Energy crisis is over - we won

The U.S. is quickly becoming an energy power. All the energy dreams of the 1970s have been realized and exceeded. Meanwhile, we have the most energy efficient economy in our history. It takes less than half as much energy to produce a dollar of GDP as it did in 1970. American CO2 emissions are dropping like a stone. It is easy to get overwhelmed by bad news. Let’s remember that things really are getting better over the long run.

I hate pessimists. They are stupid. I wouldn't mind if they just made themselves unhappy, but they spread their misery. Just say no. Life is good and getting better thanks to human innovation and imagination. There is no such thing as peak oil, but I hope there is peak stupidity and we are getting less of it. Probably not.

I am sure that my pessimistic friends can find lots of things to worry about. We will win on these things too. These challenges are what makes life fun AND life is fun.

Posted by Christine & John at April 29, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #365157

Many thanks C/J for the link. Great news and likely to get even better.

Like you, I am an optimist. Not an irrational one, but based upon 72 years of personal history.

Lately, my wife and I have become bored. She has hobbies as do I, but while we enjoy them we want a challenge…something with spice and something that we can do together.

At our advanced ages (lol) we have started a new business referred to as “Swing Trading” or “Cash Flow Investing” in the financial markets.

When we were younger we were “buy and hold” type investors which is good over the long haul. But, our long haul days are behind us. We are using a small amount of money that is just sitting in a money market earning less that 0.25%. If we blow it our lifestyle won’t change.

We are optimistic about our new venture and hope to have lots of fun with it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 29, 2013 7:50 PM
Comment #365171

It could be argued that, with your energy policy, we’d just be shifting the CO2 emission problem north, which is to say, not dealing with it at all.

I’m no pessimist, but I think that oil that is easy and cheap to get will be harder to find going forward. It’s the simple, inevitable results of scarcity, which is the basis for the mechanics of any market economy.

The point of my calls, and the calls of others for a turn to renewable energy is simple: get off the supply curve for petroleum and tar sands oil. Stop relying on dirty fuels that may prove economically problematic down the line, as they inflict additional energy needs and reshape climate, and ultimately geography.

In short, it’s not about pessimism, it’s about prudence. We’ve had these periods before where we thought nothing could ever bring us down. And, inevitably the real world market, not the fairy dust version you’re talking about, brought us back down to Earth.

I believe in being prepared, and when your economy is on the line, you don’t rely on resources that may not be around forever to try and ensure sustainability into the far future.

As for all this wonderful efficiency? I’m not sure why your people insist on taking credit for it when your party bashes every new, higher efficiency standard as bad for the economy.

But let me tell you something from my perspective: I noticed immediate reductions in light bills when my family shifted over to CFL bulbs, and my Car’s long term efficiency has saved me a great deal, especially as I took on responsibilities in my family that meant longer distances than just my daily commute. So what did I do with the money? Mostly spent it for other things, but the fact that I pay about 15 dollars a week for gas, rather than 30, means that I can use the difference to pay all kinds of other companies other than just that one.

Allowing one industry or another to become predatory in its pricing means sacrificing other economic interest for theirs. Americans have limited money to spend, and if we’ve got little left to spend to power a consumer economy, we’re not doing ourselves much good.

There has to be balance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2013 4:25 PM
Comment #365174

Americans have limited money to spend, and if we’ve got little left to spend to power a consumer economy, we’re not doing ourselves much good.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2013 4:25 PM

Not long ago Daugherty was agreeing with obama and others that we must have higher costs for petroleum products. Please explain how that would benefit the consumer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 30, 2013 4:39 PM
Comment #365175

Royal Flush-
You’re not being honest with our readers.

At worst, he said:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think, ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

And I don’t think I’ve ever agreed that higher oil prices are a good thing. C&J have come closer to doing that, claiming that higher prices would push the market towards greater efficiency.

My sense is, your side is more hopeful than it should be about the future of petroleum. You want us to keep on driving the car until it runs out of gas, so to speak. Me? I don’t think it’s terribly wise to wait to find and implement the new infrastructure for alternatives until we’ve run the old system into the ground.

