jobs?

First a representative from Texas and now lawmakers from Louisiana, all crying to save offshore drilling. The Texas guy, John Culberson, called the oil spill a "statistical anomaly." I guess that is what you call a drive-by shooting, unless you are the victim?

In any case, all these good people are just trying to save jobs. We have to drill oil so people have jobs and the economy recovers. That is of course if other people are so kind to burn that oil, greenhouse gases be damned. Never mind the bad stuff, it is all a "statistical anomaly" anyways, so says the good man from Texas.

The real issue is not jobs of course, it is profits. It is easy enough to create other jobs, in alternative energy for example. But that would not help all the fat cats who own shares in oil companies. All that beautiful infrastructure that decorates the landscape. Doing away with it would hurt the profits of the oilmen. And what is Texas without its oilmen? Just ask George.

oil slick

Heard another debate on BBC America about the disaster that is about to unfold in the Gulf. What was truly surprising was that an industry representative stated matter-of-factly that we need the oil and nobody flinched. Everyone just took it for granted. We need the oil and gas to support our way of life. That is a given.

Now if we could just get it out without those embarrassing incidents. Because that is really what matters here, it doesn't look good. When the commentator asked about a major spill in Indonesia, the industry representative's answer focused on regulations, and how some countries don't have good regulations! Duh.

Once again, deafening silence from the opposition. As if regulations is what matters. Never mind the spill, worry about the rules. Never mind either that those rules were probably dictated by the industry, all too happy that there are plenty of countries with little or no regulations!

Nobody, but absolutely nobody mentioned the outrageous living-room-on-wheels SUV's that Americans need to drive to and from work. Nobody questioned our life-style. Even the environmentalist, or should I say the so-called environmentalist focused on the problem at hand, not the bigger picture.

It is obvious that when people think this way, we are never going to solve our problem. If people take our outrageous life-style for granted, we are doomed. We are doomed to repeat what has happened so many times before: arrogant civilizations running into a brick wall at 100 mph. Collapse.

big business fights climate change

Just in case you wonder, Democrats are not that different from Republicans. All lawmakers listen to the beat of one drum: big business and its campaign contributions. Even if doing so goes against the wishes of voters, or common sense. These lawmakers figure their donors will be successful at convincing voters anyhow. History has shown that they are often right to think so. Nobody is as brainwashed as the American voters. American voters are the only ones who gladly and proudly vote against their own interest as is clearly shown by what is happening around Health Care Reform.

A democratic senator from West Virginia, aka coaltown, John D. Rockefeller IV introduced a bill that would put a two year freeze on the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. It was just one of many proposals from both chambers designed to delay or overturn the EPA's regulations.

What is Senator Rockefeller IV worried about? That fossil fuel prices could go up? How is that for logic? Fossil fuel prices should go up. They should go up by a lot. Anyone who cares for the future of humans on the planet knows that. Only higher prices will deter people from wasting energy and producing more greenhouse gases.

Guess what Rockefeller is waiting for? Clean coal? He calls it a technological breakthrough to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels. He also said," Today we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy." What he really meant was, "today we are setting back environmental regulation by several decades to please my big business campaign contributors."

The oil and mining industries immediately started lobbying for Rockefeller's bill, although the American Petroleum Institute was clearly upset that the bill did not go far enough. "We don't know why the freeze on EPA authority isn't made permanent," a policy analyst for the Institute said.

oil for war, war for oil

I already knew that the oil driven agriculture is unsustainable, using almost 10 calories of oil for every food calorie it produces, but now I found out -by reading the Economist of all rags- that our warfare apparatus is equally unsustainable. The thrifty British use 7 gallons of fuel to bring one gallon of the precious liquid to theater in Afghanistan. One can only wonder how much more the far-less-thrifty Americans use. Only three gallons more and we could grow Roundup-ready corn in the Afghan desert! Time to buy Monsanto stock!

Our esteemed military uses in excess of 1 million gallons of fuel per day in Afghanistan, and a similar amount in Iraq. At least that is what the Economist reports. In the very same article the Economist points out that modern warfare would be impossible without oil. War with oil in a war for oil.

