Our Misery is Gore Crowd Happiness

[dude1394]

Anything that has a reference to Ayn Rand always gets my interest. Maybe a stretch, but the stupidity of this energy bill isn't.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....9/1007/OPINION

Ayn Rand could not possibly have known how prophetic her novel, Atlas Shrugged, would be when it was published 50 years ago. Or, could she?

This landmark piece of literature foretold a United States where an ever-intrusive and expanding government begins to smother productivity and shutter the doors of entrepreneurship. Innovators, creators and producers are driven to destroy their own works rather than turn them over to the vultures who have taken over the government.


I was reminded of Rand's classic as President Bush and members of Congress recently gathered for the signing of the new energy bill. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is less about energy and more about control. The most ambitious projections by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy predict it will cut our energy consumption by a whopping 7 percent by 2030.

Yet, it forces products and standards on the American public that could not be achieved in the free market. For instance, it forces automobile manufacturers to increase average fuel economy to 35 mpg by 2020. This mandate will include light trucks, which means your pickup and SUV, heretofore exempt, will now be subject to higher mileage standards. According to J.D. Power & Associates, SUVs, pickups and minivans make up about 60 percent of auto sales. Hybrids' market share is just under 3 percent. People apparently like the safety and comfort of a larger ride, all of which will be sacrificed with higher mileage standards. But it doesn't much matter what you want.

The new bill also mandates a fivefold increase in biofuels like ethanol, which will continue to drive up the price of corn as energy and food interests compete. I drive a flex-fuel vehicle that uses ethanol. I'm all for it but, again, the market should decide, not the government.

This so-called energy bill also bans most incandescent lightbulbs by 2012. The incandescent lightbulb is replaced — by force, not by choice — with the compact fluorescent lightbulb. Right now, the market share of these CFLs is about 6 percent, and there's a reason for that. They produce dim, dull light. Roughly 94 percent of the country doesn't want them, but that doesn't matter to our nanny-state government. We're going to use them whether we like it or not.

The Associated Press recently reported Al Gore has finished the "green" modifications on his Belle Meade mansion. After all that work, he has managed to reduce his energy consumption by an anemic 11 percent. That still puts him at over 10 times the amount of monthly usage compared to the average Nashville home.

Ironically, Gore uses those CFLs in his home. According to a comparison of NES bills, Al and Tipper use almost four times the power my family of five uses; yet, their home got the Green Building Council's gold certification, and mine didn't. Of course, Mr. Gore has a company set up where he can pay himself carbon offsets to clear his conscience.

It seems the underlying theme of radical environmentalism is sacrifice. They genuflect at the altar of self-immolation while the rest of us celebrate having climbed to the top of the technological food chain. While we marvel at our advanced civilization, they cram into their hybrids to go lobby Congress, all the while claiming to be "progressive.'' News flash: Dimmer lights and less-safe automobiles are not progress.

Ultimately, what Ayn Rand was trying to convey in Atlas Shrugged is that we have a fundamental right to be happy, if we so choose. This runs counter to today's radical environmentalists who believe one must actually be miserable to truly be content.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

By reading this comment you can see that the costs of energy in the USA are still much too low, same for gas. But let´s wait and see how you´re mindset will be, if the costs reach European level.

I know that the Americans have much longer ways to their workplaces, so why are they driving the big cars (SUV´s, Trucks,...) at all, only because they are more convenient? There are many other cars, which are a little smaller, but also convenient. And there are very safe smaller cars too. USA is worst in international compare of accident statistics. For example in the USA die about far more than the double amount of traffic participants per 1 million habitant, than in Germany! Do you need the big loading space? No doubt about, that quite a few do (farmer, hunter,...), but not all. Is it a status symbol? What is it?

If you watch the American advertising and read all the rants against energy saving technologies, you receive the impression that Americans are not able to live without Trucks and SUV´s (and Fast Food; I like Fast Food ). By the way, wouldn´t it be nice to drive those cars with more efficient engines?

