I really like Ken Salazar. Although he's a Democrat, I thought he was a great senator. He always looked out for Colorado's best interests and I always got a personal response from him when I wrote his office. I hated to see him resign to join the Obama Administration as our new Interior Secretary.
I just shook my head when I read his article in the Denver Post. This is not about bashing this good man; it's about bashing this economy-destroying pipe dream known as Green Energy.
He premises his argument on old anecdotal data. We've had some hellish fire seasons this decade, but the past few summers have been shorter and cooler:
We are also seeing the dangerous consequences of climate change: longer and hotter fire seasons, reduced snow packs, rising sea levels and declines of wildlife. Farmers, ranchers, municipalities, and other water users in Colorado and across the West are facing the possibility of a grim future in which there is less water to go around.
Next, he gives us liberal economics 101:
We will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless Congress puts an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment. Doing so will level the playing field for new technologies by allowing the market to put a price on carbon, and will trigger massive investment in renewable energy projects across the country.Translation: Artificially jack up the price of carbon-based energy.
The cap and trade scheme will make coal, oil and natural gas prices go sky high, and businesses will pass the cost on to the consumer. This will make wind, solar and other inefficient forms of energy generation comparatively cheap, and therefore competitive in this rigged market.
The problem is that our global competitors are not as stupid as we are.
China and India will (smartly) continue using the cheapest energy possible to keep their manufacturing costs down. Meanwhile, liberal do-gooders in this country will double your light bill, put gas prices a scary European levels and kill US jobs in the process.
Our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and in a fit of earth-worshiping stupidity, the Democratic party would deny us their unfettered use. Even a good man like Ken Salazar can't square that one.
The Obama Administration must have insisted he check his Colorado common sense at the door.
Denver Post - Salazar
7 comments:
So, because China and India are doing something cheap, but in the long run bad for our planet, we should as well?
Stellar logic.
If environmental peril were a certainty, then perhaps we should go ahead, but it's not. In fact, current data appears to show a downward trend in global temperatures since 2000. I know our summers have been back to "normal" for the past three years or so.
So, we have an uncertainty, the addressing of which will indeed impact our GDP and put us at a disadvantage in the global marketplace because we are essentially imposing more stringent rules on ourselves. That's not smart.
This is a matter of technology. Wind and solar is not yet as efficient as gas, oil and coal. I hope it does get there someday, and it probably will. Until that time, we need to use the resources we have to stay competitive. Not only is it smart, it's humane because it will keep people meaningfully employed and off the dole.
You don't seem to get that once the end of human life on earth is imminent it will be too late.
China and India should be pushed as hard as possible to cooperate. Economic sanctions, whatever.
Still not an argument for us to do nothing.
We disagree on the global warming hysteria, so I won't rehash that here.
Your second point at least makes sense: If everybody followed the same rules the the economic playing field would once again be even. I assume you mean Russia, Brazil and any other developing country as well?
If we could achieve this AlGore nirvana, the societies at the margins would bear the brunt of it. These rules mean doing less with less, and those with the least (power) always suffer the most in such situations.
The G-35 should agree. Somalia isn't a big polluter. If the biggest counries in the world agree, that's enough. Whether that can be achieved, you'r right, that's tough, but I think it'd possible.
Your sort of thinking and attitude that it is not possible, we shouldn't even try, etc... if proliferated throughout the world will be and has been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Over 50 years ago Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell appealed to the world to agree to ending nuclear proliferation and ceasing to pollute the planet for the sake of the survival of the human species. I don't want to appeal to authority, but I just did.
I never said it wasn't possible. It is possible, and that's what's scary.
You miss my point about underdeveloped countries paying the price. This is an artificial restricting of global resources. there will be less energy to do everything from manufacture stuff to distributing it. The energy that is available will me much more expensive. When the elephants fight over the resources, the ants get crushed.
Think about it on a personal level. If you can help an African village to keep from starving and it only costs you $10, easy to do, right?
What if it costs you $1000? It's a lot easier to say, nevermind.
Let them use oil, etc... Let them catch up without our 10 or 1000 dollars.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.