No wonder then that our military leaders are looking into solar power! Something will be needed to keep all those generators going so our troops can stay warm in winter, and cool in summer.

Some more numbers while we are at it. An armored humvee apparently gets four miles to gallon, while the famed Abrams tank uses four gallons to the mile. Now here is a cash for clunkers program that would make a difference.

Or how about riding bicycles? The added benefit would be that a group of dispersed bikers make a far less appealing target than a humvee loaded with GI's and goodies. Killing a cyclist never makes the evening news and we all know how media hungry these modern terrorists are. Plus, our soldiers would get their much deserved workout patrolling the streets.

Although we are told on a nearly daily basis how our police officers learn from the anti-terrorist tactics developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so are able to make our streets safer, maybe it is time for some common sense (and a lot less petroleum waste). It is obvious that street violence is much easier to control by having police officers walk the beat. Everybody knows that cops in a car are easy to spot and even easier to avoid. Luckily our local gang members prefer to avoid police cars rather than resort to IED's -at least for now.

Patrolling neighborhoods by car (or humvee) is the most ineffective way to control street violence (to say nothing of the greenhouse gases produced).

Here is something America could learn. From Iraq we learn that the best way to control violence is to take guns and ammunition away. We all understand that and I guess nobody would complain if we violated the Iraqi's second amendment rights to carry arms. Oh, wait a minute, Iraqi's don't have second amendment rights!

From our inner cities we learn that the best way to control neighborhoods is to have people walk the streets.

Ergo, if we took the guns away in America, and we patrolled the streets in Iraq, we could have less violence in both places, and a lot less greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Now there is an idea that has legs.

Ford sends the wrong message

We all know Detroit is in trouble. But what are the automakers doing to resolve their problems? The short answer is nothing. They are doing business as usual and waiting for government bailouts.

Don't look to the automakers to help solve the world's problems. Quite the contrary. Ford is touting its new 365 HP Taurus SHO. Who on earth needs a 365 HP car to sit in traffic jams? But wait, that is not the whole story. The car is equipped with EcoBoost™ technology. What is that you ask? Well it sounds good doesn't it? And that is really what matters to Ford.

Whatever it is EcoBoost is doing, it is sending the wrong message. Ford claims you get a V6 engine with all the potency of a V8. Doesn't potency sound like either a sexual term or a drug property to you? No doubt Ford is hoping you will interpret it that way. A car on (sex) steroids. It is an unbeatable combination, especially if you add the feel-good EcoBoost™ to the mix. Green sex steroids for you America.

If Ford has truly devised a way to make engines more fuel efficient, they are also making it very clear why technology will NEVER solve our greenhouse gas problem. The reason is very simple: every time an innovation allows for better efficiency, the industry will use it to build bigger engines and then some. The net result is either neutral or in many cases negative.

Why would anyone need an eight cylinder car? Why do they need a six cylinder? The average commute speed is 27 mph in most areas. Cars not only pollute, they also make people lazy and fat. These fat people then develop all kinds of expensive chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension. All of it to the infinite delight of big pharma, which is ever ready to supply medications to treat such life-long conditions. Can't make money if the patient dies or heals too quickly.

Ironically enough, those same healthcare costs are now cutting into Detroits margins? How is that for karma?

Take my advice. Say no to Ford and its potent dildo. Tell them to build a small fuel efficient car. And then use it as little as possible. You will be happier and live better too. Ride your bike to a breath of fresh air.

so you thought it was over?

It amazes me how easily people give in to wishful thinking or are swayed by a bit of summer optimism. There are those who seriously believed the recession was over. You could add the White House, the Fed and some associated economists, but of course one does not know whether those guys really believed it (I hope not) or whether they were just doing what they are paid to do, i.e. be super-optimistic and give rosy forecasts.

