|
President Obama early in his presidency emphasized repairing our crumbling roads and bridges as key parts of a stimulus plan. Spending on healthcare also stimulates although it's not very effective if you merely rob from people's pockets by force to hand money to insurance companies.
In his proposed stimulus plan the subject of alternative energy was relegated to spending some money on research in that area. Research plus $2.25 will get you a ride on the New York City subway. Even General Motors does research on alternative and hybrid vehicles --- research that never leads anywhere, while they continue with gas-guzzling cars to send the world over ecological tipping points. As for roads and bridges, although they need repair, even President Eisenhower promoted the interstate highway system. This is not exactly the vision of the future we expected from our bold new Democratic president in a time of emergency. In the campaign President Obama talked about creating the equivalent of landing a man on the Moon for new energy and the fight against global warming. This was to be his "new frontier."
The danger has been that President Obama was tempted to do a little bit of everything, none of which will solve any of the nation's problems. Gradually this evolved into a stress on healthcare, the same emphasis President Clinton had. Why did Clinton emphasize healthcare? Because pollster Stan Greenberg told him to. President Clinton rightly mocked George H. W. Bush's reference to vision as "the vision thing." But what vision comes out of a poll?
President Obama needs to understand that vision is about seeing the BIG PICTURE instead of a lot of little pictures.
Even President Clinton, during his presidency was told by Hillary Clinton to stop acting like a "bean counter" and deal with big pictures.
Competing interests within the Democratic coalition all want to be heard. And they all have to be satisfied. Some even told President Obama that alternative energy had to be delayed because it would hurt the wounded economy. This is nonsense, but it is apparently one of the competing voices President Obama thinks he has to "balance."
We need a stimulus for the economy. We need alternative energy. We need healthcare. We need to cut the deficit. We have a long laundry list of other objectives and we can't do them all given the shortage of funds. Meanwhile, the towering need for an alternative energy industry has been relegated to an intellectual backwater, now commonly referred to as merely a way to create some more jobs --- "green jobs," which doesn't sound at all appealing to Americans in other industries. Because of this piecemeal view of myriad progressive objectives, a compromise could be struck and everyone could end up getting a crumb, which won't solve anything. The result is that the message was conveyed that the money isn't there, therefore we have to prioritize and give up most of the progressive agenda since "we can't do it all."
YES WE CAN.
Here's how.
We've wasted a year giving welfare to health insurance companies that don't need it. But we can still start anew on the right foot. Start with energy and everything else we want will follow NATURALLY. New tax revenues will come pouring in just as a result of the alternative energy and as they do so we will have the federal money to be able to gradually broaden the agenda to include all the other objectives.
Here's why.
None dare make this point because they are too ignorant or too intimidated by special interest propaganda or too something, but it all starts with alternative energy.
To begin with, energy is a game played by the energy corporations. Remember the '73 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East? Months before that, Mobil Corporation was running TV ads warning of an "energy crisis." No one understood why there was suddenly a crisis. Then the war hit. Although the Israelis won, the oil states then used it as a pretext to cut oil production and raise prices.
Obviously Mobil knew this was coming and was already priming the public relations pump for the profits they would get from higher prices. They wanted to make sure no one pointed a finger at them as partly complicit when gas prices went up, up higher than the oil embargo even warranted. They knew the war was coming and they had every intention of taking their cut of the moola now that the public would be looking to foreigners to blame.
Then President Carter did something they didn't expect. In response to the energy situation he began pushing alternative energy and fuel efficiency.
Immediately, gas prices came crashing back down and long before alternative energy ideas kicked in in a meaningful way.
For two reasons.
Reason number one:
It was a game. Gas prices were up mostly due to forces of oil company manipulation, not "supply and demand." As soon as Carter responded to the "energy crisis" by promoting alternative energy sources instead of higher oil company profits, the American oil companies immediately lowered prices to try to pull the rug out from under the push for alternative energy and to tell everyone, "Never mind! Forget the whole thing!"
