Joe Nocera, one of my favorite financial writers, wrote a great piece for the Times this morning on the Chevy Volt, check it out.
As someone who wants to be really green, but fails often, I was excited by what he wrote about the Volt and then let down. Look, just by living in NYC I am one of the most carbon-friendly people in the country, but when I leave the city, I drive long distances--in rental cars.
1) NYC rental cars rarely have fuel efficient vehicles. Everyone asks for them, and they're always sold out. I've only ever managed to get prius twice. The new Obama gas regs have helped a lot, I use a lot less fuel on these nine hour trips, but its still cruddy that I want to use such a vehicle and cannot. Why they don't have more cars in their fleet? I don't know. I've asked. Sometimes its supply problems, sometimes its having a variety of small-to-midsize cars. I don't know. Garages are crowded, and they're filled with Kias and other crap cars.
2) The Volt sounds great. We may have to leave the city sometime soon. Anywhere else but NYC we're going to have to buy a car. It is unlikely that I'll be able to afford a Volt. Not yet, but there again. I am exceedingly likely (if I remain on the East Coast) to take drives of three hundred miles or more. The Volt turns into a regular car after the first 100 miles. I suppose its still fuel efficient at that point, but it still sort of sucks.
Anyway, food for thought. Hopefully Michael Lind's fracking dream doesn't nip this in the bud.
Showing posts with label Michael Lind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Lind. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Michael Lind - Fracking
So my buddy Michael Lind is again making the case for a resurgence in fossil fuels. And I must say he's beginning to convince me. I'm not won yet baby, I need more sweet talking. I must say--he almost sounds like he's shilling for the Natural Gas Industry. I hope not, one political betrayal at a time. On the topic of WeinerGate (the first gate since Watergate which is truly awesome and appropriate. Don't we all seek a weinergate after all?) I might try that one on my wife soon as foreplay. Sigh. Ok. Briefly, I really don't care about what goes on in a politician's bedroom. None of them, whether or not he's a Republican or a Democrat. It's the policies that matter, the men, are just men.
On to Fracking. As you know, Lind is a fan of cars, driving, gas and energy. He says that the use of "shale" gas, which was previously unrecoverable is six times as much as oil, cleaner and with modern technology easy to refine and produce. He says that we could be witnessing the rebirth of the fossil fuel energy industry.
"If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come."
Wow, how exciting! He then goes on to say how all the reasons for sustainable energy are now irrelevant. 1) Peak Oil is no longer an issue. No imminent energy crisis. 2) No political blackmail. Shale gas, tight oil, gas hydrates are everywhere! Wheee! 3) The effect on the environment is no big deal, Natural Gas is clean, drink up!
This is where he loses me:
"The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes [Huh? says who?]-- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it [if by lip service you mean broadly denouncing global warming as a hoax, then yes] . But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption."
Phew, boy am I glad that Lind is here to be rational for all of us. There's a reason wind, solar and geothermal use less than 1% and Lind knows it. Governments need to get on board and ask for them, governments are the major purchasers of energy resources afterall. And then he whitewashes the nuclear disaster in Japan.
"The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy."
A radiation plume spanning the entire Pacific ocean is a localized disaster? The problem isn't that nuclear energy is unsafe, it's perfectly safe in controlled environments. The problem is what to do with the waste, which will be radioactive for centuries, and when it all goes to shit (unlikely, but possible) a few of these "localized" disasters in different parts of the world could make the entire planet unlivable. Or at least, hopefully medical science will keep up with the rising rate of cancer and will develope Battlestar Gallactica like radiation pills.
But I was serious, Lind really does make a convincing argument for Natural Gas, though his arguments consist almost entirely on debunking "alarmist" "Green" studies about the dangers of NG. His most convincing arguments are political ones. Namely that to develop sustainable energy will require an enormous governmental cost--which is true. Wind/Solar had a tremendous boost in the Roaring Two-Thousandsees, when investment banks were using green companies as tax shelters for millions of dollars, but now that the investment banks are gone, and the economy is still staggering, the cost of propping up green energy to the levels needed to power our communities, might well prove too much. Not when Natural Gas is knocking at the door with a plate of brownies.