In any case, even my friend Krugman seems convinced we have averted disaster. And that may well be true, we may have averted a sudden collapse of the financial system with all the havoc that would produce. However that does not mean we are out of the woods. Far from it. For several decades now Americans have lived as if there were no tomorrow. They have outspent themselves and accumulated debt. More than half of the households in the country have zero net worth. All of that in an economy that depends on consumer spending for 3/4's of its value. It is not something you can remedy in a few months, or even a few years.

There is a silver lining to all this. I already noted that greenhouse gas production -as well as habitat destruction- is dropping. That is good. People are also consuming less. That is good too, even though it will cause more hardship in the short run. Hopefully it will cause enough hardship so we make some changes to our economic system. And that is what worries me the most. Change is always hard and changing this economic system will be super, super hard to do. To be honest, I hope it will happen, but I am almost certain it won't.

It may be impossible to change the current economic system unless the US collapses or revolution ensues. That is the lesson we learn from history. No matter how much trouble a country is in, and or how many people rebel, the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer until the latter are so downtrodden and destitute and so numerous that a revolution is inevitable. We are a long way from that scenario.

The other option, a loss of economic driving force, the disappearance of the engine, resulting in a collapse of the empire, seems far off too. Although the latter is the more likely scenario for the US, it is at least fifty to a hundred years out. Waiting for such an event is not a smart thing to do. We should try to remedy our problems before they run out of control.

So what can we do to change?

The solution is quite simple. We need to learn to live within our means. We need to consume less and we need to focus on our local area when it comes to shopping, production and jobs. We need to stop driving, flying and shipping stuff around so much. We need to remove the non-value creating parts of the economy, the ones that depend on cheap oil and environmental destruction.

Unfortunately that is not what we see happening. Instead people are desperate to keep up their life-style and they revert to shopping at Walmart instead. That is the wrong thing to do. These people are behaving like drug addicts who will settle for a cheaper fix, as long as they get some fix.

What we need to do is do away with chain stores like Walmart that destroy local economies and sell goods below cost. We need to replace them with smaller stores that pay fair wages and sell local goods, not trinkets shipped in from China. That would lead to a revival of local job opportunities and jobs that create real value instead of churning through excesses. We need to disable most of our financial institutions. These guys bring no value whatsoever. Apart from causing regular boom and bust cycles they make everyone poorer on a daily basis by charging fees while creating nothing of value.

We need to let of go of this crazy economic system that just shuttles wealth around instead of creating it.

gas guzzlers unite

Sporting a panel that read: "Congress get in touch with America," an oil industry worker bused in by her employer, Anadarko Petroleum, protested the upcoming climate change bill at a meeting in Texas.

The America Congress is supposed to get in touch with is a gas-guzzler nation that seems to care very little for the future or the environment. It is a nation that burns gas for no good reason. It is all part of the great consumerism wave.

David Leland, a geological map maker for the petroleum industry, was quoted by the NY Times as saying: "We provide a product at a reasonable price, and we're going to get punished for doing a damn good job." What he forgot to mention is that the price is so "reasonable" because his company fails to pay for the environmental damage it does. What he also forgets is that this reasonable price is conducive to some very unreasonable behavior on the part of consumers.

Big oil, like big pharma and many other big businesses realize that they can only keep going the way they are now if the public behaves in an extremely irrational and wasteful manner. People have to consume oil, drugs, and other goodies as if these things have no value.

Unfortunately, this is not a viable long term strategy. The executives with their fat bonuses and lavish lifestyles may not care, but in the (not so) long run their irresponsible behavior is going to cause massive harm and loss of life.

Wouldn't it be better if we could tone down our economic activity to a more reasonable level? We would all be happier and we'd live longer too.

carbon computing

According to a new IBM ad, the world's datacenters produce more carbon in a year than 36 million homes. There are about a 110 million households in the US, for reference. 

IBM's conclusion? The world needs smarter IT, and presumably IBM is ready to deliver those smarts. So much for the hype. Do you wonder how much extra carbon those smarts need?

My solution for the datacenter mess? Take a look at what is stored in those datacenters. Do you think I exaggerate when I estimate that 99% of the information is completely useless? I am willing to bet most of it is duplicated many thousands of times over. Probably 90% of it is never looked at by anyone at any time. A lot of it is printed out over and over again to decorate reports, office memoranda, powerpoint presentations, and the like. Never mind the trees!

