a clamor to reduce coal emissions, which incidentally is the primary source of electric power, nuclear power is the perfect, better and cleaner alternative. So I remain puzzled, but lean towards blaming the adamant objections of environmentalists who resist going nuclear.

Do humans really contribute to global warming? First, we need to know for certain, is there global warming, or is it global cooling, take your pick. But, if we are smart we'd pick BOTH! Because there is climate change!

How can there not be? Look at all the elements which effect our climate. The Earth traveling at a speed of 180,000 miles per hour, a moon traveling around the Earth causing tides in the oceans. A Sun, providing varying temperatures, depending on the proximity to the Earth. These factors alone have caused dramatic changes during the four and half billion years the Earth has been alive; a "life" which until recently
(10,000 years) had not had human inhabitants.

But, to say there is now global warming, and WE are responsible, and only we can make a measurable and significant difference is fantasy.

Now, lets turn to the subject, "unintended consequences"

As the world is poised to go forward in the battle against global warming perhaps its time to envision the "tomorrow" billions of people will have to live due to the decisions being made today.

Where to begin? Well how about the dismissal of the natural resources we are so anxious to not look towards to meet our future energy needs. The longer we resist the exploration and recovery, the greater the cost, with no equivalent alternative to replace them.

Additionally, most of the under developed nations of world will pay the highest price, they will continue to be found wanting for the energy sources the West has enjoyied for decades. How much longer must they wait?

Or the accelerating demands of both China and India with the two largest populations. There growth will not subside, continuing to stretch the current existing natural resources. And neither country will have an interest in "going green", and will meet their demand with out-dated technologies.

And let's imagine a world no longer dependent on foreign oil. As much as we complain how the Arab states have a stranglehold on us, what would happen in these countries if their single-product economy died? What of the nearly one billion people in the Middle East and elsewhere, how would they make their living? Would these nations fall into anarchy, overthrowing their governments, perhaps increasingly blaming the West for the state of their nations, even to the point producing a new wave of terrorist attacks?

And of less concern, but important none the less would be the millions of workers currently employed in the oil and coal industries, and the suppliers dependent upon them. Have they been considered in the calculation. Would there be enough clean energy jobs for them?

And, what of the revenue received in taxes on gasoline? Where will the lose of this revenue come from? Although some states are already beginning to tax people who purchased more efficient cars, cutting the amount of gas will now be required to pay a "mileage tax" if they drive more miles than govt sets.
I'm sure others can add to this list of what could occur as we proceed to address our energy needs with an honest, comprehensive effort, not merely one embraced by 'poltical warming', rather than global.