I don’t anticipate the market will really get into it until it’s too late. It will always be responding after the fact. Changing government energy policy, enforcing higher efficiency standards, will help us respond before the fact, before we’re in economic trouble over it. Remember, I’m a functionalist. I have no desire to see our growth running of gas because the current energy boom has reached its inevitable bust.

I also am not as willing as some Republicans here to put mother nature to the test on Global Warming theory. My perspective is that our environment, our surroundings are a critical part of economic activity. If we do something to undermine that, we are adding costs to our economic activity.

I think Republicans could be great advocates for efficiency if they didn’t think of it in terms of sticking it to the Democrats. We’re not impressed, and you don’t benefit from being wasteful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #365176


We will never run out of oil. At some point it will become too expensive and/or we will find something better. This will not happen gradually and there will be plenty of time to adjust. Remember that the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone and the oil age won’t end because we run out of oil.

Re being prepared - always a good idea, but you have to be prepared based on probable outcomes. Precise planning is impossible. You need a robust system that can adapt. We have the best such system in the history of the world.

Think of how fast we adapted to energy crisis. When I was your age, we looked toward the imminent end of our fuels. Today the situation is much different. We won. On to the next challenge.

Re paying for gas - I ride my bike to work most days and walk to the stores. Last week I didn’t use my car even once. I had my bought my current car in March 2011. It has just over 6000 miles and most of that comes from a few long trips. We adapt.

There is little “predatory pricing” You have choices; make better ones.

Posted by: C&J at April 30, 2013 6:29 PM
Comment #365178

There is not a single person on WB who doesn’t hope for an alternative energy breakthrough. It will come and it won’t be because government spent billions of dollars we don’t have.

Mr. Daugherty always looks to government first to solve problems and it should really be the last place to look only if all else fails.

Liberals have never found a problem that couldn’t be solved by big government and big spending of taxpayer money. That’s just not the smart or conservative way.

The liberal thinking goes like this. We will never run out of problems for government to solve and isn’t it just wonderful.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 30, 2013 8:03 PM
Comment #365213
There is not a single person on WB who doesn’t hope for an alternative energy breakthrough.

Conservatives are already disinclined to purchase items if they are advertised as energy-efficient, so I think it is very reasonable to explain the behavior of conservatives by saying that they are not interested in a post-fossil fuel economy. Conservatives are only interested in protecting the interests of incumbent business owners and are doing whatever they can to discourage development of new methods that may reduce our carbon emissions.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 30, 2013 11:33 PM
Comment #365216

Where do you get that Bulls**t from Warren? Conservative are all for energy efficiency, we are just NOT for green energy that is unproven, expensive, and very rare. Oil is cheap and plentiful. When green energy gets to that point, GREAT I’m all for it but til then sorry about your luck.

Posted by: KAP at May 1, 2013 12:51 AM
Comment #365217…also released today, co2 levels to start running consistently higher than 400 ppm. Heading in the right direction? Sure. Fast enough? We will see….Much of the credit for increased efficiency come from regulation, fuel efficiency standards etc. Nice to hear you almost acknowledge some of O’s policies. More to come…Also interesting that this is happening without the Keystone pipeline. Remember when the world would end if we did not drill the North Slope.

Posted by: bills at May 1, 2013 4:29 AM
Comment #365218


All the efficiency plans were in place before Obama took office. There is a time needed for this. There was no jump in efficiency in the years Obama took office. In fact, if you look at the chart in the link, you notice a small flattening in part of the Obama presidency.

Most of the improvement comes from price signals and the general desire to cut costs. Fuel standards have had no significant effect throughout their history. They “work” only when market forces come into play, i.e. people use less fuel when it cost more.

Re Keystone - of course we don’t NEED any particular thing like that. I would be nice to have the jobs and the wealth it creates, however.

Posted by: C&J at May 1, 2013 7:37 AM
Comment #365221

I still remember those brave auto industry lobbyist fighting to raise the mileage standards against the cruel and heartless government that insisted on low mileage leaded gas vehicles…..Not.

I still remember the 70’s and 80’s, when Carter installed solar panels on the white house and wore sweaters while keeping the thermostat down, and how these traditions were carried on by Reag… oops never mind.

I fondly recall all those heavy industrial and manufacturing jobs we had in the 70’s and 80’s and the millions more high energy use jobs we have added the past 3 decades …don’t I.

