[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158456,00.html
Greens Are the Real Energy Problem
Friday, June 03, 2005
By Steven Milloy

August 20, 2004
It goes without saying that the global economy depends on the availability of affordable energy. Many place their hopes for abundant energy supplies in yet-to-be-imagined technologies.

But while researchers tinker with far-off possibilities, there’s something we should do right now to keep the energy flowing: break the radical environmentalists’ chokehold on national energy policy.

Regardless of form — whether oil, gas, coal or nuclear — the Green movement is blocking efforts to harness our accustomed energy sources while leading us down the primrose path of so-called “renewable energy.”

First, we’re not running out of oil.

“Notwithstanding the recent paucity of discoveries of new major oil fields, innovation has proved adequate to meet ever-rising demands for oil,“ wrote Alan Greenspan last October in "Middle East Economic Survey."

“Gross additions to reserves have significantly exceeded the extraction of oil the reserves replaced,” added Greenspan. These new reserves don’t include unconventional oil sources, including the vast Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil.

Nevertheless environmentalists are hindering efforts to obtain that oil — witness, for example, their fight against drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Environmentalists currently are whipping up Floridians against the offshore drilling provisions in the current energy bill in Congress, forcing Republican Sen. Mel Martinez to defy Senate leadership and kowtow to the activists.

“Any weakening of protections currently in place off Florida's coasts is unacceptable,” says Martinez, echoing the anti-drilling position of environmental groups.

Green opposition to increased oil production is international in scope. Acting through such diverse groups as Amnesty International and Christian Brothers Investment Services, activists are harassing oil company BP about its $3.2 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.

The recent increase in gasoline prices is only partially due to higher demand from developing countries like China and India. Price spikes have also been fueled by the failure of U.S. refining capability to keep pace with demand. No new gasoline refinery has opened since 1976 — thanks to unnecessarily strict government regulations and community opposition, both of which have been tirelessly orchestrated by the environmental movement.

There’s also plenty of natural gas to be had — if the Greens would let us have it.

As spotlighted recently by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, environmentalists “have successfully pushed moratoriums for most new offshore drilling of the fuel, have fought to keep the most gas-rich federal lands off-limits to exploration, and have used lawsuits to tie up those pieces that are accessible.”

The Greens are also obstructing the importation of liquefied natural gas by blocking the construction of new port facilities based on fears that they would be terrorist targets.

Coal is a cheap and abundant source of energy, but environmentalists are making its use more difficult with hysterical claims that coal burning releases “poisons” like mercury into the air. Environmentalists also oppose so-called “clean coal” technology on the grounds that, although less nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide are emitted, mercury emissions remain.

The reality of the matter is that the vast majority of mercury in the environment comes from natural sources; mercury emitted from coal burning power plants is not linked with detectable harm to human health or the environment.

As to nuclear power, environmentalist fear-mongering has ensured there’s been no new nuclear power plant construction since the 1970s. They’re trying to shut down nuke plants in operation by blocking the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility in the Nevada desert, forcing nuclear plants to temporarily store waste in limited, politically unpopular on-site facilities.

General Electric, producer of nuclear power technology, is hoping fears about global warming and energy supplies will interest the public and environmentalists in nuclear energy. No doubt GE hoped it was getting a Green ally in jointly announcing its recent “Ecomagination” initiative with the eco-activist World Resources Institute (WRI). Such hope is pretty naïve, however.

WRI has worked more closely and a lot longer with the likes of anti-nuke groups like Environmental Defense and Greenpeace, which, by the way, is currently trying to block the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Southern Maryland.

The energy crisis has arisen not because there’s a lack of sufficiently clean and affordable energy supplies — our problem is that we’ve allowed the Greens to have too much power.

Interesting Op/Ed Piece. He makes some valid points.

[Mastrap]

Which of the points do you consider to be valid then?

[Azzgunther]

Opinions as facts. What a victim.

No, you don't drill a wildlife conservancy just because you can. There are very valid reasons that millions of people were against that plan. One was not to be difficult and whiney, however.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Which of the points do you consider to be valid then?

"No new gasoline refinery has opened since 1976 — thanks to unnecessarily strict government regulations and community opposition, both of which have been tirelessly orchestrated by the environmental movement."

That for one.

[mchladek]

Interesting, but I don't understand his point of environmentalists being a problem. Of course there's enough fossil fuels to last us several decades but at what cost? How much are we going to destroy our environment to get it. And what's with his statement of "hysterical claims that coal burning releases 'poisons' like mercury into the air"? Is he suggesting that mercury isn't a poison?

Nuclear energy has serious dangers, too, although many environmentalists I know are beginning to accept it as the only real alternative to fossil fuel until alternative resources such as wind/solar become efficient enough. The main problem with nuclear though is that right now the best technology we've created to deal with toxic waste is store it metal containers deep underground and pray to God they don't leak. Not a very safe method, IMO.

I heard an interesting thing while I was over in Scotland about wind farms. A lady was saying that many are opposed to wind power because the windmills deter wildlife. A very interesting claim I thought since wind power is a cornerstone of the environmentalist platform.

Political extremes are dangerous in all areas if the majority prescribe to it, but they are also vastly important. The extreme left and right views of environmentalism provide the majority with conflicting arguments allowing for national debate. If environmentalists were silenced, debate would be hindered along with democracy.

[Hugi]

<snip>
...hysterical claims that coal burning releases “poisons” like mercury into the air.
<snip>

Hah, the green idiots think Mercury is a poison? What foooools!

