> Smith said he also favors opening part of the protected Arctic National
> Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for drilling, stating that oil reserves there
> could offset 20 percent of the oil imported from Saudi Arabia.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Why does it seem prudent to offer a short-term offset to current demand by tapping what is a valuable resource today, in our energy-inefficient environment, when it could be an invaluable resource in a future energy-efficient environment. We don't need it now, with either a strict or loose definition of need. What we need to do is get sustainable. Oil is not sustainable. This country certainly has the creative energies needed to get from where we are now to where we need to be. Let's tap that energy instead.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Congressman Lamar Smith on "cap-and-trade"
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Congressman Lamar Smith wrote:
> Smith said the Congressional Budget Office estimates a federal cap-and-trade
> program would cost U.S. families an average of $1,600 in higher energy costs
> each year. The 22-year veteran congressman said that is the lowest estimate
> he has seen so far.
>
> A cap-and-trade program would set limits for carbon emissions from
> industrial and commercial sources. Permits for increased usage must be
> purchased or traded from companies that are reducing emissions.
>
> "No matter what, it will be expensive," Smith said. "It won't reduce
> emissions," he added, citing limited success in Europe and the lack of
> similar programs elsewhere in the world.
>
> Smith said he supports growth in solar and wind power, especially as ways
> are developed to store and to transmit alternative electrical generation.
> "But the hard reality is that only 2 percent of power comes from wind and
> solar," Smith told more than 150 people attending the chamber luncheon.
>
> Seventy percent of power still comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels,
> Smith said, and 20 percent comes from nuclear power. "I think nuclear needs
> to be part of the mix as we try to reduce our reliance on foreign energy,"
> Smith said.
Congressman Smith,
Do you agree that we are in the midst of an environment crisis?
Do you believe that pollution is contributing to problems in our environment?
Do you believe that so-called greenhouse gases are pollution?
Do you believe that building new nuclear power plants can effectively reduce pollution? By how much? How much will building these new plants be? How much to maintain them? How much in depreciation? How much will it cost to handle nuclear waste disposal? Where will it go? How will it get there? How will the plants and the waste be protected? How much will all of that cost? How does that compare with a cap-and-trade system, which requires no new infrastructure, maintenance or depreciation, and indeed might make better use of the infrastructure we already have?
Which of the above solutions is sustainable? (Hint: it's not cap-and-trade, nor nuclear.)
And why do you say "It won't reduce emissions" ? Is that simply because the cap is set at current levels? Certainly, that indeed will reduce emissions in the future, wouldn't you agree? Also, is the cap not adjustable?
Lastly on this issue, isn't it quite possible that the cap-and-trade system could also generate wealth, just as the securities markets (sometimes) do today? Might such a system, then, actually have the potential to help the economy and those families you mentioned?
I think we agree that something must be done, and in relatively short order. Indeed, I think that something should be a lot of somethings, and we need to think across the board. Just saying "no" to a viable option is not an option. I think you should instead say "how can we make this work?"
> Smith said the Congressional Budget Office estimates a federal cap-and-trade
> program would cost U.S. families an average of $1,600 in higher energy costs
> each year. The 22-year veteran congressman said that is the lowest estimate
> he has seen so far.
>
> A cap-and-trade program would set limits for carbon emissions from
> industrial and commercial sources. Permits for increased usage must be
> purchased or traded from companies that are reducing emissions.
>
> "No matter what, it will be expensive," Smith said. "It won't reduce
> emissions," he added, citing limited success in Europe and the lack of
> similar programs elsewhere in the world.
>
> Smith said he supports growth in solar and wind power, especially as ways
> are developed to store and to transmit alternative electrical generation.
> "But the hard reality is that only 2 percent of power comes from wind and
> solar," Smith told more than 150 people attending the chamber luncheon.
>
> Seventy percent of power still comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels,
> Smith said, and 20 percent comes from nuclear power. "I think nuclear needs
> to be part of the mix as we try to reduce our reliance on foreign energy,"
> Smith said.