Take a look at your own computer. How many email messages are in your inbox? 5,000 plus? How much of your hard disk is filled with junk that you never ever use? Remember the days when 20 megabytes was a lot of storage space? That is not too long ago. Now, anything less than a gigabyte is considered puny.

And who do we have to thank for this? How about Microsoft? Have you noticed that the Office suite has grown several orders of magnitude in the last decade? But why? Does it have more functionality? Is it more useful now? I bet if you are honest with yourself you will admit that it doesn't. You may conclude that it is worse now than 10 years ago, when it did not have all those bells and whistles that you never look at. I certainly think it is worse.

IT is just a micro version of the larger problem. Resources are too cheap so nobody values them. There is too much cheap storage available so what do people do? They get lazy. They keep everything around. They store stuff just in case they might need it one day.

Here is an interesting computing idea. Next time you buy, downsize.

earth hour

Apparently Vegas dimmed its lights Saturday for Earth hour. Dimmed is what the paper said. One cannot expect Las Vegas to go dark. Although some notorious items apparently did go without illumination. For one hour the sign, "Welcome to fabulous Las Vegas" was dark. And so were the Luxor's space beams. How is that for progress?

The soon to be renamed Sears Tower, the Golden Gate bridge, the Sydney opera house, the Eiffel Tower, all these landmarks went dark and stayed dark for one full hour.

I hope you didn't feel the urge to pull out the good-old SUV from your garage to go and watch it happen. Or that you were one of the guests at the Bank of America tower drinking cocktails with battery-operated "ice" cubes, served by waiters who carried flash lights and wore battery operated head lights? Because if you did that, it pretty much defeated the purpose.

Then again, millions of people no doubt turned on their TV sets to watch these famous landmarks go dark. Courtesy of hundreds of TV camera crews, who pulled out all the stops to capture the scenes. Never mind the miles driven, the generators that ran, and the elaborate energy wasting toys that were needed to ensure we could all witness this historic event in real time.

I have an idea. Why don't we turn off all those lights every single night? And then once a year, we can celebrate earth hour and turn everything on for 60 minutes. How is that for a nice twist? WWF where are you?

another baby boom and a perfect storm

We are in the midst of a new baby boom. Last year more children were born than at the height of the post-war baby boom (1957). If you think that is good news, think again. We are rapidly running out of room on this planet.

If you live in California, you may think -based on your travels through our renowned deserts- that we have room a'plenty. Unfortunately, we humans need more than just land. We need water and California is already having trouble providing water to its existing residents, let alone to newcomers. Sure, most of California's water goes to (big) agriculture -another one of those welfare programs for the richest of the rich- but that agriculture provides much of the US, Europe and Japan with fruits and vegetables. Like all irrigated ecosystems, California is losing farm land every year. California's irrigation has already depleted valuable fisheries and it is bound to cause more trouble for the oceans in the future.

Climate change will only accelerate these trends. Our consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow unabated and the effects of greenhouse gas accumulations continue to surpass our wildest predictions. That means sea levels will rise more than our worst case scenarios, and desertification will be more extensive. These trends will further reduce agricultural areas.

According to the latest research we are headed for a perfect storm when it comes to growing world populations and dwindling resources. That storm is predicted to hit around 2030, give or take a decade. What that means is that it is close enough for many of us to start witnessing its effects during our life-times. Unfortunately for some of us, it may become the reason our life-span will turn out shorter than expected.

It seems most likely that such a storm will hit more or less out of the blue, much like the credit crisis we just experienced. All these types of events, be they financial, biological, ecological, or what have you display similar patterns of behavior. Mathematically speaking, these events are very similar.

So while many will see it coming, and there will be clear telltale signs and warnings, most people will ignore these, and a significant number will think the scenario impossible or absurd. It seems highly likely that the run-up to the storm will be characterized by behavior that is truly excessive, and -in retrospect- incomprehensible.

