Since, I'm on my Energy Party kick again, it occurs to me to provide you with something never previously published on the blog: My original Energy Party column from the paper. Since it was based on a blog post to start with, I didn't post it here. Consequently, when I do my obligatory "Energy Party" link, it's always to the incomplete, rough draft version of the party manifesto.
So, if only to give myself something more complete to link to in the future, is the full column version, published in The State on Feb. 4, 2007. Here's a PDF of the original page, and here's the column itself:
THE STATE
JOIN MY PARTY, AND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS WILL COME TRUE. REALLY.
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
EVERYBODY talks about the weather, which is as boring and pointless as the cliche suggests. So let's do something about it.
And while we're at it, let's win the war on terror, undermine tyrants around the globe, repair our trade imbalance, make our air more breathable, drastically reduce highway deaths and just generally make the whole world a safer, cleaner place.
It'll be easy, once we make up our minds to do it. But first, you Democrats and Republicans must throw off the ideological chains that bind you, and we independents must get off the sidelines and into the game.
In other words, join my new party. No, not the Unparty I've written about in the past. You might say that one lacked focus.
This one will be the Energy Party. Or the "Responsible Party," "Pragmatic Party" or "Grownup Party." Any will do as far as I'm concerned, but for the sake of convenience, I'm going with "Energy" for now.
Like weather, everybody talks about Energy, but nobody proposes a comprehensive, hardnosed plan to git 'er done. So let's change that, go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there's a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do.
I've made a start on the plan (and mind, I'm not speaking for the editorial board here). Join me, and we'll refine it as we go along:
-- * Jack up CAFE standards. No messing around with Detroit on this one. It's possible to make cars that go 50 miles to the gallon. OK, so maybe your family won't fit in a Prius. Let's play nice and compromise: Set a fleet average of 40 mph within five years.
-- * Raise the price of gasoline permanently to $4. When the price of gas is $2, slap on a $2 tax. When demand slacks off and forces the price down to $1.50, jack the tax up to $2.50. If somebody nukes some oil fields we depend upon, raising the price to $3, the tax drops to $1. Sure, you'll be paying more, but only as long as you keep consuming as much of it as you have been. Which you won't. Or if you do, we'll go to $5.
-- * You say the poor will have trouble with the tax? So will I. Good thing we're going to have public transportation for a change (including my favorite, light rail). That's one thing we'll spend that new tax money on.
-- * Another is a Manhattan project (or Apollo Project, or insert your favorite 20th century Herculean national initiative name) to develop clean, alternative energy. South Carolina can do hydrogen, Iowa can do bio, and the politicians who will freak out about all this can supply the wind power.
-- * Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bends my ear about it almost daily. He apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez, bless him.) This will drastically reduce our transportation-related fuel consumption, and have the happy side benefit of saving thousands of lives on our highways. And yes, you can drive 55.
-- * Enforce the blasted speed limits. If states say they can't (and right now, given our shortage of troopers, South Carolina can't), give them the resources out of the gas tax money. No excuses.
-- * Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course). It makes me tired to hear people who are stuck in the 1970s talk about all the dangerous waste from nuke plants. Nuclear waste is compact and containable. Coal waste (just to cite one "safe" alternative) disperses into the atmosphere, contaminates all our lungs and melts the polar ice caps. Yeah, I know; it would be keen if everyone went back to the land and stopped using electricity, but give it up -- it ain't happening.
-- * Either ban SUVs for everyone who can't demonstrate a life-ordeath need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw that into the winthe- war kitty.
-- * If we don't ban SUVs outright, aside from taxing them, launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Say, "Hummers are Osama's Panzer Corps." (OK, hot shot, come to my blog and post your own slogan.) Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI -- absolutely socially unacceptable.
-- * Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin' slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity. But to keep us focused, limit all of these activities to no more than 20 years. Put the limit into the Constitution.
You get the idea. Respect no one's sacred cows, left or right. Yeah, I know some of this is, um, provocative. But that's what we need. We have to wake up, go allout to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.
Then, once we've done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems -- no matter whose ox gets gored, or how hard you think it is to do what needs doing. Stop whining and grow up. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.
How's that sound? Can any of y'all get behind that? Let me know, because we need to get going on this stuff.Join the party at my -- I mean, our-- Web Headquarters: http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.