Reason number two:
The current price of energy is influenced not only by present supply but by future expectation. For instance, there are futures markets that are current investor bets on FUTURE expectations of supply and demand. Thus, in a futures contract for oil, a player in the futures market will put up money for a shipment of oil that won't be delivered till later. But no one knows what the exact price will be later. Nevertheless an energy producer is willing to sell that future oil shipment now to lock in the price being bid by the futures buyer. Both the seller and the buyer are making bets on the FUTURE price and come to an agreement.
The seller thereby avoids future uncertainty.
The buyer also benefits. He is willing to put up the money now because he thinks the price he is now offering may vary in the future in ways that will benefit him. In the end, in a futures contract he collects the difference between what he put up now and what the final market price is in the future and he makes a profit.
Thus, investors can trade and speculate on the price of oil or other commodities months and even years in advance.
And these long-term bets also influence pricing in the nearer-term. There's a fungibility factor involved. It's all interrelated. If an oil futures contract for a particular date is less appealing to an investor than one of another date, money in the trading of the one can flow out to the trading of the other. Thus even long term energy expectations can have a near term influence on pricing.
If Obama begins a serious energy program NOW, complete with new laws making buildings and cars more energy efficient, along with mandating alternative forms of propulsion and energy production, the price of energy will start coming down NOW, long before those new forms of energy and efficiency even come on the market.
It has been estimated that even a relatively small area of land in the United States covered with solar energy installations could power the entire American electric need. Many other alternative energy ideas would also benefit.
THEY WOULD START BENEFITING ENERGY PRICES IMMEDIATELY, NOT JUST IN THE DISTANT FUTURE.
Just initiating all this would panic the oil companies and have them cutting prices nervously as they did under Carter, in order to try to undercut the push for alternative energy. And lower energy prices would boost the economy.
There would IMMEDIATELY be lower prices at the pump. Also less demand for the use of crops to produce alcohol as a gasoline alternative. This would bring down the price of grain. Since grain is fed to livestock, that would also bring down the price of meat. We have already seen food riots around the world due to the unnecessary diversion of crops from food to energy, precisely because sensible and real energy alternatives are being ignored. In a corrupt system the best we could do for a long time was to try to deal with our dependency on foreign oil merely by trading in some of the influence of the oil lobby for influence by the agribusiness lobby. Feeding human food to the machines for energy was never a great idea and we can do much better than that. YES WE CAN. In fact, with so many wonderful alternative energy ideas, in terms of energy in the midst of plenty we are starving to death --- literally.
The price of virtually everything in our economy is influenced directly or indirectly by the price of fuel. With alternative energy we would thus see a near-term drop in consumer prices across the country. This would bring immediate relief to consumers and businesses. That relief would be equal to or much greater than any tax cut President Obama could offer. The nation remembers that Bush drove the country into a fiscal disaster with his repeated push for tax cuts, tax cuts that did NOT invigorate the economy.
But with prices from dropping energy prices we would also see a consequent drop in interest rates since interest rates are closely tied to inflation. The drop in interest rates would also benefit the economy, and specifically would benefit the price of mortgages, auto loans, business loans, inter-bank lending and so on that are so central to our current economic crisis.
Thus alternative energy could do as much to bail out the economy as bailing out the banks, maybe more and far more than bailing out health insurers who don't need it at all. It would stimulate the economy NOW as much if not more than rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, which initially mainly helps the construction industry. As the economy expands, there would be new tax revenues pouring into Federal, state and local governments, even without Federal aid to localities, which would provide additional funds for rebuilding roads and bridges. The new tax revenues --- without cutting taxes --- could then finance many other objectives.
The stupid rhetoric that alternative energy will create a few green jobs in some new sector most Americans are not in completely misses the point of how alternative energy economically benefits everyone.
If we as a nation put all our eggs into the single basket of alternative energy and energy efficiency, we will have the resources for everything else in the Obama agenda.
YES WE CAN.
A story is told about a farmer selling eggs. His hens lay 30 eggs a month. So he PUSHES his hens and PUSHES his hens and PUSHES them. And they start producing 40 eggs a month and 50 eggs a month and then 60. Yet soon the hens are all exhausted and production falls off. But if he would just let the hen go to her rooster, he would soon have all the eggs he needs.