C&J when we compare apples and oranges we shouldn’t declare we won! the war is over, when in fact we have just started the fight. You seem to be looking at one battle not the war and fitting the situation to your ideology despite the obvious differences in what makes up the GNP then and now.

We have made strides in many areas but we have had many changes that have been detrimental to the economy. Perhaps we should now include China Bangladesh and other industrial countries , as we used to be, in this measurement now that we have globalized. Lets continue on with developing alternative sources and more efficiency and save the gloating for later. JMHO.

There is no such thing as peak oil, but I hope there is peak stupidity and we are getting less of it. Probably not.

As long as people post such nonsense as this comment,C&J, we can rest assured stupidity hasn’t yet peaked. Nor has deception.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 1, 2013 8:43 AM
Comment #365222


Read my link.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 1, 2013 8:59 AM
Comment #365223

“Conservatives are already disinclined to purchase items if they are advertised as energy-efficient, so I think it is very reasonable to explain the behavior of conservatives by saying that they are not interested in a post-fossil fuel economy. Conservatives are only interested in protecting the interests of incumbent business owners and are doing whatever they can to discourage development of new methods that may reduce our carbon emissions.”

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 30, 2013 11:33 PM

Warren, your link spoke of light bulbs. I personally do not want to use these bulbs because of the danger if one was to break. So I weigh the health hazards against the energy efficiency.

Secondly, I would suppose the poll was taken referring to electric cars. I have no desire to invest in hybrid autos simply because it would be a bottomless pit of cost. The battery life is between 2 and 5 years and then it would require thousands of dollars to replace the batteries.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is found in the failing by buying “energy efficient” products. Liberals don’t care about the cost (they look at the rebates and tax credits from he feds), and conservatives are frugal with their money (wanting to get the best bang for their dollar). This can also be seen in the attitude toward the US debt and tax and spend. We do not live in a post fossil fuel economy yet; fossil fuel is still the least expensive way to live our lives and until alternate fuels can be produced economically, it will never gain traction. American’s understand a move to force the prices of fossil fuel upward, i.e the pipeline and limiting oil production. They understand, the next administration may allow the production of fossil fuel; thereby leaving the consumer with a hybrid car that is worth nothing.

Regarding energy efficient computers, washing machines, TVs, refrigerators, etc; I do not believe conservatives have a problem with these. It would be interesting to actually see the poll questions in your link.

Posted by: CasperWY at May 1, 2013 9:40 AM
Comment #365224


I grew up with the energy crisis and was active in environmentalism in the 1970s. I understand that there is never an end to anything, as yesterday’s solution becomes today’s problem.

Being fair, however, when I look back at our wildest dreams of 1973, we have achieved much more in terms of energy independence and environmental protection than I or anybody else I know of expected.

We have new challenges and always will. But we are much better off than we were in 1973. I am just taking a few minutes to reveal in that before moving to the next challenge.

Re peak oil - this is a concept as useful as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. At some point we will use half of all the oil, but we will never know when that it and it will not matter in any practical sense. At some point, we will use little or no oil, the same way we today use little or no stone in our tools. We didn’t run out of stone and we will not run out of oil; something more useful will substitute.

We triumphed over most of the challenges of the 1970s. I expect my kids will triumph over the challenges of the 2010s. The world is generally getting better.

Posted by: C&J at May 1, 2013 9:59 AM
Comment #365226

If by “we’ll never run out of oil”, you mean that in practical terms, we’ve found trillions of barrels of oil in all kinds of unconventional places and theoretically we could keep running on this treadmill in perpetuity…

Maybe. But if we want to talk about oil as a viable commodity to drive our economy with? That’s a different story. If you’re taking more energy to bake Kerogen out of rocks or bitumen out of sand than you’re actually getting out of it, then you’re wasting whatever energy source you’re using to extract that resource.

As far as winning goes, really? three buck a gallon gas doesn’t look like a victory to me. Neither do the tar sands. The way we adapted, by the way, almost put an end to our auto industry. We’re lucky Obama set us on a new course in terms of efficiency, and required incorporation of such advancements as part of the GM bailout.

On to the next challenge. What a joke. Maybe you can bike to work, walk to the store, but we spent the last several decades putting things together with the automobile in mind. We’re not clear of that challenge, we’re still very much in the middle of it.

