Commentary By Ron Beasley
I have wasted more virtual white space mocking David Brooks during my blogging career than I should have. So what was I to think when he produced a reasonable column today? He begins by comparing the quest for carbon-less energy to the public-private partnership to build the transcontinental railroad. Not a bad analogy. He correctly points out that this partnership had plenty scandals, fraud and pork but in the end was worth it He thinks alternate energy development is the transcontinental railroad of our time.
To remain the world�s pre-eminent nation, the U.S. is going to have
to develop energy sources that are plentiful, clean and don�t enrich the
worst people on earth. That means in the short term, the U.S. has to
unleash the tens of billions of dollars of potential energy investments
now being pent up by uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. To make a
difference in the long term, the U.S. is going to have to invest more
and differently in energy research and development.Technology
companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of revenue on research and
development. Energy companies, on the other hand, spend only one-quarter
of 1 percent. The federal government spends $30 billion on health
research, but only $3 billion on clean energy research.It�s
clearly going to take legislative action to catalyze private investment
and to increase federal research to where it should be � about $25
billion a year, according to Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution.
It�s going to take some equivalent of the Pacific Railroad Acts to kick
this into gear.The best vehicle now is the American Power Act,
drawn up by John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. The bill, like
all politically plausible bills these days, is larded with
special-interest provisions and public giveaways to defuse opposition
and win votes. But it does perform a few essential tasks. To boost
innovation, it raises the price on carbon and devotes some of that money
(though not nearly enough) to research and development.
Yes a conservative sees the wisdom of big government as a catalyst. I only wonder if the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe served as a catalyst for David Brooks. I suspect he knows there will be no more deep water exploration for years - long after the impact of peak oil is felt.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
Good find.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of Rand Simberg's vision of the future of space exploration.
I like it.
I've been making my way through the book about solar and wind power recommended by a commenter a week or two ago. I'm learning a lot, but mostly I'm getting energized by the accessibility and practicality of it all. This electricity grid stuff is really exciting.
Ever since I read that line about some electricity being too cheap to meter and Simberg's assertion that liquid oxygen is as cheap as milk my point of view is getting whiplash.
Technologically, this is an exciting time to be alive. It's time we all got weaned from fossil fuels.
(And I think the president knows it. When he continues to speak of offshore drilling he's just looking for Texas votes and making yet another appeal for bipartisanship, knowing the sun is setting on oil-based empires.)
Jeeze...
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of being one of those warming deniers... I would like to address the problem in a way that I rarely see.
if it is warming or not...
Before we as a nation invest BILLIONS to resolve this "problem" we should make sure that first it is a problem that we can resolve, second, that if we can resolve this problem will the cure be better than the disease, and third, obviously there will be winners and losers in the global warming theater, Pacific Islanders, probably losers, Canadian farmers, probably winners. Increased CO2 levels will surely increase plant growth world wide, and lowering them will have the opposite effect. Starvation is a real possibility in many places, and reducing plant growth will make that problem worse.
When the Environmentalists were ranting about the benefits of ethanol in gas, I never heard that the increased price of corn would produce malnutrition world wide, but it did.
IT is time we changed the debate, not threw cash at it.
Abu,
ReplyDeleteIncreased CO2 levels will not accelerate plant growth. It's true that plants love CO2, but it is not a simple equation of more CO2=bigger plants. That's a handy little myth that people who know nothing about plants like to toss out.
CO2 supplementing works wonders when done perfectly, but it requires the right amount of additional CO2 (too much is bad for plants) applied at the right time in conjunction with the right nutrients being present and the proper soil biota also being present to receive the CO2 and trade it for processed nutrients.
The few good studies that have been done indicate that there isn't enough nitrogen around for the CO2 rises improve plant growth thesis to work as advertised. And drawing the free nitrogen from the atmosphere to add it is a fuel costly process.
In short, not hardly.
Lex, thanks for giving it the old college try but I doubt Abu will be back. His comment strikes me as coming from one who talks more than he reads or listens. I referred to his comments (both here and at another post) in the first item of my Weekend Reading this morning. His mindset illustrates a couple of interesting points.
ReplyDeleteNot coming back??
ReplyDeleteAh, he attacks an example of POSSIBLE advantages of global warming, and, you jump on the bandwagon, thinking you have discounted ALL.
The idea of my post was that we are not focusing on pluses and minuses of any action or inaction.
You must have been one of those guys who thought banning DDT was a good idea. Sure saved the brown pelican... of course it killed hundreds of thousands of children in Africa from malaria as with DDT ban also banned insecticide paint... BUT YOUR kid did not die, right?
The list of possible environmental dangers I keep hearing about could and has filled books. Not a single one makes a list of possible winners and losers, but all suggest the problem MUST BE SOLVED.
It is this sample assbackwards thinking from "silent spring" readers that has me TOTALLY skeptical of the seriousness of the threat of global warming.
And... by the way... in collage I did indeed increase CO2 levels and increased plant growth in my sample. The N argument is for unfertilized fields, not indicative of modern highly productive farming techniques.
I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a more environmentally friendly way to protect humans from malaria is to provide a malaria net to sleep under. This is a rather low tech approach and yet some prefer to use nerve poison.
ReplyDeleteAbu, you sound like a real moron.
I am a moron?
ReplyDeleteAGAIN you did not broach the main point of the post.
And I do live in a third world country, where there is malaria. And sleeping nets sort of work while you sleep, but if you are not sleeping, they are fairly ineffective. Even so when I wake under my sleeping net, there always seem to be a few mosquitoes trying to get OUT.
DDT sprayed on walls lasts over 10 years. Mosquitoes have a habit of resting on walls after they feed, and then the DDT gets them, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
DDT was cheap enough for even the poorest places to have mass home spraying programs, and wipe Malaria OUT.
I seriously doubt you have seen a 6 year old while she dies from malaria. To put it in terms I think you can understand, Malaria is famous because it is a horrific, crippling, PAINFUL, disease.
You are a typical Moron who sees Environmental ideas as new and progressive, and anybody who can't be new and progressive, can't be environmentally active.
I personally know children who suffer from protein deficiency, fairly directly from the decision of the US government to produce ethanol for cars instead of food for the worlds poor. This single act doubled the price of corn in the Philippines and Africa. Corn is used to feed animals, so, the price of animal protein also doubled.
I suggest it was guys like you who felt it OK to go "renewable" and screw those babies in the third world, because, "my kids eat well".
So go back to your toast and jam, but please stop taking cheep shots at those on the front lines of the hard life that 60% of the world lives.
Abu Farsi