The Democratic Party has developed a terrible energy policy, and it is being pushed on the local level by Democratic Party office holders around the country. Just about the only thing that I have seen that is worse is the one being pushed by the Republicans, starting with Presidential candidate John McCain.
It appears that neither policy was developed from an understanding of science, or of economics. Rather, using the best methods of Madison Avenue, they have taken focus group results and polls to determine what it takes to get elected. They must think that voters are stupid ... and they may be right. Of course, I have more to say on the matter.
Economist Bryan Caplan warned us about the Myth of the Rational Voter. It is subtitled, "Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies." According to Caplan, most voters do not truly understand the manner in which science, or economics works in the real world. As a result the policies that have the greatest immediate satisfaction will be chosen without regard for long-term consequences.
When politicians use that in order to structure position and policies the result is frequently catastrophic. Basing energy policy on the need to lower gasoline prices is idiocy, but that is what both candidates appear to be doing.
For all practical purposes, the Earth on which we live is a closed material system. The rate at which we might pick up dust from the interstellar void is minuscule in relation to the rate at which civilization is using it. When the material in question is carbon, linked with a few hydrogen and oxygen atoms, you are dealing with the very basis of life and had damned well better get it right if life as we know it is to survive.
I am just now reading, "The Carbon Age," by Eric Roston. It is a very new book. I was the first to check it out from our public library. Roston addresses the reasons why we need to be very, very careful with carbon. Roston subtitled this book with care: "How Life's Core Element has Become Civilization's Greatest Threat."
The entire history of the earth may be interpreted as a series of changes in the carbon cycle. Until recently, the important players were never mammals, but bacteria and algae, transforming the carbon cycle over billions of years to create the conditions under which life as we know it could prosper. We experiment with this mechanism at our own peril. Unfortunately, we have been engaged in an uncontrolled experiment for the last two centuries.
The key to all energy is the sun, but Barack Obama is now telling us that we need to increase domestic production of petroleum in order to grow our economy. He gives a lot of talk about developing alternative energy sources, but it never goes beyond talk. When it is necessary to put together a real plan, funded by our taxes, the results are predictably more oil, more coal and more global warming. It seem that the only change this will foster is climate change.
The Democrats would have us believe that we can lower gasoline prices by selling off a portion of America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The only strategy they have is to get elected. What is strategic about tapping the reserve now and replenishing it at a higher price later? What is strategic about depleting this reserve and then having a major hurricane take out substantial offshore capacity in the Gulf of Mexico or to lose the capacity of the Alaskan Pipeline? What would we do then?
John Kerry tried this approach in 2004. The voters did not buy it then and they will see through it now. Still, that is about all that Pelosi and the House Democrats can think of.
The Republicans would do more. Their mantra seems to be drill here, drill now. Drill in Alaska. Drill on the storm-vulnerable outer continental shelf. Given that petroleum is a finite resource, what is the rationality in using it up as fast as we can? If they have such faith in progress, why do Republicans block funding it with Senate filibusters?
California representative Dana Rohrabacher, who became famous for his use of the term "dinosaur flatulence," in discussing global warming tries distraction. With global warming being called a security threat by the U.S. military, Rohrabacher would have us invest our money in sci-fi efforts to save the earth from a meteor collision. Both are catastrophic events. The difference is that one has a low probability of occurance if we don't act and the other is a certainty.
After seeing his signs start to appear in town, I may soon add Dean Andal to this list.
The Green Party's Dr. Kent Mesplay had the right idea. He calls for "public officials who treat science with respect and who actually work to make us more secure rather than catering to their favorite businesses."
I think voters can understand this. I wonder about our potential future presidents. They give lip service to dealing with climate change while continuing the failed energy policies of Bush and company. This is not change I can believe in.
Wes Rolley Wes Rolley is an artist and concerned citizen. The Board of Contributors is comprised of local writers whose views appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Although the Morgan Hill Times does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Morgan Hill Times reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Morgan Hill Times in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Morgan Hill Times also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
Live Oak dominates Westmont