Even so, he has a very dismissive, non fact-substantiated view of Green Energy:
"Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D."
My friend, that's a whole lot of assumptions in one paragraph, I don't need to tell you that. Let's ask my other friend, Andrew Leonard. He comments on the exact same paragraph above!
"A better explanation for why the world is treating climate change as a low priority problem might be because the U.S. -- historically the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions -- has refused to take any action at all."
Another goody of Leonard's:
"I'm not sure what definition of catastrophe Lind is using, but the unprecedented frequency of extreme weather events that we are already witnessing all across our planet is a strong indicator that global warming is already contributing to serious disruptions"
As to the relative safety of fracking, Leonard gives us some interesting tidbits:
"I defy anyone to read the New York Times' massive, exhaustively reported series on pollution problems associated with fracking and still not be concerned with threats to the nation's drinking water supply or the multiple failures of our regulatory system. "
Last but not least, Leonard lays it to Lind with Lind's alternative, nuclear energy:
"The more pertinent question to mull is why, if the economics of nuclear power make sense, private industry can't seem to make a go of it. The free market isn't very friendly to nuclear power -- it is most widely implemented, today, in countries where there is a strong state presence in the industry, like France or China. Building enough nuclear power plants to make a dent in climate change will be massively expensive. And if we're going to subsidize new sources of energy why not funnel that government funding toward sectors that do not have waste or potential meltdown issues -- like wind and solar."
On to Fracking. As you know, Lind is a fan of cars, driving, gas and energy. He says that the use of "shale" gas, which was previously unrecoverable is six times as much as oil, cleaner and with modern technology easy to refine and produce. He says that we could be witnessing the rebirth of the fossil fuel energy industry.
"If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come."
Wow, how exciting! He then goes on to say how all the reasons for sustainable energy are now irrelevant. 1) Peak Oil is no longer an issue. No imminent energy crisis. 2) No political blackmail. Shale gas, tight oil, gas hydrates are everywhere! Wheee! 3) The effect on the environment is no big deal, Natural Gas is clean, drink up!
This is where he loses me:
"The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes [Huh? says who?]-- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it [if by lip service you mean broadly denouncing global warming as a hoax, then yes] . But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption."
Phew, boy am I glad that Lind is here to be rational for all of us. There's a reason wind, solar and geothermal use less than 1% and Lind knows it. Governments need to get on board and ask for them, governments are the major purchasers of energy resources afterall. And then he whitewashes the nuclear disaster in Japan.
"The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy."
A radiation plume spanning the entire Pacific ocean is a localized disaster? The problem isn't that nuclear energy is unsafe, it's perfectly safe in controlled environments. The problem is what to do with the waste, which will be radioactive for centuries, and when it all goes to shit (unlikely, but possible) a few of these "localized" disasters in different parts of the world could make the entire planet unlivable. Or at least, hopefully medical science will keep up with the rising rate of cancer and will develope Battlestar Gallactica like radiation pills.
But I was serious, Lind really does make a convincing argument for Natural Gas, though his arguments consist almost entirely on debunking "alarmist" "Green" studies about the dangers of NG. His most convincing arguments are political ones. Namely that to develop sustainable energy will require an enormous governmental cost--which is true. Wind/Solar had a tremendous boost in the Roaring Two-Thousandsees, when investment banks were using green companies as tax shelters for millions of dollars, but now that the investment banks are gone, and the economy is still staggering, the cost of propping up green energy to the levels needed to power our communities, might well prove too much. Not when Natural Gas is knocking at the door with a plate of brownies.
Even so, he has a very dismissive, non fact-substantiated view of Green Energy:
"Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D."
My friend, that's a whole lot of assumptions in one paragraph, I don't need to tell you that. Let's ask my other friend, Andrew Leonard. He comments on the exact same paragraph above!
