Wednesday, February 07, 2007

It's Energy Policy Debate

Apparently not climate change debate, that interests the Greens, the Liberals, and the Democrats. I have seen the pattern for years, using some emotional argument regarding any environmental phenomena that could be construed, however slightly, that Man's involvement is at fault, and must be swatted down. Like using the Endangered Species Act to slow logging, housing developments, transportation planning, or fuel exploration. Nowadays, it's all about using the climate change debate to change energy policy, to break the hold petroleum companies have over the entire energy industry. This is why the climate change debate needs to be over as soon as possible, so the energy revolution can begin. Scientifically, the debate over Man's contribution to climate change is far from over. Carbon dioxide's radiative forcing of warming the average land surface temperature is just one small part of how people can affect the climate. But only the agenda driven scientists are getting the attention of the media and policy writers, because their agendas match up. And I'm not the only one who sees this happening. Roger Pielke, Sr. writes regarding Barbara Boxer's survey on climate change:

The clear conclusion is that this survey is designed to promote energy policy with climate change being used as the vehicle to encourage the political adoption of changes in energy policy. This also provides a reason that climate assessments such as the IPCC focus on the radiative effects of fossil fuels, rather than the broader issues of the human role in regional and global climate variability and change as clearly articulated in the 2005 National Research Council Report Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties. They are essentially ignoring that Report. Their goal is to change energy policy.

My plea is to be honest and clearly separate energy and climate policies, such that the science issues, rather than being used as political weapons in arguing for or against particular politcal actions, can be used to provide the actual diversity of peer reviewed research information on climate (and energy) science.

Of course, I join that plea, but in today's political climate, the science and the political debate have been so successfully intertwined by propaganda programs, wholly endorsed by the editorial boards of most major newspapers and media outlets, that the political course now, is to limit the damage that new policy will have on energy infrastructure. The science debate will continue, but very quietly, because the media will not cover new conclusions based on better climate models, since the answers will not match the climate change narrative.

Incidently, I believe the Summary of the IPCC data that was just released made a strategic error in overselling the disastrous nature of their version of global warming. They made it clear that Man was responsible for bringing us over the tipping point (90 percent consensus doesn't mean much to real scientists, since in Copernicus' time, there was 100 percent consensus that the Sun orbited the Earth, but that's a warning, not a reason to believe or disbelieve the IPCC's conclusions), and that the damage is now irreversible. Part of selling the energy policy debate was the fiction that we could reverse the warming by some strange scheme of cutting emissions to some arbitrary level. But the Summary says it's too late. According to them, the warming will proceed for centuries, no matter what we do. I can hear the African nations rejoicing now, because the Kyoto emissions protocols will be abandoned, but the Climate Impact grants will increase. Like I said, the UN made a strategic error in the eyes of those who wish to change energy policy, but the UN's political goals have always been to elevate the poor nations through economic wealth redistribution. The Summary fits perfectly with those goals.

As for me, I'm tired of writing about this stuff, because the issue has become more political than science-oriented. The policy writers and politicians have fallen for the junk science, and for them, the debate is over. Since, this is now a political issue, I'll be writing about it less often. If I do see something science related, I'll write about that, but for now, climate change has fallen off my radar.

2 comments:

  1. Dude - I'm predicting Kyoto will turn into another Oil for Food scandal, especially after a story like this one.

    I expect many, many more stories of Kyoto ineffectuality to come out in preparation for 2012, just to pave the way for a framework even more painful for humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

    In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
    "Energy drives our entire economy." We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
    Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

    The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products should be reduced or eliminated)

    The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

    In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

    A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

    This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

    "To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."

    Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
    Northridge, CA. 91325
    Feb. 8, 2007

    P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
    I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
    The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

    Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

    Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2

    4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

    Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”)

    Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

    Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.

    Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.


    Jay Draiman
    Northridge, CA 91325
    Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com

    ReplyDelete

Please don't comment on posts more than 4 years old. They will be deleted.