This one? No, that one... or, maybe this one?
If you replace one finite source of energy (oil based fuel) with other finite sources of energy (natural gas, coal) are you solving the problem or simply passing it on to future generations?
If you replace sources of energy (oil, coal) that are proven to damage the environment with another source of energy (nuclear power) that has the potential for total destruction of the environment are you solving the problem or simply jumping out of the frying pan into the fire?
If you replace one source of energy (oil) that has the ability to wreak havoc on the economy with another source of energy (food based ethanol) that not only has the ability to wreak havoc on the economy but also to endanger the food supply of the world, are you solving the problem or simply making it worse?
If, on the other hand you replace finite, environmentally damaging, and economically destabilizing, sources of energy (oil,, coal, natural gas, nuclear power) with non-finite, environmentally friendly, and economically sound, sources (solar and wind) would you not be moving toward an actual solution to the problem?
Before considering the true value of any of the proposed “solutions” there are many questions that need to be asked. First and foremost is the necessity of examining the possible motives of those proposing the solutions and the possible unintended consequences of implementing them.
What is the potential for profit for the Proposer? The greater the potential for profit, the stronger and smoother the persuasive rhetoric will be and the more it needs to be questioned.
Making a profit is the American way but, given human nature, the likelihood of greed and manipulation creeping in needs to be carefully considered. We have the example of the lengths to which oil companies have gone, without regard for anyone or anything including the health of our planet, to encourage our country’s addiction to oil so they could continue to reap huge profits. It would be the height of stupidity to ignore the same possibility for those who are promoting off-shore drilling, natural gas, the expansion of the nuclear industry and so called “clean” coal.
If off-shore drilling is a solution, then why are the oil companies not drilling on the millions of acres of oil leases they already have. Even as a stop gap measure, expanding the off-shore drilling leases doesn’t make sense. How does further degrading of our environment help our environment?
Natural gas deposits are profitable but finite so while they may offer a viable transitional energy source, this option should not be allowed to detract from the development of more permanent solutions.
The existing waste from nuclear power has still not been dealt with successfully and its potential to poison our earth for generations to come is well known but is either ignored or pooh poohed by the Proposers in the industry.
Isn’t ‘clean’ coal an obvious oxymoron? Been there, done that; remember cave-ins, respiratory diseases, dirty air, soot? There is no way that this is a feasible solution as an alternative fuel and it sure seems like profit is the prime motivator for the Proposers of this energy source.
What are the possible side effects of the proposal? Think of every “what if” situation you can possibly imagine. The fewer negatives brought out by the Proposer, the more important this is.
Remember how many of us thought using corn to make ethanol sounded like a great idea – good for the environment, good for farmers, good for reducing oil dependency and on and on. The reality is very different and this “solution” turned out to be anything but. As a help for the environment – not so much; as a help to some farmers, yes, but a great harm to others raising animals for food; and it has contributed to rising food prices and food shortages world wide.
The lack of foresight shown in rushing into this so called solution is a clear indicator that Washington doesn’t know its head from a hole in the ground when it comes to solving the problems we face. We, the people, cannot just sit back and let them, urged on by those with dollar signs in their eyes, continue to lead us down one erroneous path after another. It is time for the people to listen to the “real” experts and insist that our elected officials do the same.
It is “life as we know it” that is at stake here. Anyone who thinks they can just sit it out and someone else will take care of things is in for a rude awakening. If we don’t get off our duffs and get involved we are all going to be living in the desert, no matter where we are.
Comments
Very timely blog Trish; so many questions about energy, and so much urgency (more than most know)!
This is a 49er comment I recently had published:
This was just one aspect of the present energy crisis, namely high gasoline prices, and how offshore drilling isn’t going to correct them anytime soon. I had no space to mention the desperate need for alternative fuel sources.As I see it, considering the high cost of drilling, the long time before there is any return, and the ongoing environmental effects of fossil fuels, the real issue should be WHEN alternative fuels will become available, NOT whether or not to drill offshore and in Anwar for more of the same. The fact that we enter the 21st Century, still dependent on oil as an energy source is gross dereliction of duty by Homo sapiens. Specifically I blame the oil companies and their greed and selfishness, and the governments that have allowed them to monopolize the energy industry. As a race we have utterly failed to commit to real energy policies as needed, not simply as profitable. We should have made it a priority to be off fossil fuels long before now. It is a testimony to the insanity and disharmony of our race that we are not.
We need to start thinking as a planet of people, not in terms of corporate profits. Sure, we live in a capitalistic society and world, and profit motivates productivity, yada, yada, yada, but profits will do no one much good, if and when nations crumble for lack of cheap energy, or the planet becomes uninhabitable due to climate change, exacerbated by the pollution of fossil fuels.
The fact that world supplies of oil will inevitably diminish and disappear in the not so distant future, especially with exponentially increasing demands by nations like China and India, makes it paramount that new energy sources not be talked about, but developed, and FAST. We don’t have the money or time to waste on drilling more oil that won’t be available as fuel for another 5-10 years, and which won't ultimately be enough to make a huge difference. We desperately need different, viable and cheap energy sources; that is where the resources need to go. How many times does this have to be stated before even the rich and powerful realize we are on the brink of losing civilization as we know it? It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the breakdown of society that will result when there is no more oil, and no viable and affordable substitute. The inevitability of the ultimate energy crisis approaches more rapidly than most care to admit. The time to act is now. Screw profits, we are facing basic issues of survival as a civilization (I don’t believe that even the very rich want to live in a society riddled with anarchy and chaos).
How nice it would be for everyone around the world to wake up some time soon and realize that the problems that face us cannot be solved by war and profits, but only by peace and harmony among people and nations. In lieu of that, I fear the dark will become much darker before the dawning of the new day. Sigh!
Posted by: Stephen | July 30, 2008 10:33 AM
Well said, Stephen. There is only one thing you said that I’m not sure about. .You said,”I don’t believe that even the very rich want to live in a society riddled with anarchy and chaos.”
I’m not sure that the very rich give a hoot how the rest of the world lives. They believe their wealth will enable them to live in comfort (even if they have to do it in fortress like abodes), regardless of what is going on with the rest of humanity. Or, at least, it seems that is what they believe.
The power of their wealth has made them arrogant and self-satisfied with the false security of feeling superior. It would probably take nothing less than a French Revolution type uprising of the common people to convince them their money cannot protect them. Just look around the world at the number of countries where there are two classes – the very wealthy and the very poor. The wealthy live in luxury and have everything they want. What goes on outside the walls of their homes seem not to bother them one whit. And the poor barely survive.
All the recent talk about reviving the space program and the possibility of building colonies on Mars makes me wonder. Do you suppose the wealthy think they can just continue on their merry way and then move to Mars after they finish making this planet uninhabitable? (Smile)
Posted by: Trish | July 30, 2008 05:50 PM
You could be right about the rich not caring, but you do have to wonder how much quality their money will purchase if there is no one to do all the little chores they now hire out, and no one to manufacture all the luxuries they enjoy. And do they really want to live in domes or underground if and when the climate goes crazy? I think they might survive, but not with the quality their money now gives them.
As to referencing the French Revolution, is it to late to go after the guillotine consortium? And, sending them to Mars works for me! Of course we aren't even close to colonizing that planet. The events of which we speak will occur long before that is possible. It actually surprises me that the space program is so far behind the visions of the Sci Fi authors. Perhaps that is the price of war, instead of peacetime endeavors.
Posted by: Stephen | July 30, 2008 06:33 PM