Until such time as people are willing to accept reality, I doubt seriously if anyone will pay attention to you. Coal pollution is the evil people know; nuclear energy is the devil they don't know (yes, the knowledge is out there and easily available, but the very word "nuclear" brings screams of terror and a collective dive under the bed). And of course, as everyone knows, we're entitled to our Hummers and the gas to run them over everybod--oops, everything we want. "Everybody knows" that if the Middle Easterners would stop playing games, and pump all they can, we'd be down to .18/gal (remember the good old days?). Never mind that China and India are now competing with us for that oil (the oil companies can tell you just how good competition is). And never mind that we're simmering our planet with our carbon use. We the people should have a better understanding soon--say in 40 years or so. Of course it was clear enough from the 70's gas lines that we were potentially vulnerable, remember?
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 06:30 PM
Brad's motto: take the chicken from every pot.
He's right about the sacred cow SUVs. Drive around Southern Spain's main roads and the biggest cars you see are the size of a mid-size BMW. Speaking of which, I believe in Germany the Beemers are 80% recyclable.
The problem is our sense of entitlement as a country. The conservative creed of every man for himself compounds this, e.g. Fred Thompson brushed aside the whole Big Oil massive windfall profits in his last debate but none of them, aside from Huckabee, said a peep about poverty - Levites crossing the road.
There is a dire need for a Manhattan energy project. GREEN doesn't require a Yucca Mountain, can create a new wave of jobs, and wind and sun and more than abundant.
Ironically, Bush's "war" of choice may result in turning the tide in the energy situation because of the oil crisis (caused by upheaval in the Middle East, what a shocker). Maybe that was his plan all along!
Posted by: Randy E | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 08:02 PM
Upheaval in the Mideast (before and after March 2003) is a factor, but a bigger one is the growing demand in China and elsewhere in developing nations.
In any case, we've got to reduce our dependence on some of the worst regimes for an essential commodity.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 09:19 PM
Karen -
When you write “nuclear energy is the devil they don't know (yes, the knowledge is out there and easily available, but the very word "nuclear" brings screams of terror and a collective dive under the bed)”, what do you mean? Are you for or agin nuclear power generation?
When you write “And never mind that we're simmering our planet with our carbon use”, I must point out that even climate change proponents have not demonstrated the cause and effect relationship between higher carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and climate change. In other words it remains possible that higher CO2 levels are but one effect of climate change.
As for GREEN, total GREEN is not likely in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons. One biggie is that even solar requires non-GREEN storage and release devices (i.e., batteries) for those who would like power at night. As one of the few who celebrates the end of the Dark Ages, I have to take a stand for batteries of all sorts, even the lead acid type.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 09:47 PM
The vague term "climate change" has replaced "global warming", now that studies show the Earth is 10 years into a COOLING TREND.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 10:17 PM
GREEN is not likely in the foreseeable future - that's the point Brad is making, Cak, by not making it a national priority, we'll continue our oil "addiction".
I must point out that even climate change proponents have not demonstrated the cause and effect - Mike Cak
Cigarette smoke has not been proven to directly cause cancer but the causal relationship has been concluded. Perhaps we should doubt this as well.
Rechargeable technology is emerging. Make that a part of the Manhattan GREEN project.
Posted by: Randy E | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 10:25 PM
Here's some recent evidence of global warming aka climate change. The Dow has fluctuated over the years with it's own "cooling periods" but does anyone doubt the direction of the Dow in the future?
Posted by: Randy E | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 10:51 PM
Factual interuption: The "cooling over the last ten years" is entirely due to ten years ago being an exceptionally hot El Nino year. See for example: http://www.journeybystarlight.com/images/temperature.png
or http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gl)/guides/mtr/eln/rcnt.rxml
This year will be even cooler as we are entering an El Nina: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm
The one year spikes do nothing to the long term trend.
Posted by: just saying | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 11:15 PM
Randie -
Nice try, but no cigar.
One of my points on another of Brad’s posts was however one wishes to drive technology, one has to have clear objectives with intermediate points at which one can measure progress and evaluate progress. This is project management 101. As I briefly outlined there (and I recommend that you take a gander at that link), the “successes” of the Manhattan Project and Project Apollo are in large part due to their well defined and limited scopes: developing nukes to kill the bad guys before they did so to us or putting some guys to the moon and getting them back alive.