As for predatory pricing? Once again, you’re underestimating the greed of actors within the private sector.

As for the jobs and wealth it creates? Both exaggerated as far as we’re concerned, And really, this is about getting that oil to people who will pay more for it. Why are we pretending that these are public-service oriented enterprises? They’re not building that pipeline for your benefit or mine, but theirs.

ADAM SMITH would tell you this, for crying out loud.

Americans cannot simply assume that these individual corporations with their narrow purposes and set of interests will operate in, or automatically help serve the publics interests.

I’d say, we’ve been given a reprieve, the same reprieve we got after the energy crisis eased in the 70s. But that reprieve was temporary, and so will this one be.

We don’t need to wait until problems in effective, practical supply have us over the barrel, as we were in 2008, and no transition will come without hiccups and hangups.

As far as plans go? Plans are made to be revised. We can use them as a platform for our improvisations, the formal foundation of informal efforts. You can anticipate at least some of your problems, rather than being blindsided by them. My sense is that there’s a middle territory between flying by the seat of your pants and trying to anticipate and plan everything. Even the smartest people have cognitive limitations, and we need structure in order to better manage our budget of those resources.

In other words, planning well gives you the ability to bring your other intellectual abilities into play in a better managed fashion, instead of being constantly in a position of trying to stretch your brain around the whole thing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2013 11:14 AM
Comment #365227


As oil becomes more expensive and/or as other alternatives develop, we will use less oil. We are actually seeing that with natural gas, which is replacing oil in things like diesel freight engines and buses. I know you think that that all fossil fuels are the same, but the changes show how it is done.

Re winning - You don’t remember. Things are just much better today than they were in the middle-late 1970s when I was your age. We have become much more efficient, as I mentioned above, and the amount that people spend on energy is less. Beyond that, air is much cleaner, forests are more robust in most places in the U.S. and water is cleaner.

You can be pessimistic if you need to be. But when I see the progress since I was young, I cannot help but be amazed and delighted.

I will tell you for the hundredth plus time in general and I think at least the twentieth time in the last few weeks that I do not believe that firms will - or even should - attempt to work for the general good. It is not their job. Firms, like you and I, need to consider what we know best and do what we think is right and good for us and those things we care about.

RE ” My sense is that there’s a middle territory between flying by the seat of your pants and trying to anticipate and plan everything.” YES and we have found it in the diversity of the marketplace. We all make plans, knowing they will not work in their detail. We put forward variations and then we select what works, sort of like evolution.

The best planning is the flexible and decentralized things we do for ourselves.

I run an operation with lots of complex parts. I have to let my people make decisions and take imitative. I like to say that they never do what I plan for them, but they usually do better. This is how to run things in most cases. It produces the best possible results most of the time. Those that seek perfection and prescience end up with holes in their shoes.

Posted by: C&J at May 1, 2013 11:31 AM
Comment #365228


Re biking to work etc - If you are only spending $15 a week on gas, you live close enough to bike or walk. You choose not to do that. When I bike to work, I have to cross a bridge where I need to walk around a big hole. I then have to get off and walk up a grassy hill, ride across a field until I come to a nice quiet road that gets me most of the rest of the way. Such challenges do indeed stop lesser men and they would stop you. But I ask you to become better. Live the life you claim to want.

Posted by: C&J at May 1, 2013 11:34 AM
Comment #365229

Warren, I agree with CasperWy. Your link is BS. Conservatives are energy efficient not stupid at buying into every Green Energy thing that comes about. Like I said when Green Energy comes into play at a cheaper and more abundant supply conservatives will buy into green energy.

Posted by: KAP at May 1, 2013 11:52 AM
Comment #365230

Stephen, your worst enemy is your own imagination.
You take a desire for limited and effective government to mean no government at all.
You take a desire for low taxes and personal responsibility to mean no taxes at all.
And now, you take the desire for a smart, cautious approach to energy to mean no desire for alternative energy.
I guarantee you that myself, C&J and others on this site do and care more about the environment than over half of your voters.

Perhaps it’s time to debate what people really believe instead of what you think they believe?