The same happened during the housing crisis. Prices kept rising and everyone thought it would never end. People took on more and more risk, and were feeling more and more optimistic about the future (one reason we are having a baby boom now). And then very suddenly the bubble collapses.

The only difference being, that a resource crisis will be many times bigger and many times more painful than a financial crisis. Tens of millions will die, and many more will be faced with starvation, malnutrition, infectious diseases,  and other mortal dangers.

climate

The results from Copenhagen are in. Once again, we beat all predictions. Climate change is happening faster and is more extensive than our worst case scenarios. Do you see a pattern here? Rather than worry about media hype and overly pessimistic scientists, the world should worry about naysayers and too-rosy forecasts. If the present trends hold up, warming will be worse and its effects more devastating than a bad Hollywood disaster movie.

detroit blues

The car industry is finally finding out that people don't need two cars. They don't need big inconvenient pieces of metal that guzzle gas, are awkward to drive, pollute the environment, and serve no purpose other than to impress potential mates. I wrote about this in November 2007. I called it mating dance.

Humans, and male humans especially, like to show off for the opposite sex. Like peacocks, human males are willing to put up with showy but otherwise inconvenient and bothersome display artifacts. The mating dance car is curiously maladroit. It is a race car that is unfit to race, a four wheel drive that is unfit for off-road duty, or a "sport-utility" vehicle that is neither a truck nor a passenger car. Or perhaps a "luxury" vehicle that the owner has to drive. Go figure!

The situation has gotten out of hand. Even when it comes to showing off, Detroit and its foreign cronies have run out of ideas. I admit that I do like cars. And so I know what I am talking about when I say there has been no worthwhile improvement on the market for at least 10 years. Nothing worth buying really. Nothing that didn't exist 10 years ago in a better format. Because car companies have long since run out of "innovations." 

To make up for this lack of ideas, they have jumped onto the trend of building moving living rooms. They have added and continue to add every single home improvement item they can think of. Massage chairs, stereos, DVD players, phones, fridges, you name it. All of it clutters up the car, adds weight, destroys performance, and otherwise makes driving less enjoyable. But then again, who can drive these days? People spend their time sitting in traffic instead. So maybe they need their gadgets to avoid boredom?

Cars are a very American way to show off. Europeans also use cars for this purpose, but to a lesser extent. They tend to concentrate on fine clothing and smaller luxury items like watches, fountain pens, etc. Conceptually, it isn't any different, except that fountain pens don't consume gallons of gas and spew out tons of carbon dioxide. Fountain pens can be fine display items that do very little to destroy our habitat.

Something to think about in these hard times.

global warming is not the problem..

and technology is not the answer.

Global warming is but one symptom of humans destroying their habitat. There are many other, equally disturbing conditions. Trash is building up, fisheries are disappearing, pollution is destroying water supplies, the list is endless. All these are due to one thing and one thing only, too many humans using too many resources too quickly. We are overgrowing our fish bowl.

The answer to these problems is quite simple: we need to cut back. We don't need new green technology, and we certainly don't need people trashing good stuff just to buy new energy efficient gadgets. We need people to stop buying new things all the time.

That will mean our economy will contract. But that is a positive thing. There will be some pain of course, but it will be much less than the pain we will inflict upon ourselves if we keep going the way we are now. Driven by out-of-control consumerism.

Consumerism has several origins. As any species, we are opportunistic. When we have plenty we quickly expand to use it all. We expand by generating more offspring, but also by increasing our individual consumption. That is all fine but we are setting ourselves up for massive losses at a later time. No species can keep growing at the rate we are.

Spending is also deeply ingrained in our brains. It is key to reproductive success. It is "sexy" as some might say. Males spend to impress females. Females choose males who have plenty as that will enhance the chances for their offspring. Both sexes are involved in a never ending quest to consume more. Nobody is keeping an eye on the future.

Unfortunately, we are on a runaway course. We have very few enemies and nothing significant to trim our numbers, other than massive disasters. And massive disasters are in our future if we keep going. 

