Normally I do this on Sunday or Monday, but this has been an extraordinary week in many ways.
This QOTW comes from an unexpected and surprising source. When I read it, I realized that it describes what we witnessed today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
“When the strategic interest of the nation and the world is so clear, can a few gluttons with a few bucks really drive our policy? Does this great country not have better leadership than that?”
Guess who said it? Don’t be tempted to click through right away, think about it a bit.
Who said it?
NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, in a personal essay written on the evening of June 25th.
Dr. Hansen’s latest has seen little notice due to the intense media coverage of the deaths of celebrities followed by the Waxman Markey bill in the house today.
He may not have intended those words to be relevant to today’s situation, as it was written in the context of coal in West Virginia. However, they seem prescient now.
Read his latest missive here (PDF).
Looking at his essay written the evening before, ( Thursday at 4:55PM EST, I checked the document properties) I wonder if Dr. Hansen even thought about today’s vote at all?
Here’s a man writing about himself, the day before “historic” climate legislation, much of it due to what he started in an address to congress on June 23rd, 1988, and all he thinks about is coal in West Virginia and describing his experience there?
Odd.
Back to science tomorrow. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Murray writes, “So now we are starting to do the right things, even if for the wrong reason. Any reason that gets things moving in the right direction is good by me. Failing to address paek energy will really have dire economic consequences.”
I think your lecture is off the mark. This bill does not address peak energy regarding which there’s much hysteria. Newer methods and sources of hydrocarbon fuels are not allowed in this ill-conceived bill. The bill does not encourage nuclear energy as a source of electricity for yet undeveloped electric cars. This bill is simply a revenue enhancement and expansion of govt control where certain industries and corporations with campaign contributing lobbyists rule and reward their captive congresscritters.
Dennis (07:05:47) :
Click on TIPS & NOTES TO WUWT at the top of the page.
All contact details there.
Geoff Sherrington
Seems to me that “old school scientists” have been remarkably reluctant to publicly enter the debate on “smart alect” climate science. Rather, as always, the scientific community has circled the wagons around the charlatans among it by refusing to directly confront their obviously political agenda and their flawed “science”. Still, better late than never.
“bonus extra”
What was the bonus QOTW that this is the bonus extra to? 😉
Gerard, maybe you could answer the question, ” Why is the earth’s temperature going down, while Co2 is going up”?
Murray Duffin wrote: “…So now we are starting to do the right things, even if for the wrong reason. Any reason that gets things moving in the right direction is good by me. Failing to address peak energy will really have dire economic consequences.”
The free market place will have a much better approach for doing this than any government could ever have – particularly with the current crop of clowns in control of congress.
Murray Duffin, your claims of peak this and peak that are the opposite of what every geologist I have ever spoken to say. Did you just make these up or are you parroting what someone has told you? Methinks your basic assumptions are not based on fact. An economy that is destroyed will have NO hope of finding a reasonable alternative energy source that is not subsidized up the whazoo. I would love to see a clean alternative energy source, but we have to use the little known or understood theory of common sense to achieve it.
This is not an energy bill. It will only make energy more expensive, and us more dependent on unreliable power sources.
This is not a climate bill. It will not effect the global climate at all.
This is a tax bill. It is the largest tax increase in world history. It does what every informed person knows is wrong: It raises taxes during a time of economic weakness.
This bill, if it becomes law, will not get us going in any direction but the wrong direction.
I notice that these American boondoggles typically are paired, as in “Smoot-Hawley” and “Waxman-Malarkey”. Is there some procedural reason for this or is it simply a case of needing two representatives with half a brain each to make a complete bill?
Schoolyard stuff.
Paul Coppin:
No one would responsibly assert that any two American politicians are possessed of as much as half a brain, particularly a pair including Henry “Meerkat” Waxman.
Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 25 thousand dollars for every attack against Israelis. After 9/11, I did not want to wait until a second suicide attack to find Saddam was paying 250 thousand dollars for every attack against America.
And that’s the reason for wasting trillions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of young men? Not counting all the innocent Iraqi civilians and the huge damage done to that country. That’s real smart. I can see why the AGW-hoax means so much to you.
WMD-hoax didn’t gas the Kurds, actual WMD’s did. Where were the WMD ’s when allied troops went in? Maybe the Iranians and Kurds had inhaled all of the WMD ’s?
I don’t know, ask someone at Halliburton, Blackwater or some other company that has ripped the American people off big time.
Consider that the purveyers of AGW are also the same bunch who brought us “Bush Lied”.
If Ameria woud have been all it’s cranked up to be wrt freedom and democracy, Bush and many, many others would be in prison right now, liberal as well as GOP.
The Iraq War was an inevitability. If Gore had been President, the Iraq war would have still happened — and we would already be eight years into Cap and Trade.
No war is inevitable, except when people get fooled by war profiteers. But you’re right about one thing though: It doesn’t matter who the president is in a corporatocracy.