I think it´s because the gas (taxes) and the cars are such cheap. Nice for you, but don´t come with the excuse that the gas (tax) has to be cheap, because of the long drive to the workplaces. Take a smaller one and save money at purchasing, driving and besides do something for the environment by now. After all you will notice, that driving a big car is not necessary for survival (even concerning safety; see above), once the prices for gas will increase in the future, and no doubt they will, even in America.

As I wrote many times before, cars are not that important to reduce CO2 emission, as they only have a little fraction of the total CO2 emission and there are many other and more promising fields to do that. I don´t know why Americans always leap at cars concerning this topic? Must be the mindset.

That, to increase the share of bio fuel is not good, I can agree with. Better use it (corn) for food, as to operate all existent cars with bio fuel is not possible anyway (bulk, cultivation area). Although there are some good bio fuels like bio gas, gained from ferment of biological waste (e.g. sewage).

At the part of CFL´s, it must be clarified if the author (and lawmaker) means energy saving lamps by CFL´s. If not, this regulation is nonsense anyhow. Otherwise, I can tell you that there are energy saving lamps with bright light and also with different (even warm) color temperatures available for a long time ago. And as an energy adviser I can promise, that you will save a lot of costs for electricity and that the extra charge to normal light bulbs will amortize in less than a year! So don´t fear to buy them. To dictate the people to buy them is certainly another thing. I don´t like it either and it´s useless in my opinion, as by increasing energy costs, the people would decide by their own, to buy them.

To Gore´s house. What is bad at decreasing the energy consumption for about 11 percent? I didn´t get it? What will the author tell us in this part of his rant?
Will he ban wealthy people from owning big houses. Of course, a bigger house with many residents (also attendants), will consume more energy. What´s the point here? If a big house will decrease the energy consumption by 11 percent or a small one, the proportion is the same. By the way to save about 11 percent energy for a house is not that hard to archive. From my work, I know it´s possible to save up to 70 percent (as well for small houses) and 11 percent is easy and without major investments to obtain.

[dude1394]

Maybe our guvment could mandate these cars as well. As long as they are picking winners and losers in the market place, might as well put the big 3 out of business as well.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber...-2500-new-car/

Tata Motors in India plans to roll out a model in June that gets 58.8 MPG and costs only $2,500 new.

“I am a six footer and it’s spacious both in the front and in the rear. In terms of acceleration, it is equivalent to a Maruti 800 and has an incredible design finished by indigenous Tata Motors’ engineers,” said RA Mashelkar, a company official.

Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said his company may import the car into the United States and Europe.

But even without Nissan, this is a good development.

As the 2.3 billion people of India and China rise into middle-class standards, they will be buying products and befouling their areas. Already tens of Chinese cities are among the most polluted on Earth. If they can learn the lessons that were learned by Americans and Europeans, they will be that much better off.

Besides, it will get them private transportation a lot quicker than $20,000 cars will.

Mashelkar told the India Times: “It will create a paradigm shift in low-cost transport and the whole world is looking forward to a car that efficiently runs 25 km on a litre of petrol and offers international specifications. These kind of fuel-efficient cars will be in demand as pollution is on the rise, climates are changing and fossil fuels are running out. People are looking at a new global eco-car and I have a feeling that this can be the new eco-car not only in the country but elsewhere — in other countries. I feel a sense of pride that it will be manufactured in India.

“In a bid to reduce weight of the car, Tata Motors’ engineers have used more plastics. The car does not use too many bolts which also helps in reducing weight. Instead, it’s all a new kind of welding — a new technology altogether.”

The Times of India story is here. The story about Nissan distributing the car is here. Hat tip: AOL.

[dude1394]

This may be the first time I've seen the cost of what Gore and co. want us to do summed up.

