For example, both are pushing for energy independence. They only differ in how to achieve it. They assume that energy independence is a good thing.
While energy independence may sound good (a result of American cultural attitude towards independence from anything), is it, really?
The reason, that we go to the global market for obtaining resources, is that it allows us to choose from a large number of producers to find the lowest price. Energy independence means that we restrict our choice to only domestic producers who may or may not have low prices. With a smaller pool of producers, there is less market competition and will result in higher energy prices. That's a pretty stupid result.
The second problem with trying to achieve energy independence is that it's impossible. We have a market economy. In a market economy, resources, products, and services move freely; we can't keep energy from flowing in or out of the country. The electrical grid, in the U.S., is connected to the Canadian electrical grid and to the Mexican electrical grid. American utilities, at the same time, import and export electricity from/to Canada and Mexico. Exxon Mobile, at the same time, imports and exports diesel fuel from/to other countries. Resources, products, and services are constantly flowing to wherever the price is higher. Most importantly, the U.S. economy benefits heavily on this free exchange. If the U.S. government shuts it down, our economy will die.
The two presidential candidates' reason for pursuing energy independence is just as stupid. They insisted that we need energy independence because we don't want our money going to people who may fund terrorists. They failed to mention that we import half of the crude oil that we consume and most of which comes from Canada and Mexico. We certainly don't expect Canadian and Mexican oil profits going to terrorists.
Only sixteen percent of it actually comes from the middle east. But even if all the crude oil, that we import, comes from the middle east, would we really be depriving the middle eastern countries of profit if we don't import from them? Would they not readily find other buyers? Would they not continue to profit from their oil export even if they don't export to us? Need I mention that the People's Republic of China is constantly moving into markets in which the United States deemed to be unsavory?
Both candidate propose shifting from imported oil to "renewable" "green" energy. All "renewable" "green" energy, with the exception of geothermal, is solar energy. e.g., Wind energy comes from the sun heating air in one location causing it to move to a cooler location. Hydro-electric energy comes from the sun evaporating water from an location of lower elevation and raining/snowing on an area of higher elevation. Bio-fuel comes from the sun light being turned into organically stored energy through photosynthesis. Even petro-energy is the solar energy since it comes from organically stored energy. So what's the problem?
"Renewable" "green" energy is insufficient to supply all our energy needs. Only a tiny portion of the light emitted by our sun is radiated in the direction of the earth. Of the portion that is radiated towards earth, only one billionth of that energy actually reaches earth. Of the solar energy that actually reaches the earth, only a portion is not filtered by the earth atmosphere. (It's a good thing; otherwise we would be exposed to a lot of harmful radiation. Think about what would happen to our skin cancer rate if the earth's atmosphere doesn't filter out the harmful radiation.)
Consider this. The earth has been storing up solar energy, in the form of petro-energy, for millions of years. Within a century, we've almost sucked it dry.
One of the most ridiculous "renewable" "green" energy policies is the U.S. government's backing of ethanol. More energy is used to produce (plant, grow, harvest, and distill the corn) and transport ethanol than the amount of energy that's actually in the ethanol. How does a net loss in energy going to help move the U.S. towards "energy independence"? Yet, not only does the U. S. Government subsidizes the production of ethanol but also forces us to buy it (as a mandated gasoline additive).
The truth is that "renewable" "green" would not be viable without government subsidies. And even with the subsidies, it's still more expensive.
Recently, my utility company offered its customers the opportunity to buy electricity produced using wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, the price of the alternative energy source is about ten percent greater than my regular electricity source.
As for geo-thermal energy, does anyone actually think it would be a good idea to put big honking pipes into the ground next to Old Faithful in the Yellowstone National Park? I'll be willing to agree to pipes next to Old Faithful on the day Ted Kennedy agrees to allowing windmills to be built on the waters off Nantucket.
Sadly, the so-called "green" energy solutions, backed by both U. S. Presidential candidates are not so "green".
For example, photo-voltaic cells (solar panels) are perceived to be environmentally friendly. However, the byproduct of manufacturing photo-voltaic cells (and all other semi-conductors) are drums and drums of very toxic chemicals (solvent with cyanide) that we have to store. The waste to energy ratio for photo-voltaic cells is far worst than that of today's nuclear reactors.
There are so-called "green" companies building massive solar collectors in the desert which would heat liquid filled pipes for driving electricity generating turbines. Don't tell me that these monstrosities will not disrupt the desert's eco-system.
In California, they call windmills "condor Cuisinarts". You can imagine what they do to endangered soaring birds like condors, falcons, eagles, and owls.
Hydro-electric dams kill migrating salmons. There is only one solution for our future energy need: Nuclear fusion. Unlike the process used in current nuclear reactors (nuclear fission), which produces radioactive waste, nuclear fusion combines two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom (the gas used in party balloons).
We need to stop wasting our research money (our tax dollars) on energy solutions that will never fulfill our needs and concentrate on a solution that will. We need to put research money into nuclear fusion.
But even if we successfully switch our energy source away from petroleum based products, we will not be free of oil dependency until we change our agricultural policies. Currently, twenty percent of the oil that we use (domestic and imported) is for products used in farming. e.g. fertilizer, pesticide, etc.
These products are only necessary because our agricultural system is based on the industrial model of production: single-product farms. If the system moves to multiple-product farms with composting and field rotation, we would not need petroleum based chemicals like fertilizers.
For example, in Argentina, field usage rotates between free range cattle grazing and planting. When the cattle is done with the field, the field is fertile from the manure. When the planting and composting is done, the field is ready for grazing.
As you can see, neither candidate for U.S. President understands this issues. Unfortunately, as I examine their position on other issues, I found them to be just as clueless. I would call them "Dumb and Dumber" except I wouldn't know which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.
Posts