What form those disasters will take is anyone's guess. But they will surely happen and they will be of enormous magnitude. Just like housing prices can't keep going up forever, or the Dow can't stay on its hockey stick curve, human populations will not be able to keep up their present expansion. Serious and devastating cutbacks will happen. 

Unless we use our brains and voluntarily cut back. Don't count on it though!

Detroit green (and red)

Cadillac just introduced its version of a green car. The Escalade hybrid, a $72,865 monster with a 6.0 liter, V8 engine. Its gas mileage rating is 20/21 mpg. Even the Wall Street Journal thinks the monster is so overloaded with junk that its gas mileage suffers. That should tell you something.

Chrysler too, launched its solution to greenhouse gases. The 2009 Aspen Hybrid 4WD. At $45,570 it is a whole lot cheaper than the Cadillac shoebox, but energy wise, it is a serious competitor. It has a 5.7 liter V8, that gets an amazing 20/22 rating.

You should know that hybrid technology is really a hoax. See some of my earlier postings for more on that. Nevertheless, most hybrid makers do try to save gas in some ways and that is helpful. So hats off to Toyota!

Detroit on the other hand does not even try. And that is why we should let the go out of business. We, the taxpayers should say no to the whiners from Michigan.

Here is failure number one about to happen, for the Democrats and the Obama team. Most likely they will decide they need to save the car makers. Not because it makes any sense whatsoever, but because their constituents and donors at UAW will force their hand. Saving the "big three" is a dumb thing to do, even from a purely economic point of view.  But for Obama, who made energy policy and climate change a big campaign issue, it is a litmus test. Even in these dire economic times, he should stand firm. Especially now.

He should stand firm because climate change is real and it will cost real jobs. There are no two ways about it. It will cause pain and suffering, and if Obama or anyone else for that matter, can't do it in a situation were it makes economic sense, what can we expect in other situations?

The sad truth is that Obama raised a record $750 million to win this campaign. While this is universally praised and admired, it is a setback of unheard of proportions. Not to be too cynical and call it a shame.

So, get ready for step one in the grand dance of paybacks. Saving dinosaurs who day in and day out prove to us that they deserve to go under.

When Cadillac disappears from the face of the planet, it will be a great day for all.

setback or progress?

It is now quite common to read stories about how the recession will roll back environmental rules and regulations. How the need to create jobs and keep the economy going will put environmental incentives on the back burner. How we will lose years of gains in a matter of months. How efficiency will suffer.

These stories are often found in publications such as the WSJ, Forbes, the Economist, and others that otherwise show little or no concern for environmental regulation. Not to be totally cynical and say that these publications often oppose pro-environment rules or promote rollbacks of such rules and regulations. How come these anti-environmental publications are suddenly so worried about green?

I think what these people are trying to tell us is that a thriving economy is good for the environment. That success lifts all boats. That we should work hard to keep the economy going so we can protect the environment. Remember, the more you buy the more you save. You can drink the kool-aid too.

I have previously remarked on how easy it is to attach a label of environmentalist to oneself. However, true environmentalism means less consumption. No new houses, no new cars, hybrid or otherwise, no thrashing perfectly good items to replace them with newer gadgets, no shopping at WalMart or anywhere else for that matter.

True environmentalism means going on a walk in nature on Black Friday. Turning off you TV instead of buying a flat screen. No driving to the mall and no bargain hunting. It has nothing to do with CFL's, hybrids, or efficiency. Efficiency does not matter to the environment. Absolute values are the only ones that matter.

Every item you buy to replace an older but functional item is a vote for environmental destruction.

Remember that none of the so-called environmental regulations has had much effect. Efficiency gains in gas and oil have been more than offset by increased travel, more driving, and larger homes. I could go on forever. The upshot is that these measures don't matter and their roll back or abolition does not matter either.

Reality is that economic slow downs are good for the environment because they reduce consumption. People spend less. They drive less. They stay home. They eat at home. Those are the only things that matter. Less consumption, less waste.

we're going to six

The Dow went down in the 7,000 range today. Just as I predicted a while ago. And we are not done yet. I am sure we will go into the 6,000's before long. I also think the threat of deflation is now very real. The administration keeps on saying the chances are low, but they also said the American economy was fundamentally sound. I think it is fundamentally flawed.