Doing so for energy would be a waste of resources because the march toward petroleum replacement is already underway. For example, I have no doubt that solar -- right now about ten times more expensive than conventional power-generating means -- is about to experience tremendous efficiencies.
Aha, the December 2007 energy bill, right? No, in fact that removed some incentives for solar. So some member of Congress has a new plan, right? Nope. The real reason is that guys like TJ Rodgers are spending their own money to make Moore’s law apply to solar. That’s the key, timing. As a technology guy and wealth creator, he sees opportunity, possibilities from the bottom up. Established outfits like GE will put all their resources into securing a favorable political position in cap-and-trade straddling that benefits their wind turbine and other “alternative-energy” businesses to the extent that their media operations will convince us all that their objective is good, proper, and the American way.
Rodgers will eschew all that stuff -- Nay!, He’ll disparage it -- as he proceeds on his own path to success.
Consider for a moment this assertion: the US Manhattan-Project for Energy has already begun with the ethanol incentives, tariffs, and tax credits. To date it appears that we’ve been able to raise corn (maize) prices worldwide and kill poor folks in the process.
Rodgers would never do that.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Wednesday, 30 April 2008 at 11:15 PM
We're not exactly on any march to alternative energy...more like we're literally on the march because we can't afford to fill our gas tanks.
A well defined scope? Lou Holtz makes a public comment about litter in our state and a frenzy of anti-litter discourse and initiative breaks out. Imagine what a president could do with the bully pulpit.
Funny how you speak of this "march" because it contradicts your earlier effort to pooh pooh the GREEN energy movement.
Posted by: Randy E | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 06:34 AM
In a nutshell: Any set of policy prescriptions that does not lead us, as a nation, in the direction of per capita energy CONSERVATION is going to fail, sooner or later.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 06:40 AM
If the 10 year cooling trend beginning in 1998 is not long enough, where is the evidence of any longer warming trend. Scientific American in the early 1970s had articles about the long term cooling trend and "next Ice Age".
The biggest source of all our energy use and point source pollution is the increase in population. The quickest way to reduce pollution 10% in America is to deport the 10% of the population who are illegal aliens.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 08:03 AM
Brad, while I agree with 90% of the Energy Party platform, I have to say that the plank that reads:
"...drill the ever-lovin' slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach..." Etc.,
seems like the equivalent of the original plan by the Nazis to blow up most of Paris before having to surrender. You know, "if we can't keep Paris, at least let's just blast it to rubble." Or in this case, "well if we can't keep our petroleum-addicted, environmentally-unsound practices going beyond another 20 years or so, let's just see how much environmental havoc we can wreak now."
Brad, your admirable quest to achieve a bipartisan, or nonpartisan approach to energy and environmental issues has already been achieved as regards ANWR: No Presidential candidate supports drilling there. The consensus has been achieved.
Posted by: Phillip | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 09:58 AM
Lee's idea about deporting the 10% of the population that are illegal aliens (30 million people...really, Lee?) is excellent, especially considering that these illegals are obviously the ones driving the largest gas-guzzling SUV's, buying the most tickets on airplane flights, and are the ones most likely to own 6000-square-foot homes.
Posted by: Phillip | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 10:32 AM
Brad, is Muller the same Lee from a year ago? That Lee pulled from his heiney hyperbole-like statistics regarding illegals.
Phllip, Brad's ANWR approach is like creating an anti-smoking campaign in which everyone smokes the every-luvin slush out of cigarettes in the restaurants he frequents until an alternative is in place.
Posted by: Randy E | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 10:59 AM
Randy -
I’ll type a bit slower. I did not disparage GREEN, only pointed out that applying that label to energy is misleading. Wind turbines are noisy, kill birds and bats, take a lot of energy to build, and, as we’re now learning, require a lot more maintenance that what the engineers originally thought. Some types of solar panels also use hazardous materials.
GREEN legislation (a la ethanol mandates) doesn’t always kill poor folks, but can make the rest of us miserable. It took about five years after the devices were mandated by law for manufacturers to get low-flow toilets that actually saved water by doing the job on one flush. The mandated low-water washers are expensive, take longer to cycle, are quite expensive to fix, and don’t get clothes as clean as the old type.
And if you search the web for “prius hummer green” you can see why some folks question the environmental impact of hybrids: they’re made with hazardous materials that pose danger throughout their lifecycle.