"A better explanation for why the world is treating climate change as a low priority problem might be because the U.S. -- historically the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions -- has refused to take any action at all."
Another goody of Leonard's:
"I'm not sure what definition of catastrophe Lind is using, but the unprecedented frequency of extreme weather events that we are already witnessing all across our planet is a strong indicator that global warming is already contributing to serious disruptions"
As to the relative safety of fracking, Leonard gives us some interesting tidbits:
"I defy anyone to read the New York Times' massive, exhaustively reported series on pollution problems associated with fracking and still not be concerned with threats to the nation's drinking water supply or the multiple failures of our regulatory system. "
Last but not least, Leonard lays it to Lind with Lind's alternative, nuclear energy:
"The more pertinent question to mull is why, if the economics of nuclear power make sense, private industry can't seem to make a go of it. The free market isn't very friendly to nuclear power -- it is most widely implemented, today, in countries where there is a strong state presence in the industry, like France or China. Building enough nuclear power plants to make a dent in climate change will be massively expensive. And if we're going to subsidize new sources of energy why not funnel that government funding toward sectors that do not have waste or potential meltdown issues -- like wind and solar."
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Michael Lind and the Neo Modernist Party
Michael Lind, the Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank, is also one of my favorite columnists at Salon.com. He is a New Deal economist and believes, as I do, that the mainstay of the economic engine that drives nations is stability and longterm growth, maintained by economic signals like rigorous regulation.
Anyway, he has an interesting post today on Salon.com, which I do not entirely agree with, something which is unusual for me when reading his work. His new manifesto, in the last paragraph:
"Here’s an idea. America needs to have a neomodernist party to oppose the reigning primitivists of the right, left and center. Let everyone who opposes abortion, wants to ban GM foods and nuclear energy, hates cars and trucks and planes and loves trains and trolleys, seeks to ban suburbia, despises consumerism, and/or thinks Darwin was a fraud join the Regressive Party."
He actually spends a fair amount of time pointing out that the Left has been engaged in its own romantic primitivism:
"The increasingly reactionary American left, disenchanted with nuclear power plants and rockets and suburbs, longed to quit modernity and retire to a small town with an organic farmers’ market and an oompah band playing in the town park’s bandstand."
I found this slightly offensive. My woman is a big fan of promoting locavore restaurants and farmers markets. When she can, she always prefers to buy local, but she is no regressive. If it were up to her, she would never live in a suburb or small town again. She's a big city girl, from a nation that actually has working government healthcare, so take that Michael Lind! Now, it just so happens, Lind throws another dart, this one directly at me: "longing of many on the left for the Shire of Frodo the Hobbit." Yeah, you know, I love the big city too, but I wouldn't mind living in a grassy hillock with trees and clean air. I like the idea of wearing clothing until its worn out, and having one pair of good clothing for festivals and holidays. But that doesn't make me regressive, I believe in the WPO and believe it to be one of the best organized human efforts in modern history. Now, I can't lie, I have a private fantasy in which 95% of humanity moves to MegaTropoli which are completely self sustaining, and lets the larger part of the land fall back to pre-human-rapine beauty. I like the idea of Green Cities and think they're completely possible, where economies of scale meet environmental care and concern. Does that mean I'm resorting to primitivism? Likewise, I'm surprised to read Lind criticizing those of us who support expanded public transit. An essential tenet of New Deal liberalism is lowering the costs of production by expanding and increasing the transport of goods. Lind has attacked these ideas before and been debunked.
I was thinking the other day about how I was raised. And I was raised to receive gifts once or twice a year, not year round. The only real treats in life were sugar (which was a bad habit admittedly) but at least the containers were cardboard and the product disolves in water. And, I was thinking how commendable that was. I'm terrible. In my monthly accounting I keep a running list of how much I spend on myself every month on "pleasant" items. Some of these expendistures were necessary, and you can see that 'Pleasantries' always spike in December, but why so high? The fact of the matter is that we consume much more than is necessary, and its not regressive to suggest that, though it is, interestingly, the essential meaning of conservative.