In short, what is needed is a more organic, natural approach.
The same with alternative energy. By encouraging this objective now, hard, we will soon free up cash and revenue for all the other things we need.
Let me conclude by offering a few specific points on energy.
Firstly, forget about nuclear power. It's a fantasy and a wild goose chase. Also a sitting duck target for terrorists. Guess what? It actually requires the use of fossil fuel to refine uranium ore for nuclear power plants. If the uranium ore is high grade (meaning a lot of uranium relative to the other minerals that have to be removed from the ore to purify the uranium), you come out ahead. But by 2050 the high grade uranium ore will be mostly gone and we will have to rely on the lower grade uranium ore. That ore will actually require so much fossil fuel to refine, process and utilize that you would actually get more energy just by burning that fossil fuel in an ordinary oil or coal fired electric plant. In short, nuclear power will be obsolete by 2050. (This doesn't even get into the dreadful problem of interminable nuclear wastes, which we will have to pay to store. As the saying goes, "Waste is a terrible thing to mind.") So every penny spent to promote nuclear power is a dead end, a drive off a cliff. Nuclear power is a false hope, a fool's diversion that needs to be stopped cold.
But there are so many alternatives. We know that the McCain campaign pushed a mix of nuclear and oil with a little solar thrown in for political cover. Is there any way that oil can be part of the energy solution? Not really. In fact, many oil deposits are in rock formations that are slightly radioactive. Who needs that stuff in the air?
However, there is a way that we could use oil industry TECHNOLOGY for alternative power, which could benefit the oil companies and help them diversify. I won't say the oil industry will be jumping for joy at any alternative, but at least this is something that could mollify them a little. (Of course, they would have to be forced into it, nevertheless.) Here's one way oil technology could help alternative energy:
Along the east coast of the United States and elsewhere there are powerful ocean currents, far more powerful than the mighty Amazon, the world's biggest river. The ocean current along the U.S. east coast is called the Gulf Stream, warm water that flows northeast from the Caribbean to Europe. This is a powerful flow of ocean water along the top 50 feet of the ocean. Since the oil industry already has developed sophisticated offshore platforms for drilling, why not mandate that they build similar platforms with giant paddle wheels to catch the current and use it to power on-site electric generators to make electric power and then cable it back to land?
Think of the advantage. With offshore drilling, an oil company spends a fortune to prospect and search for the oil, risky efforts that can come up dry. Then, on an educated guess they start drilling. Then they have to ship the oil ashore, refine it, separate it out into different oil products and then ship all those products to different markets including power plants. All this costs money every step of the way.
But if you use the same offshore platform instead to make electricity right on the spot, all those other expenses are eliminated. It's a freebie. A sure thing. An offshore platform that starts making energy right away, right on the spot, without all those other expenses and uncertainties. You know the ocean current is there. The Gulf Stream and similar currents offer clean, cheap hydroelectric power on a scale that would dwarf the mighty Amazon River. A revolution in clean hydroelectric power.
The U.S. government could even start building it's OWN offshore hydroelectric power projects just like the hydroelectric project President Roosevelt built with the Tennessee Valley Authority during the New Deal. And that's profit that goes straight into government coffers, to help finance a future middle class tax cut or cut the deficit or pay for Medicare expansion. Plus, government building of such offshore hydroelectric projects creates jobs on the spot. Bottom line? If the oil companies don't like making energy this way, the government can do it on behalf of the taxpayers, and screw the oil companies. But I would still want to pass laws forcing the oil companies to do it. They can make gobs of money from this --- whether they like it or not.
I want to emphasize that hydroelectric power has its limitations. The Colorado River is so heavily dammed up for hydroelectric power that the strength of the river is spent and the river actually dries up before reaching the sea, an environmental and scenic tragedy. Would tapping the energy of the Gulf Stream cause environmental problems? Perhaps eventually. If the Gulf Stream were massively tapped for energy it could slow the Gulf Stream and reduce the warmth the Gulf Stream brings to Europe.