I’m sorry for straying off-topic. Let’s all go back to investing our time and energy in fighting the AGW-hoax to protect our freedom to consume.
Neven (12:15:57) :
“Let’s all go back to investing our time and energy in fighting the AGW-hoax to protect our freedom to consume.”
Anthony’s got a tip jar. Pony up smart guy.
Hank (10:19:20) Care to elaborate?
Don S. (10:59:15) :
“meerkat”?
How, exactly, did we get someone derailing the thread into yet another anti-Bush anti-Iraq festival of half-truths???
Come on, nev-palidrome… you HAVE to be able to do better than that. You’ve simply repeated all of the half-true leftist talking points. Can you possibly add anything unique, interesting, OR accurate?
Just a couple of responses:
Markets do a lousy job of anticipating real shortages. They tend to project the past into the future. Sometimes society is better served by government intervention. In this case serendipity is providing some of the right actions, even if for the wrong reasons.
I agree we need more support of nukes, but don’t expect that to happen w/o a crisis, because of 30 or so years of anti-nuke agitation, most of which was ill-advised.
David Ball & Peak oil – no I am not ill informed. It is a subject I have followed closely since 1998, and have researched extensively. If a geologist is not sufficiently informed in this area, he would probably be no better able to address the subject than another layman. What background did your geologists have? What did they know abiut the history and status of Ghawar, or Cantarell, or the global USA reserves history and status, or tarsands production rates or Brazil deepwater developments, or – I could go on and on and could bore you for hours with the details. Sorry David, but you are not picking on a parrot. My conclusions (not assumptions) are based on haed fact.
If you want to get up to speed, read the last 2 or 3 years of http://www.theoildrum.com, as the easiest and most complete single source to access. It will take you some weeks, but I reckon your assured skepticism will take quite a beating. Murray
Even assuming the ‘peak’-this or ‘peak’-that theories are correct, saying we are at or close to the peak means we’ve got about as much of this or that left as we had to get there, unless ‘peak’ is supposed to mean that the supply simply vanishes overnight. On the contrary, it just costs more to get, which of course makes alternatives (either better ‘getting’ technology, like drilling sideways for oil, or new resources, like creating oil from algae) more attractive. The market is much better at making such decisions than government bureaucrats (not to mention politicians as ignorant as Wax-for-brains and Mass-Malarky).
‘Peak’ hypotheses completely neglect human technological ingenuity, which has been increasing exponentially with the population (maybe it won’t if the neo-Luddites succeed in pulling the plug on civilization). For a terrific disquisition on ‘peak’ and ‘sustainable’ foolishness, see E. M. Smith’s blog (he is a frequent contributor here):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
/Mr Lynn
So are there 100 people that read his Manifesto?
I noticed the part where he tries to use children as human shields. If we don’t obey, our children will die. The kids near the silo also are near dead according to him.
Hansen is starved for attention and his stunt really had bad timing. Watching a pretty lady die in Iran is more relevant than Hansen the exhibitionist trenchcoat wearing geek doing his stunts.
Murray Duffin, help me to understand what you think I am sceptical of. I don’t know if theoildrum.com helped to solidify your argument that we are running out of this or that (shades of Erlich). If it isn’t drilled for I can assure you we will run out. But that is really what is wanted, no? Earth would be a great place to live if it wasn’t for all these people. Or did I miss something?
Murray Duffin (08:02:14) : “Almost everything done to curb CO2 also helps with using energy more effectively and efficiently, or supports development of fossil fuel alternatives.”
How can you say that with a straight face? We have in my own area a coal company promoting “clean coal”, which means they intend to pump the CO2 back deep in the ground. In the process they will wreck the best farming land in Australia and thereby put the food problem into even starker relief. Doing this will require the burning of 30-40% more coal for the same energy, meaning the even faster use of fossil energy. In case you are unaware, ‘clean’ coal is a major growth area and a major new revenue raiser for the coal industry.
CodeTech wrote:
Come on, nev-palidrome… you HAVE to be able to do better than that. You’ve simply repeated all of the half-true leftist talking points. Can you possibly add anything unique, interesting, OR accurate?
What is half true of 3000 American soldiers losing their lives (and one million other persons)? What is half true about the Iraq War costing a little less than 1 trillion of US taxpayer dollars? What is half true about contractors making vast profits based on fraud and corruption?
Please open your eyes and when you have done so: How long will it take for the CO2 farce to attain this amount of wasting the US taxpayer’s money, not to mention all those lives? Assuming that all of AGW is a hoax, which no one can say for sure. I dare not ask, but: What if it isn’t a hoax?
Reply: I was considering editing this, but let’s stop with the Iraq war discussion now please ~ charles the moderator.