They also said a lot of other things that make no sense, like housing prices always go up, and any housing market is local, and we may go into a recession -we already are-, and we should invade Iraq, and they have WMD's. Fortunately the administration is on its way out. The new one promised change and we will give it the benefit of the doubt, at least for now. Don't hold your breath though, you might suffocate.

Believe it or not, but what is happening in the market is good news. I say that even though my savings and retirement accounts are losing money like leaky sieves. I am somewhat worried too, but ultimately I see it as a sacrifice for the common good.

We are going to become more frugal and any sane environmentalist needs to applaud such a move. Unfortunately, in an economy that relies on consumer spending, that means great and widespread pain is inevitable. But the end result can be a good thing. It's a bit like giving birth. It hurts but in the end it is worth it. 

What we need now is for someone to step in and raise gas prices. I know many of you think I am crazy for saying this, but it is necessary. Like a cigarette tax, we need to get people away from gas and energy waste. The sooner we do so the better. I hope -but doubt- that Obama has the guts.

solar misconception

Today's WSJ has a special section on Energy. It starts with an article on our addiction to oil and what, if anything we should do about it. Then some about better batteries, and so on. Not much new there. However, what caught my eye was an article entitled:"Consumers as Producers." It discusses solar energy and whether people who install solar cells and supply power to the grid should be paid, and if so, at what rate.

Various arguments can be made in favor of, or against reimbursing customers. The article goes through all of them, highlighting the various pros and cons. It has no conclusion, other than to say, it is too early to tell. Because, in true WSJ fashion, the free market has to decide what works best. What "works best" means who gets to install the most solar cells. I.e. who consumes the most.

I am sorry but the article totally misses the point. The point being that people should use less energy. They should conserve energy. That should be the primary motivation: to use less of whatever energy it is they use. Instead we are once again seeing the opposite knee jerk reaction. Homeowners who want to produce energy to get paid, others who want solar so they can use more energy without having to pay, still others who go on use more to spite the utility that won't pay them for the extra juice they produce, etc. etc.

Earlier I told a story of a neighbor who installed solar panels so he could run the AC and the heater simultaneously. He wanted to use more power but did not want to pay the high rates. On top of it, he sincerely believed he was doing something good for the planet and even wrote an essay in a Segway contest on how he was environmentally aware. Guess what, he won the Segway too. So now he can use solar energy to drive his Segway instead of walking!

What we need to realize is that we use too much energy. We Americans use twice as much energy as rich Europeans -and they use too much to begin with. We need to use less. All energy use is polluting and there is no such thing as clean energy.

Unfortunately, the only remedy appears to be high prices. It is a solution nobody likes but it is the only one that works. We will need to tax ourselves heavily lest we pollute ourselves out of existence.

abundance

You could ask, why are we so wasteful? Why do we use so much energy? The straightforward answer is because we can. We have found cheap energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and oil and we know how to use these quickly and efficiently. We are victims of our success.

When we say cheap, we mean it is cheap to exploit these sources. We conveniently ignore the (huge) hidden costs of mining, transporting, and burning those fuels. These hidden costs include habitat destruction, resource depletion, pollution, and global warming. 

The overconsumption is somewhat of a vicious circle. Because we have all this cheap energy, we managed to industrialize food production which in turn led to more people wasting more. In 1940, one farmer could feed only 19 people. Today, one farmer can feed 129 people. The difference is due to extra vehicles, more mechanized equipment, energy consuming irrigation systems, and petroleum derived fertilizers and pesticides. We have also developed ways to transport food over long distances. That includes extra energy consumption caused by necessary refrigeration.

The large efficiency gain has resulted in an extra 110 individuals (per food producer) that don't need to bother growing food. These individuals can engage in other activities. Other activities that are wasting more energy. An elaborate services economy was created that recently surpassed food production and other basic necessities in number of participants.