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2013 12:09 PM
Comment #365231


Your link says “…politically conservative individuals were less in favor of investment in energy-efficient technology.” The word investment means public sector investment, either through taxes, fines, or subsidies, and therefore the difference between liberal and conservative is not surprising.

FWIW I have invest my own private money in an energy efficient technology all the time. Funny thing I wasn’t compelled by a government agency to do so but rather I was compelled by the thought of making or saving a buck. I invested in a startup environmental company sometime back and it has been profitable. This year I bought a 16 SEER AC/95% gas HVAC system before they re-authorized the tax credit for 2012 for such things (but was grateful for the credit none the less). I have 5 vehicles in the family fleet (3 cars and two motorcycles) and surprisingly my daughter’s Honda Fit is the biggest guzzler. Lately I’ve switched all of the high burn lights in my house to LED and when the prices come down some more I’ll replace the rest of them. Walmart just price dropped a decent LED replacement for a standard bulb to below $9.and at that price the payback is only about 1.5 years.

I have invested my own money into energy efficiency. I’m not too inclined to invest yours, but if you want to send me some in support of my efforts I’ll gladly cash the check.

Posted by: George in SC at May 1, 2013 12:51 PM
Comment #365240
The word investment means public sector investment

Actually, the paper’s authors wrote:

participants indicated
how much they were in favor of “investing in the development and use of
energy-efficient technology” with regard to themselves individually, Americans, the US government, and US businesses
, which means that in this context the word investment encompasses private as well as public expenditures. If we are to believe this study, political conservatives are willing to lose money in order to avoid investing in energy efficiency.

The other scenario in the study involved the purchase of light bulbs by subjects. For the purpose of the study, the incandescent and CFL bulbs were priced identically. Conservatives initially were willing to purchase the CFL bulbs because they are more efficient, but as soon as a sticker was attached to the package that reminded participants that the bulb would help the environment, the conservatives’ sales dried up.

The only explanation I can see from this behavior is to examine the core principles that underlie conservatism. Conservatism is NOT about “small government” or any of the other BS they peddle; conservatism is about preserving (or should I say “conserving”) pre-existing hierarchies among people. Purchasing energy efficient light bulbs may help out one’s bottom line, but it does a disservice to the traditional structures in the market, which is why conservatives are willing to pay more just to preserve incumbents’ interests.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 1, 2013 7:41 PM
Comment #365242


I generally don’t trust such sociological studies. If you look at real world behavior, more is said than done.

I only had access to the abstract and could not evaluate the whole study. There are many explanations, foremost among them might be poor study parameters. Many such studies use definitions of conservatives that are pejorative.

I can, however, think of some reasons why we might not buy a product with certain markings. Often when a product it labeled with some sort of ecological label, it means lots of other things too.

I have a problem with Forest Stewardship Council wood products. It is politicized. I may be mildly less likely to purchase a product with that label, but it is because I am MORE not less interested in the health of American forests.

Re conservatism - in the U.S. it is mostly about limited government and individual rather than group rights. Of course, some people who just don’t want changes are also called conservative, but that is less an ideological label.

I think it is interesting that people in Russia who want to bring back communism are called conservatives and so are people in America who fought against communism their whole lives. The label is flexible, depending on who is using it.

I am in favor of competent limited government, individual rather than group rights, a free market economy and the rule of law. Whatever label attaches, doesn’t matter to me as much as what happens. People tend to label what I do as conservative.

Posted by: C&J at May 1, 2013 8:02 PM
Comment #365246

I think the key finding of the study was that when the environmental talk was left out of it, Republicans and Conservatives did just fine. They understood what their interests were, and got the more efficient bulbs. It’s when you brought in the element that has been politicized that you got results that were negative.

I think that speaks volumes, really.

I think the conservative media does its people few favors. Their leaders and their pundits always have some idea of ours that they’re pushing for people to reject, rather than letting people come to their own conclusions.

I think left to themselves, Conservatives would be more mainstream, and perhaps the Republicans they vote for with them. But you got this structure on the right that keeps wanting to pull people out of sync so that folks don’t end up leaving behind their positions.

Republicans need to realize that a lot of people don’t want them thinking for themselves, and that they don’t have so many differences as they may think with Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2013 11:24 PM
Comment #365247

I can name dozens of things that were once acceptable among Republicans that now are forbidden because Democrats accepted and embraced them. The Mandate. Cap and Trade. Global Warming Science in the last decade.