Mr. Lynn, Mr. Smith’s arguments are generally right qualitatively, but note that he quantifies nothing. Yes, on average about 65% (range about 20% to 80%) is left in the ground, but all sorts of advanced technologies so far only recover a very small fraction of that, and only at very low flow rates. Good recovery rates might be 3% of original peak flow. Yes in principal the “Hubbert” curve is roughly symetrical, assuming Hubbert period technology. Using new technology, like MRC wells assures, a very asymetrical curve with post peak drop off much faster than prepeak rise. Yes it may be 150 years before supply in old technology peak fields goes to zero, but it can go to 70% of peak in less than 3 years. Post peak decline rates of individual fields are frequently 10% per year or greater. Actual global decline rates of todays producing fields is expected to be about 5%/yr. Can we adjust at that rate without a crisis? I doubt it. Can we adjust? Probably yes, but it will be much better if we start adjusting now.
The problem we face is that oil and NG prices are likely to go to 3 to 5 times what they are now, in the near future, ie before 2012, (at least for North America), and stay there. That is like a major tax increase and can throw a recovering economy into a prolonged recession, or worse. Anything we can do now to mitigate that situation is desireable.
Ron House – I said “almost everything”. You may find one exception, but I seriously doubt if sequestering CO2 underground will have any negative effects on farms. In North America, the major use of sequestration today is to provide tertiary recovery from depleted oil fields.
The simplistic or ill-informed, or misinformed comments above are to peak oil and NG, as the religious warmers are to AGW. You guys deride the AGW true believers, and make the same profession of faith against peak oil. Murray
Murray Duffin, what about the Bakken deposit? That has just become accessible in recent years. What am I basing on faith? You seem to want to maintain that Co2 is a bad thing. To me, that is the crux of what we are discussing. You do a lot of arm waving. Why sequester Co2 at all? Have you read anything on this site? It is you who has to do a lot of pride swallowing and it is your denial that Co2 does NOT drive climate change that is what is at issue. Attempts at distraction from the issue is typical. You have leapt passed a couple of steps. One of the steps being that Co2 drives climate change. There is little evidence to support this as a main driver. Do not attempt to dismiss me as misinformed. I will state again that your basic assumption (regarding Co2 and peak oil ) are where the misinformation and faith lie. You still have not shown your professions to be more than faith based. And you have not answered any of my points. You seem to have been educated beyond your intellect.
David Ball – Please read my comments carefully. I have never suggested that CO2 is a problem, or needs to be sequestered. I am saying that the only effective ways to reduce CO2 are energy efficiency, energy conservation, and nuclear or renewable alternatives to fossil fuel. We will need all of these to deal with the impending fossil fuel energy crisis, so if a belief in the need to reduce CO2 is what is needed to get these advances going, then lets address CO2. It won’t do any harm, and energy-wise will do a lot of good. Opposing this misdirected motivation is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sequestration is pretty much a side issue, that is not needed energy-wise, except maybe to slow the decline of oil slightly, but does not have to be harmful.
The Bakken is a nice area to develop, but the total amount (EUR) of oil is quite small in world terms, and the rate of recovery will never be great. It will make a small contribution to slowing declines. It has been known for a long time, but has not been worthy of attention until oil prices got high.
I don’t know what I didn’t address. The problem is that “it costs more to get it”, and even at greater cost the amount you get will be in decline. Both oil and NG are very inelastic. Very small changes in the supply/demand balance (like 3%) cause very large price swings (like 2-3X). Greatly increased energy costs, happening quickly, will have severe economic consequences and dislocations. The market will help getting things back in balance after the fact, but acting on knowledge before the fact, to mitigate the worst of the market’s swings, would be good policy, and will not happen w/o government intervention. The climate change bill will provide many of the right actions in advance, even if for the wrong reason. Therefore it is a good idea to support the bill. The forecasts of economic doom from eg “cap and trade” are not based on any sound knowledge. In fact “cap and trade” simply provides a new market mechanism to make the market more effective in driving the necessary actions. We do have a good prior instance of forecasts of doom from a similar mechanism proving to be dead wrong. The USA is grossly inefficient energy-wise, and can get more efficient quite quickly. In general, for corporations, efficiency improvements have quite quick economic paybacks. Cap and trade will encourage such actions. Having been the corporate VP for energy efficiency, among other responsibilities, in a $5B/yr multinational corporation and a consultant for 20+ other factories, and having guided efficiency improvemments of 30% plus with economic paybacks under 3 years for the necessary investments, I know whereof I speak, regardless of your also misguided and groundless opinion of my intellect. Ad hominems seem to be the last resort of those who cannot sustain a discussion.
Oh yeah, – how is your belief that the market will manage things, and your apparent belief that there is no impending oil shortage not “faith based”? Your unwillingness to believe that I am well informed and intellectually capable also must be faith based, since you don’t know me, and won’t sustain a discussion without insults.
Are you the David Ball – Author, or the David Ball – Damages expert, or just David Ball. I couldn’t find any references suggesting that you have expertise in the areas you are insulting me over.