As the oldest of nine kids, I asked my mom about the environmentally virtuous life she led by using cloth diapers and got a whack on the head from her cane. True GREENs would ban disposable diapers if they had the guts to face the pitchforks and torches of mothers marching against them.
Folks like me who don’t like waste welcome GREEN ideas. I’ve got my very own cloth bag for shopping and a big orange one for manly shopping at the big-box hardware store. When we replaced our furnace / AC unit early last year, we went with the highest efficiency; we’ll break even in another ten years! And when I’ve had too many toots at the tavern, I fall asleep in the bushes in front of our house so that they will trap the CO2 and methane I generate. Call me Mr. GREEN.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 02:47 PM
Mike, you care about making informed decisions that actually reduced energy consumption and waste...unlike "greenies" who just like to feel good by following rote behaviors.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 03:18 PM
Philip,
Actally, these illegal aliens are most likely to drive old beaters, big trucks and vans that get bad mileage and produce lots of emissions.
But as illegals, they should not be driving anything.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 03:19 PM
The biggest problem I have with the current energy debate is the green fad. It was a fad in the 70s and it's a fad again, and unfortunately the environmental lobby has absolutely no clear political leadership and is never able to come to a consensus on anything. History is merely repeating itself.
If the environmental lobby were serious about selling its beliefs, it would demonstrate the "iron triangle" between energy policy/environmentalism/public health, national security/foreign policy, and the economy. Our use of carbon-based fuels (this includes ethanol and biodiesel...both of which are as horrendously inefficient as gasoline and diesel due to the thermodynamic constraints of internal combustion engines) is stangling our economy and forcing us to bow down to the corrupt "moderate" Saudi government that enslaves its citizens (wow...no wonder they hate us, we prop up their oppressors). It's a vicious cycle that is no where near being broken as the different lobbies involved all have "their" solutions.
The national security guys want the US to drill in ANWR and expand domestic production...possible but will take ages to come online and still leaves huge environmental problems and the risk of crop failure, etc.
The environmental/public health lobby wants "green" power consisting of hydro (we can't really build any more), solar (technology at least 5-10 years from being on the same order of magnitude as carbon technologies), and wind (which invites NIMBYism, as well as the fact that wind isn't an effective method of producing baseload power...same as solar).
The energy lobby, currently consisting of the major oil companies only, wants us to ramp up refining capacity in the United States and wants more petroleum engineers, since the current generation of engineers is on the verge of retirement. They're more or less content with the status quo.
There are two major solutions that will alleviate these problems, plug-in hybrids and nuclear power.
Plug-in hybrids (which Chevrolet, yes Chevrolet, is currently on the edge with the Japanese in developing) will allow you (in the current iteration of development - 2010 target) to plug your car in at night and travel up to 40 miles or so on each charge purely on electric power. If you just drove 20 miles to and from work every day, you could conceivably never fill up on gasoline. They'll have a small gasoline, E-85, or (bio)-diesel engine on-board to recharge the batteries if you need to travel more than the charge. They are inherently more efficient than today's "weak" hybrid designs that run a gas engine in parallel with electric motors. You have tremendous weight savings (no transmission needed) and cut down emissions and fuel usage massively.
The problem this brings, is the need for cheap and clean electricity. Fortunately, at current rates, running on electric is cheaper than gas (at least in SC), the math is extremely variable, but at current rates electricity beats gas and diesel. The solution for cheap, sustainable, reliable base-load energy is nuclear. The United States should simply mandate all coal- and natural-gas fired power plants convert to nuclear by 2030. This is a realistic goal, if the resources were allocated properly. It would be on a scale larger than the Apollo program or Manhattan Project, but would create a phenomenal number of jobs in science, engineering, and construction (or at least keep jobs in those areas, currently being outsourced, in the United States). Clean nuclear is possible, it is only being held up by politics and misunderstanding of the science. The biggest problem, waste, can be dealt with using reprocessing techniques (remember Chem-Nuclear in Barnwell pre-Carter administration?). There is an abundance of fuel (contrary to popular belief). The problem holding it up is largely Senator Harry Reid of Nevada who has declared that Yucca Mountain will never open. Senator Reid wants nuclear waste stored in leaky 1960s and 1970s-era tanks above an aquifier that provides drinking water to millions across the southeast, and not in a geologically-stable (relatively-speaking) mountain in the deserts of Nevada, tens of miles from anything or anyone. He really should be name South Carolina Public Enemy Number 1.