But is that really a near-term problem? No. It would take an AWFUL lot of hydroelectric power projects along the Gulf Stream to do this, almost beyond imagining for the foreseeable future. In fact, with global warming Europe has been experiencing flooding and heat waves. For years and years to come Europe would actually BENEFIT from some cooling by tapping the energy of the Gulf Stream. For many, many decades to come it's a win-win situation. So this is a very good solution that produces no greenhouse gases or toxic wastes at all and has many related environmental benefits. In fact, since all ocean currents are powered by the energy of the Sun, oceanic hydroelectric power is itself an indirect form of solar energy, as is wind power.
Another idea of mine concerns the ideal location of the United States in the temperate zone. All over the United States we pipe natural gas for cooking and winter heating. We pipe natural gas and use other fossil fuels to drive electric plants for powering air conditioners during the summer. A staggering amount of energy is manufactured just for heating and cooling the country.
And it's unnecessary.
The natural gas distribution network has pipelines all over the country. Why not mandate that that same natural gas industry also lay down pipelines that distribute:
AIR.
That's right. Plain old inexpensive air.
What's THAT gonna do?
Plenty.
Pipes can be thermally insulated to retain the temperature inside. Why not pipe warm air up from Mexico during the winter and pump it right into people's homes for home heating?
And why not pipe cool air down from Canada to cool people's homes during summer?
None of this belches carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Nature is ALREADY heating and cooling the air north and south of us. In fact, this thermal difference between Canada and Mexico is driven, again, by the energy of the Sun. Piping warm and cool air around the United States is another indirect form of solar energy. Why do we need to burn fossil fuel to heat and cool the air artificially when nature already does it naturally? Do you have any idea how much oil, gas and coal we could save this way? Absolutely staggering amounts. Incidentally, in New York City there are old Con Edison steam pipes that pipe steam into some buildings. (The steam is produced by Con Edison from water heated by burning fossil fuel.) So for years natural gas hasn't been the only gas being piped in the U.S. for energy purposes.
BUT AIR IS CHEAPER.
Again, no need to prospect for natural gas, drill, refine, and engage in all the other costly processes of manufacturing it. Hot and cold air are right next door, a sure supply. No need for oil in the boiler to heat homes. No need to burn coal to power electric plants to power air conditioners, which during summer peak use has caused blackouts. There is so much rhetoric about coal, dirty coal, clean coal, sequestration of carbon from burning coal. You can eliminate a lot of coal use entirely given our location between hot and cool countries.
Just pipe warm and cold air.
To be sure, there can be some problems. There are insects and spiders in Mexico we wouldn't want coming up to the United States along an air pipeline. Some areas have air pollution or unwanted bacteria. Piped air would have to be screened and filtered. But these are minor challenges compared to the astonishing savings. Piping hot and cold air would be so much cheaper than piping natural gas that the savings to American CONSUMERS would be enormous, real money put into the pockets of tens of millions of American homes and businesses. It would be like a drastic middle class tax cut. And without draining the Federal treasury. No need to cut taxes. Can we have it all?
YES WE CAN.
A similar plan could be worked out in other areas of the world, wherever one country or region is warmer or cooler than a neighboring one. The fossil fuel savings would be so enormous that the entire planet would breathe a sigh of relief. And again, this would have an immediate effect on energy futures markets, benefiting in turn current energy prices right away.
My fear is that this will merely be another Clinton Administration, with no singular driving force and instead a hodgepodge of competing progressive objectives and fiefdoms, which eventually lose their vigor and collapse into a DLC-type government full of triangulation, instead of the radical driving success we now need. If President Obama's economic stimulus does not treat global warming as the central driving force and makes do with a stimulus that is merely full of workers shoveling around asphalt or welfare for health insurers, he will have squandered years of his presidency. Alternative energy IS the stimulus. Nothing else will do.