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/...-and.html#more

The Reality and Dangers of AGW

On occasion I write about various aspects of the Anthropogenic Global Warming controversy. I try to take a scientific approach to the discussion and am quite convinced that the proponents of an impending AGW catastrophe do not currently have the weight of the evidence on their side; nor is there a scientific consensus that "man-made global warming" is a crisis. The effect of human derived CO2 on climate is uncertain, the computer models are so incomplete as to be nearly worthless, and the effects of solar output, interstellar dust and a host of other variables have not yet been well understood in their impact on climate. Using the AGW theory and current short term climate changes to justify and dictate policy prescriptions is thus quite problematic. At the moment, the greatest danger from climate change is not the potential of a few degrees of warming but rather the risk of well intentioned politicians and bureaucrats to curtail our freedoms in the name of saving the planet.

As promised, Jimmy J offers some nuanced perspective that is conspicuously absent from our MSM coverage of the problem:

It is always interesting to me that the "true believers" in AGW claim it is a cataclysmic crisis that must be attacked.......right now! Then when you ask them what to do it is always government regulation of transportation and government mandated alternative energy for electricity. And, oh yes, government enforced home energy conservation. They tell everyone that such measures will solve the problem.

I read an engineering report a few days back (can't find the link, so I'll be quoting from memory.) Anyway, the gist of the report was that if we are to slow or stop the CO2 build up without forcing the global population to go backward energy-wise, the world will have to:
1. Build 14 new nuclear power plants,
2. Build 44 new high efficiency coal fired plants,
3. Build the equivalent of Three Gorges hydroelectic capacity,
4. Convert 1,000,000 homes to all solar power,
5. Build 21 major wind or tidal farms,
EVERY YEAR for the next 40-50 years.

That gives some perspective on the scale of what will be necessary to satisfy the goals of the AGW proponents and keep satisfying global energy demand while fazing out old power sources. Is it even possible? It may be possible, but would require a massive, united effort by all nations. It would also require that the Greens allow nuclear plants, hydro-electric plants, and wind farms (Yes, Teddy, off the coast of Cape Cod) to be built.

Now let's look at what we know about CO2. We know that it has been shown in the lab that CO2 can increase the amount of heat air can hold. Thus the term - green house gas. But there are other green house gases much more prevalent in the atmosphere. At present CO2 makes up about 357 parts per million of the atmosphere. That is .0357% or .OOO357 as a decimal fraction of the atmosphere. Pretty small increment of the atmosphere.

Water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2, but varies greatly from time to time and place to place. Here's what the American Geophysical Union says about it: "There are many atmospheric greenhouse gases, some naturally occurring and some resulting from industrial activities, but probably the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water vapor is involved in an important climate feedback loop. As the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor. The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming. This basic picture is complicated by important interactions between water vapor, clouds, atmospheric motion, and radiation from both the Sun and the Earth. There are some aspects of the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas that are not well understood, again mainly because we lack the necessary observations to test theoretical models." Also, water vapor is not emitted by man-made industrial plants or vehicles to the extent that CO2 is. Water vapor is hard to feed into computer models and it is hard to blame on man's activities. Coincidence? Maybe.

The claim is made by AGW proponents that they can build computer simulated climate models using the known amounts of atmospheric CO2 and feed other "forcings" into the models that show - with no doubt - that CO2 is the predominate reason for the last 100 years of temperature increase. I have a friend who was a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. He told me that climate is so complex and chaotic that it was very difficult to run climate simulations that had any validity. Computers have improved since those days (20 years ago) but there are still many climate and computer experts who believe as my friend did. At this point, IMO, this is a theory waiting for more data. And that is exactly the point the skeptics have been trying to make, but the UN's IPCC, Al Gore, and the media have all told them to sit down and shut up.

To conclude: I am convinced that, if CO2 is the sole cause of the warming, there will be plenty of time (100 years) to develop new energy sources and adapt to the changes (higher sea levels, better growing conditions, hotter summers, warmer winters, etc.) wrought by 1 degree of warming.
(more at the link)