Congressman Smith,
Do you agree that we are in the midst of an environment crisis?
Do you believe that pollution is contributing to problems in our environment?
Do you believe that so-called greenhouse gases are pollution?
Do you believe that building new nuclear power plants can effectively reduce pollution? By how much? How much will building these new plants be? How much to maintain them? How much in depreciation? How much will it cost to handle nuclear waste disposal? Where will it go? How will it get there? How will the plants and the waste be protected? How much will all of that cost? How does that compare with a cap-and-trade system, which requires no new infrastructure, maintenance or depreciation, and indeed might make better use of the infrastructure we already have?
Which of the above solutions is sustainable? (Hint: it's not cap-and-trade, nor nuclear.)
And why do you say "It won't reduce emissions" ? Is that simply because the cap is set at current levels? Certainly, that indeed will reduce emissions in the future, wouldn't you agree? Also, is the cap not adjustable?
Lastly on this issue, isn't it quite possible that the cap-and-trade system could also generate wealth, just as the securities markets (sometimes) do today? Might such a system, then, actually have the potential to help the economy and those families you mentioned?
I think we agree that something must be done, and in relatively short order. Indeed, I think that something should be a lot of somethings, and we need to think across the board. Just saying "no" to a viable option is not an option. I think you should instead say "how can we make this work?"
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Fair Hunting
I am not a hunter, nor am I anti-hunting. I would like to see the "sport" become a bit more fair, though...
My understanding is that most hunting trips involve putting on the cammo, trekking out to a isolated area with gun, ammo, and (possibly) six-pack in hand, and waiting...maybe climbing up into a blind, and waiting... Eventually, and hopefully from the hunter's point-of-view, a poor, innocent woodland creature of sufficient size to justify the effort and not currently protected by statute (where's their lobby?) strolls by. And now, it get's really unfair. The hunter has to expend sufficient effort to dispatch the beast: that being, to pull a trigger. (The more adventurous types may have to draw and release a bowstring.)
Where's the contest? Only in the mind and ability of the hunter to aim and fire accurately without alerting his/her prey. There is no discrimination as to the innate abilities of the prey to defend itself and escape, nor in the physical abilities of the hunter to pursue and conquer the beast. A pathetically out-of-shape hunter is just about as likely to kill a strapping buck as a strapping young hunter is to kill a three-legged sleeping cow. Darwin was robbed!
For hunting to be truly fair, one must take away the blind, the night-vision goggles and sights, the ammo, the gun, the bows and arrows, the knives. Indeed, one must take away the cammo, all the clothing, bug spray, all protective implements of any kind.
The only truly fair hunting expedition involves walking naked into a forest. Good luck!
My understanding is that most hunting trips involve putting on the cammo, trekking out to a isolated area with gun, ammo, and (possibly) six-pack in hand, and waiting...maybe climbing up into a blind, and waiting... Eventually, and hopefully from the hunter's point-of-view, a poor, innocent woodland creature of sufficient size to justify the effort and not currently protected by statute (where's their lobby?) strolls by. And now, it get's really unfair. The hunter has to expend sufficient effort to dispatch the beast: that being, to pull a trigger. (The more adventurous types may have to draw and release a bowstring.)
Where's the contest? Only in the mind and ability of the hunter to aim and fire accurately without alerting his/her prey. There is no discrimination as to the innate abilities of the prey to defend itself and escape, nor in the physical abilities of the hunter to pursue and conquer the beast. A pathetically out-of-shape hunter is just about as likely to kill a strapping buck as a strapping young hunter is to kill a three-legged sleeping cow. Darwin was robbed!
For hunting to be truly fair, one must take away the blind, the night-vision goggles and sights, the ammo, the gun, the bows and arrows, the knives. Indeed, one must take away the cammo, all the clothing, bug spray, all protective implements of any kind.
The only truly fair hunting expedition involves walking naked into a forest. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)