Unfortunately it will only go on like this until the bubble bursts. And burst it will because our current economy is unsustainable. Ever more people are born and need to be fed with ever fewer resources. The hidden costs are also catching up with us, both indirectly by making less land and water available, and directly by making us sick.

A logical solution would be voluntary cutbacks and rationing. Despite our great "intelligence," it appears we'd rather go bust.

energy

A great quote from Vaclav Smil in a NYT blog: 

The new president needs to "Explain to the nation that the Americans, who consume twice as much energy per capita as rich Europeans (and have nothing to show for it, as they are not richer, do not live longer, are not better educated and do not work less) should embark on a long road of trying to live within some sensible limits, which means less and not more."

A great truth that does not just apply to energy and the environment, but also to our financial crisis. We are living without limits and it is not a happy life. It is an isolated life where our well being is constantly threatened by outside forces. We may lose our job, our health care, our status. Our neighbors may outdo us and make us feel inadequate by having a bigger house, a wider TV screen, a greener lawn, a bulkier car, or what have you. They unsettle us by going on longer and more expensive trips, making us feel small and irrelevant.

It is a life-style driven by inane consumerism that does nobody any good. Endlessly churning through stuff, we need more oil, more water, more materials than any other country in the world. 

Our endless pursuit for more stuff leaves us constantly in need of more. As soon as we get something we quickly trash it (up to 90% of the items bought end up in the trash within 6 months) and go look for other -even better- stuff. We want to be movers-and-shakers, having access to the latest must-have gadget, only to replace it by another must-have gadget within 6 months, like rats endlessly pressing levers to get more drug.

We isolate ourselves in ever bigger houses, with our own bedrooms, bathrooms, living spaces,TV sets, stereos, etc. Constantly putting up barriers and removing ourselves from others. We are addicted to cell phones, iPods, and other devices that interrupt our social lives, isolate us acoustically, and attention-wise from the world around us. Nothing like going to lunch with someone who spends the entire time talking to others on their cell phone. And why? To show us how indispensable they really are? Is that the idea? To invite us so they can show us how important they are?

Wake up America, ditch your car, your TV, your iPod, your cell phone, and all that other isolating, energy wasting junk that clutters up your lives. Go on a walk and talk to your friends.

footprints

For a while now you have heard talk about your carbon footprint. Maybe the British oil company "beyond" petroleum told you about it. They did that so you would think they were the good guys and keep buying their gas. Besides, drug dealers can tell addicts anything they like about their drugs, it really does not matter. Addicts have what is called inelastic demand. They want their fix no matter what you tell them about the benefits or drawbacks of the product.

Despite all the talk about carbon footprints, and other awareness building efforts relating to global warming, nothing much has happened other than ever increasing carbon shoe sizes. It has gotten to the point where most people are starting to feel numb, and many Republicans are already past that stage and full tilt into mockery as evidenced by their "drill baby" chants at the convention. Can you imagine the passengers of the Titanic singing, "sink baby, sink?"

Unfortunately, carbon footprints aren't the only trouble awaiting us. There is what the Global Footprint Network calls the ecological footprint. How big are our overall resource requirements? And the water footprint, how much water do we need per capita to live our lifestyles?

Needless to say that when it comes to footprints, North America, and especially the US are on top of the list. But the rest of the so-called Western World isn't far behind. China and India are also big players but mostly because they have so many people. 

Our current footprint exceeds what is available on the planet by nearly threefold. What that means is that if we just wanted to bring everybody up to our current level, we would need three planets to do it. Maybe all those people wanting to save the third world should think about that?

Our water footprint is similarly out of whack. Not only do we insist on pouring good water down our toilets everyday -so we can have toilets inside the house and won't have to freeze or be inconvenienced in the middle of the night. We also waste it on growing beef, cotton, and our other favorite drug, sugar.

In short, if we want to keep living happily ever after, we in the West will have to change our lifestyles quite a bit, and in the very near future too. Because most indices predict disastrous crashes before mid-century.

If you think this cannot possibly happen, just remember what they used to say about housing prices. Plain old common sense will tell you that nothing, absolutely nothing can keep going up forever. Think about that before you turn on your TV and drink the kool-aid.