Republicans have built much of their politics out of imagining that we’re out to get the freedom-loving capitalists of the world, and compromise with us, even very favorable compromise, has become a problem.

If you see things in oppositional terms, you can put yourself on one side of the divide and carpet bomb the other side with impunity. But of course, there is a limit to how much you can base your politics on opposition, and remain true to original principles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2013 11:31 PM
Comment #365248

Daugherty, What the HELL are you talking about? All I said was conservatives are energy conscious. We are just not stupid enough to buy into all your liberal BULLS**T about it and when green energy gets abundant and cheap then and only then will conservatives buy into it. Until then you can take your nonsensical comments and shove them where the sun don’t shine. Get off your democrats good republicans bad crap and GROW UP.

Posted by: KAP at May 2, 2013 12:23 AM
Comment #365249


Were you able to read anything beyond the abstract, because I could not access more.

I suspect the abstract is not completely supported by the data. Remember when Adrienne used to send us links and then when we read the studies they were not what the intro said?

Posted by: C&J at May 2, 2013 6:08 AM
Comment #365250

“Republicans need to realize that a lot of people don’t want them thinking for themselves,”

Well, that sure explains why Republicans demand government plan and provide for their individual retirement and health care. Why they use government to mandate things like smoking, eating and drinking. Why they have no issue with using government to lower one in order to “help” another.

“and that they don’t have so many differences as they may think with Democrats”

Democrats aren’t the problem, liberal/progessive Democrats who have taken over the Democratic Party are. And the main reason is because liberal/progressive ideology is based on taking things from others while the beliefs of those on the right is to be left alone.

Posted by: kctim at May 2, 2013 9:12 AM
Comment #365256
Well, that sure explains why Republicans demand government plan and provide for their individual retirement and health care. Why they use government to mandate things like smoking, eating and drinking. Why they have no issue with using government to lower one in order to “help” another.

I would suggest kctim it is because thew repubs/conservatives are just to busy to do this. They are to busy suppressing the vote, stockpiling ammunition for their revolution, filibustering legislation, and start up debtor prisons in several states.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 2, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment #365264
I only had access to the abstract

My apologies for the paywall. I accessed the site from a .edu domain so I was able use my university’s subscription to access the article.

I generally don’t trust such sociological studies. If you look at real world behavior, more is said than done.
Probably true; however, this study does quantify what is already observed anecdotally. Conservative media tells conservatives to fear something whenever it might be beneficial for the environment. For instance, CasperWY has stated that concerns regarding Hg poisoning prevent him from purchasing CFLs. However, the deleterious impact of an occasional broken CFL is minute; in order for it to be problematic, CasperWY would have to be extremely clumsy and unwilling to follow a few simple protocols. I strongly suspect that CasperWY did not come to this conclusion on his own, but rather did so because he was told to do so by conservative media.

When conservative commenters on WatchBlog say that the are willing to spend money now to decrease costs down the road, I give them the benefit of the doubt. However, right-wing media poisons the decision making process and infects conservatives with erroneous notions. It is the people who craft these media messages who are the ones who fit the stereotype that I shared earlier. These are the people who devote their lives to the protection of industry’s incumbents.

To everyone else.

Without a doubt, fossil fuels are far more expensive than today’s alternatives; they only appear to be cheaper because society bears the externalized costs of burning fossil fuels.

More Here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 2, 2013 7:39 PM
Comment #365268


I don’t fear things with environmental labels, but I do distrust them. Generally, certification includes lots of non-environmental factors, such as union labor or “inclusiveness.”

Re your article about coal - coal is dirty. We should all be behind abundant natural gas in the short term and nuclear power in the longer run. Yet we find few “environmentalist” who declare for them.

U.S. CO2 emissions have been dropping, mostly due to gas replacing coal and lifestyle changes. I keep repeating these facts because it is largely absent from the mainstream media. When the U.S. was the world’s biggest emitter, we heard a lot about others following our example. Now that we are the world’s biggest reducer, why have the others not followed? Damn Chinese.

Posted by: C&J at May 2, 2013 9:16 PM
Post a comment