Energy solutions cannot easily be boiled down to ten word statements, but unfortunately those statements are what sell ideas to the public.
Posted by: Mr. Fusion | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 03:25 PM
Wind turbines are noisy, kill birds and bats, take a lot of energy to build, and, as we’re now learning, require a lot more maintenance that what the engineers originally thought.
-Mike
Actually, when cited properly they pose no serious noise problems at all. The bird problem is also largely eliminated with proper citing issues. The newer wind turbines are much more reliable and if the price of the coal is considered actually require far less maintenance per kilowatt than a coal fired plant. Wind turbines are now becoming a much more cost effective, cleaner and safer method of generating energy than virtually any other alternative. And they are scalable. There are many small wind turbines that can be used for home operations. The payback time has dropped significantly in recent years and may be a suitable alternative to using than the power grid once the electricity storage issues are solved.
Are wind turbine a panacea? No. There are still problems to solve and wind doesn't blow all the time. Will they be an important player in 21st century energy production. You betcha!
Posted by: bud | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 03:31 PM
the march toward petroleum replacement is already underway. - Cak
total GREEN is not likely in the foreseeable future for a number of reasons. - Cak
Brad suggests we need a national effort, a Manhattan Project, to go green. You certainly didn't agree with him despite admitting the march to replace petro. You also seem to contradict yourself by admitting this march but also suggesting the move will be thwarted by the obstacles.
It's typical politics to highlight the many reasons a goal can't be achieved, which would seem to explain your dismay with Obama and his message of hope. JFK's goal for a man on the moon and his clarion call to serve country would apparently be Greek to your ears.
Posted by: Randy E | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 04:44 PM
Mr. Fusion makes some great points, but his prescription that the feds “should simply mandate all coal- and natural-gas fired power plants convert to nuclear by 2030” is not, given public-awareness and acceptance. I agree with his sentiments and objectives, but states (California) and cities (New York) have placed natgas-fueled generating plants in places where nukes won’t fit.
I hasten to add, and acknowledge that Mr. Fusion may have not mentioned this for reasons of space, that “small” nuclear-generating facilities are not only possible but exist in fact in France. Sure they generate electricity, but the key point is that the water that cools the reactor by absorbing its heat is piped to businesses and residential properties to provide heat.
I also want to chastise Randy, a guy who seems to start off in the attack mode. We’re here on Brad’s blog to discus matters in a civil manner. I am conservative and place greater trust in FedEx than the US Postal Service, but do recognize that the latter has an important role that I support. I am the kind of guy who would allow my indentured servants an hour for worship on Sundays and two full hours of recreation on the Lord’s Day.
I strongly recommend that folks who choose to participate here write at length about their opinions / analyses / whatevers at home in private before posting, and then summarize their conclusions in their post. When advancing your views, try to incorporate the predictable objections from folks who think otherwise.
For example, I know that the dirty stinking Commie Phillip is always out there, so I really do try to offer a fact or two in order to counter what I think his objections will be. He typically responds in a reasonable manner offering facts and criticisms in rebuttal, and if I have the time, energy, and wit, I engage.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 10:19 PM
...sorry, I was out late for May Day celebrations with my Communist brothers and sisters (highlight: 3 hour screening of Jeremiah Wright's Greatest Sermons) and just got back now to read your comment, Mike, but thanks...and I echo your continued call for civility.
Posted by: Phillip | Thursday, 01 May 2008 at 11:27 PM
I hope everyone had a pleasant "Mission Accomplished" Day. Surely this is a day that will be regarded in the same high esteem as Armistice Day. My family celebrated the fifth anniversary of the president's shameful antics by installing a new toilet. Appropriate isn't it? The president has spent the last 7 years flushing the constitution down the toilet, so why not celebrate "Mission Accomplished" day with a good ole toilet installation.
Posted by: bud | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 07:28 AM
Lee, happy to repost the one answer to "where is the evidence of any longer warming trend." that might have been buried in my previous post:
http://www.journeybystarlight.com/images/temperature.png
Just let me know if you'd like me to google up some more and e-mail them to you this weekend. (Hope you have a good one!)
Posted by: just saying | Friday, 02 May 2008 at 07:31 AM