I definitely appreciate modern conveniences, and like all who care about the environment, my beliefs are at war with my own intentional and unintentional hypocracies, but this isn't primitivism, this is conservation. I believe in capital creation. That's the economic theory that believes that the economy isn't a pie that only has a few slices to be doled out--that in fact, the money supply is always expanding, and so long as it keeps pace with wages and inflation, is A-O-K. But the same cannot be said for the Earth. Extinct species will never come back. The forests that spawned the fairytales of old are gone and will only return if we alot space for them, and the species that inhabited them will never return. Because I, like Nietzche and Heidegger, love the image of the Black Forest, does that mean I'm engaging in primitivism? Hardly.
Anyway, he has an interesting post today on Salon.com, which I do not entirely agree with, something which is unusual for me when reading his work. His new manifesto, in the last paragraph:
"Here’s an idea. America needs to have a neomodernist party to oppose the reigning primitivists of the right, left and center. Let everyone who opposes abortion, wants to ban GM foods and nuclear energy, hates cars and trucks and planes and loves trains and trolleys, seeks to ban suburbia, despises consumerism, and/or thinks Darwin was a fraud join the Regressive Party."
He actually spends a fair amount of time pointing out that the Left has been engaged in its own romantic primitivism:
"The increasingly reactionary American left, disenchanted with nuclear power plants and rockets and suburbs, longed to quit modernity and retire to a small town with an organic farmers’ market and an oompah band playing in the town park’s bandstand."
I found this slightly offensive. My woman is a big fan of promoting locavore restaurants and farmers markets. When she can, she always prefers to buy local, but she is no regressive. If it were up to her, she would never live in a suburb or small town again. She's a big city girl, from a nation that actually has working government healthcare, so take that Michael Lind! Now, it just so happens, Lind throws another dart, this one directly at me: "longing of many on the left for the Shire of Frodo the Hobbit." Yeah, you know, I love the big city too, but I wouldn't mind living in a grassy hillock with trees and clean air. I like the idea of wearing clothing until its worn out, and having one pair of good clothing for festivals and holidays. But that doesn't make me regressive, I believe in the WPO and believe it to be one of the best organized human efforts in modern history. Now, I can't lie, I have a private fantasy in which 95% of humanity moves to MegaTropoli which are completely self sustaining, and lets the larger part of the land fall back to pre-human-rapine beauty. I like the idea of Green Cities and think they're completely possible, where economies of scale meet environmental care and concern. Does that mean I'm resorting to primitivism? Likewise, I'm surprised to read Lind criticizing those of us who support expanded public transit. An essential tenet of New Deal liberalism is lowering the costs of production by expanding and increasing the transport of goods. Lind has attacked these ideas before and been debunked.
That's all leftist romanticism is about, it's only about needing less and taking more care. Certainly the sexual revolution in the sixties may have been more extreme, but in the more or less settled rhetoric of the past two decades, primitivist rhetoric on the left has principally been designed to promote thrift and protect the environment. My family is full of New Deal democrats, and its true to some extent that they revel in all things technological. Why bake bread when you can buy it, pre sliced. Why cook dinner when you can make a TV dinner with a microwave? And their largess created this:
I definitely appreciate modern conveniences, and like all who care about the environment, my beliefs are at war with my own intentional and unintentional hypocracies, but this isn't primitivism, this is conservation. I believe in capital creation. That's the economic theory that believes that the economy isn't a pie that only has a few slices to be doled out--that in fact, the money supply is always expanding, and so long as it keeps pace with wages and inflation, is A-O-K. But the same cannot be said for the Earth. Extinct species will never come back. The forests that spawned the fairytales of old are gone and will only return if we alot space for them, and the species that inhabited them will never return. Because I, like Nietzche and Heidegger, love the image of the Black Forest, does that mean I'm engaging in primitivism? Hardly.At any rate, I do enjoy the man's columns, particuarly his most partisan and flag burning. I am, afterall, a Ravingleftatic myself. But I'll take the train to that particular station.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)