[Angus_D]

The US still refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

[wdlove]

It's radical ideas that are the problem. Common sense is needed. We need to drill available oil in Alaska, refineries, and additional nuclear plant for the near term. Then increase work on alternative fuels like hydrogen.

[chris v]

You know, I had DH ban me from Pol/War for a REASON!

Of course reason might not be your strong-suit if you believe pap like that.

[Mastrap]

We need also stop building cars that are fuel inefficient, amongst other things. We could easily implement the technology that would make us independent from Middle Eastern oil imports.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Fox news. 'Nuff said. It's all about making certain people more money and less about the environment, isn't it?

The EPA was audited and found that industries reposnsible for coal production downplayed the connection between coal burning and mercury poisoning which leads to increased percentages of autism, etc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6910067/

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:22 p.m. ET Feb. 4, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration overlooked health effects and sided with the electric industry in developing rules for cutting toxic mercury pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general said Thursday.
The agency fell short of its own requirements and presidential orders by “not fully analyzing the cost-benefit of regulatory alternatives and not fully assessing the rule’s impact on children’s health,” the agency’s internal watchdog said in a 54-page report.

But maybe MSNBC and the Associated Press are too "liberally biased," aka not repeating the ultra conservative talking points the administration and electric industry wants repeated on Fox.

[JoshuaZ]

While I completely agree that nuclear power is something we need to use more of, the whole Alaska thing is just silly.

On the one side we'd really only be doing a small amount of damage to the Wildlife up there if we did drill. For those who are really worried, just look at a map and the frickin size of it. Its bigger then several states! There is literally NOTHING up there. Plus the Alaskians want it, mostly because 70% of the State economy is directly related to the Oil Industry.

On the downside the amount of Oil thats actually up there will only cover about 1% of our current fuel concerns. Plus it''ll take the better part of a decade to get it up and going because of the remote location. By then our fuel problems will be much greater. PLus you also have to take into effect that because of the remote location the amount of money that it'll take to actually get it up and running, plus keep it running. Thats a lot of cash.

Environmentalists keep us aware of problems. People tend to turn a blind eye when something happens thats not directly effecting their back yard. I for one don't want companies dumping chemical waste directly into my local rivers and lakes. It quite obvious that companies will do this regardless of the health of the people, they only care about profit. Looking out for people and the environment should be a top concern of this nation, but it rarely is.

You need to ask yourself if heavy pollution is worth people getting cancer, getting sick, and small children suffering from lung problems is worth having cheaper gas. I for one would love to have children who can freely breath anywhere in the US.

Alternative fuels are out there, if people give them a chance. Wind power has really taken off in Minnesota and South Dakota. Its cheap, low upkeep, and very low impact. plus they look kind of cool when driving along at sunset.

[willed]

Originally Posted by typoon

“Notwithstanding the recent paucity of discoveries of new major oil fields, innovation has proved adequate to meet ever-rising demands for oil,“ wrote Alan Greenspan last October in "Middle East Economic Survey."

LOL! I don't count invading various oil-rich countries as 'innovation'!

[memento]

Originally Posted by wdlove

It's radical ideas that are the problem. Common sense is needed. We need to drill available oil in Alaska, refineries, and additional nuclear plant for the near term. Then increase work on alternative fuels like hydrogen.

I'm starting to think that common sense is a radical idea. You said it better than I could. plain and simple.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by wdlove

It's radical ideas that are the problem. Common sense is needed. We need to drill available oil in Alaska, refineries, and additional nuclear plant for the near term. Then increase work on alternative fuels like hydrogen.

Nuclear power is acceptable IF and only IF it pays for itself and it has real liability insurance. Hydrogen is NOT a real fuel as it is "manufactured" using other fuels. Our future probably lies in Hydrogen fusion which has no local interest groups and therefore no US funding. sam

[turtle777]

This thread is SO going to be locked or moved to Poli...

-t

[memento]

Originally Posted by SVass

Nuclear power is acceptable IF and only IF it pays for itself and it has real liability insurance. Hydrogen is NOT a real fuel as it is "manufactured" using other fuels. Our future probably lies in Hydrogen fusion which has no local interest groups and therefore no US funding. sam

? Why would it not pay for itself? If you remove the enviro lawsuits, the cost to build would be cut in half if not more. And what do you mean about the liability insurance? And since when is fusion even a viable energy source?

[bstone]

This article makes a lot of statements, yet I do not see any of them backed up by fact.

Interesting how my Environmental Chemistry professor at Harvard University gave several lectures debunking almost every single point in this article.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by memento

? Why would it not pay for itself? If you remove the enviro lawsuits, the cost to build would be cut in half if not more. And what do you mean about the liability insurance? And since when is fusion even a viable energy source?

They keep asking for a government subsidy from Congress. There is a congressional liability limit of 560 million in damages

"How does Price-Anderson work?
* It provides more than $9.5 billion of coverage through two levels of protection. For the primary level, the act requires nuclear power plant operators to buy all the nuclear liability insurance that is available or provide an equal amount of financial protection. That insurance is currently $200 million. For the second level, the power plant operators are assessed up to $88 million for each incident that exceeds the primary level (at a rate not to exceed $10 million per year per reactor). In addition, Congress may establish additional assessments if the first two levels of coverage are not adequate to cover claims.
* The act provides the same level of liability for DOE facilities as for the commercial sector.
* Research and/or small power reactors are required to self-insure or insure at least the first $250,000 of any nuclear incident. The federal government also provides up to $500 million of indemnity. At present, there are no small power reactors in operation that qualify for this coverage. ""

There is a multi-national research project for fusion energy research. The current administration withdrew from funding and supporting the effort. sam

[tooki]

Wrong forum.

tooki