Alternative energy isn't just one of the objectives for an Obama Administration competing for scarce funds with all the other piecemeal objectives. This is not about just creating a few green jobs on the side. All over the world nations have historically embarked on POWER projects to invigorate their whole economies, not just one sector. This is the key. There is a "New Deal" for energy that can quickly revitalize the entire economy. Alternative energy is the first priority, the magic bullet that will lead to triumph in all the other objectives and which will lead to an economic miracle that will make the Obama presidency a huge, historic success on a par with great presidents like Franklin Roosevelt.
Again: All over the world nations have historically embarked on POWER projects to invigorate their economies. This is the key. We can do it with increased efficiency and alternative energy. The looming disaster of global warming is both a crisis and an opportunity. We need to make this the centerpiece of an economic plan and not the backwater of petty, conservative, fossil-fuel addicted bean counters who are saying "no we can't" and sapping the vision of a great Obama presidency we hoped for in this critical historic moment.
Here are some additional thoughts:
There was a lot of concern over the "team of rivals" President Obama was crafting, inspired by the example of Lincoln. It was also something utilized to an extent by President Kennedy. Both Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated. There is much evidence that among those in the JFK conspiracy were people right in his own government, including people he hired. He chose the more conservative, and Texan, Lyndon Johnson as his running mate and it has been charged that Johnson was in on the conspiracy. There is great danger in bringing rivals into your government and many of them secretly harbor wishes to undermine you. It's very dangerous. It's POLITICALLY dangerous.
Here is what Machiavelli said in "The Prince" about some of this:
Machiavelli argued for daring over caution and prudence. He argued for AUDACITY. We remember audacity, don't we? That little book called "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE"??????? What happened to audacity?
Of the cautious man Machiavelli writes (in Chapter 25) that:
"If time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change his mode of procedure. No man is found so prudent as to be able to adapt himself… because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him… having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it, and therefore the cautious man, when it is time to act suddenly, does not know how to do so, and is consequently ruined."
In other words if you make prudence and caution a compulsive habit, it will paralyze you and you will get run over. There has to be AUDACITY.
Here's some of what Machiavelli said about the danger of embracing rivals:
In chapter 4 he speaks of how a kingdom can have a prince and his servants --- or --- a prince and barons who have their own states who recognize them as lords. Machiavelli argued that if you cede power to barons, they carve out their own fiefdom and pose a threat. Thus Machiavelli noted (chapter 4) that:
"The king of France is surrounded by a large number of ancient nobles… The king cannot deprive them without danger to himself."
Machiavelli goes on to say that this is not only a danger to the king but to the kingdom as a whole, that outside enemies find it easy to invade when there are barons who have mixed loyalties:
"It is easy to enter… by winning over some baron of the kingdom, there being always malcontents, and those desiring innovations."
Here's another relevant quote, from chapter 7:
"He who does not lay his foundations beforehand may by great abilities do so afterwards, although with great trouble to the architect and danger to the building."
And we find a similar idea in a Hassidic teaching:
Always plant a seed without a scratch, for if the initial embryo of the tree has a scratch or blemish, when the tree grows up the scratch will become a huge scar on the mature tree.
A "team of rivals" was a really foolish idea. It plants seeds that will cause huge problems and divisions and schisms and back stabbing down the road. It could disintegrate Obama's whole presidency and agenda. His whole progressive agenda is now paralyzed. Especially in a huge government that is today so large that it is hard to hold together in the first place. Government was much smaller in Lincoln's day and the example of Lincoln, even if meritorious, proves little. And while President Kennedy started off with a Republican-appeasing tax cut, he had won the presidency only by a hair's breadth and there were a lot more Republicans in the Senate. Obama won massively but he is acting like he won only narrowly.
And here's another quote from Machiavelli, chapter 13:
"Men with their lack of prudence initiate novelties and, finding the first taste good, do not notice the poison within."
I fear that with all its obsession over moderation there is poison in the Obama Administration, people who should not be trusted.
There is no need for any of this. There is no need to hide under the desk or in the closet crafting a timid presidency that avoids bold action. Alternative energy is the magic bullet that makes it easy to have it all.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
