Uncle Bob on Life, the Universe, and Everything

I just watched the Nova on Global Dimming.  Although the presentation was badly hyped with deep dramatic music, and a narrator who practiced "proof by tone of voice", it was still an interesting documentary.  Apparently the emission of soot, ash, and particulates makes the clouds more reflective, therefore attenuating the insolation (the amount of incomming sunlight) by perhaps 10%. 

The show tried to connect this to the Ethiopian famine of the 80s, but didn’t do a particularly good job at that.  The show also fear-mongered what "might" happen to the oceans, etc., etc..  But the point of the show was well taken in my humble opinion.  If global warming has been slower than expected, it could be because of reduced insolation.  So as we continue to reduce emmission of particulates, we could see an accelleration of global warming.

OK, that may be.  We don’t really know.  But it’s something to watch for.

I was in Germany last week, and one of our lunchtime conversations turned to the lunacy of Bush backing out of the Kyoto protocols.  I didn’t know much about this topic, so I remained quiet.  Then I did a very little research on the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty.  This paints a somewhat different picture.  Apparently in 1997 the US senate voted unanimously to reject Kyoto.  President Clinton refused to submit the treaty to the senate.

So apparently Bush did not invent the American resistance to Kyoto.  He just makes the current convenient target.  Even Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth,   http://www.climatecrisis.net/) said that Kyoto should not be signed by the United States (though he symbolically signed it himself).  

Kyoto would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and force developing nations to bear the burden of the reduction.  Why would the US be opposed to that?  Largely because China and India, two of the worlds largest emitters, are exempt.   They get to sign the accord, but don’t have to limit their emissions.  Whoohoo!

Clearly this would simply mean that industries that found it expensive to continue operating in the US or Europe, would move to China.  No net reduction in emissions, but a huge shift of jobs.  Does Europe really need to increase its unemployment rate any more, while having little or no effect on the greenhouse emissions?

Global warming is a real issue.  We do need to reduce greenhouse emissions and particulate emissions.  We do need clean alternate energy.  But we aren’t going to get that by signing a treaty that causes no real reduction and harms the economies of those nations that are most capable of having a real effect.

What should we do?  I think we’ve always known:

1. Drill in ANWR, and build more refineries.  Yes, I know, this will lead to even greater greenhouse emission.  However it will also reduce depedence on middleeastern oil, reduce oil prices, and buy us some time to work out energy alternatives.
2. Build nuclear power plants.  Zero greenhouse emissions.  Lots of electricity.  And, yes, safe.  Oh, we’ve got to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods all right.  But that’s a solvable problem.  What’s more, nuclear power plants could form the foundation for a hydrogen energy economy.
3. Continue and accelerate research on battery technology.  In the short term, hybrid cars are going to be the best way to reduce emissions from automobiles.  The better the batteries, the more electricity they can store.  And if that electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, then we reduce emissions.
4. Continue and accelerate research on fuel cells.  In the longer term it is Hydrogen that will be the key fuel for motive engines.  The fuel cells are almost good enough now.  We have to learn to make them cheaper, but that’s a solvable problem.  The bigger issue is storing enough hydrogen in the vehicle.  Pressurized tanks can’t hold enough.  Metal Hydrides may be the technology that solves that problem.
5. Continue and accelerate research into renewable sources of Ethanol.  Current corn based technologies are inefficient at best.  What we need is a way to create ethanol from plants that does not require any greenhouse emissions. 

Fossil fuels will not last much longer.  One way or another the greenhouse emission problem will end.  We can make it end with a minimal effect on our climate by pursuing these other options aggressively.  Our children and grandchildren could live in an emission free society.

If you are concerned about high gas prices, then buy less gas.  Buy a fuel saving car.  Use more public transportation.  Walk.  Ride your bike.  Carpool.  That’s really all you can do.

What should government do?  Nothing.  Or rather, get out of the way.  Government should lift the ban on drilling in ANWR and other "protected" sites.  Government should loosen restrictions on building refineries.  Government should loosen restrictions on building nuclear power plants.  Government should give tax breaks to companies doing research into alternative fuels.  In other words, government should do a lot less than it is currently doing.  Government should get out of the way and let the free market do it’s job. 

Government should not:

• Offer a rebate to the American people.  That’s just "silly".  (– Brit Hume).  Actually, it’s worse than silly since the shortfall would have to come from somewhere.  Wouldn’t it be a hoot if they made it up by increasing the gasoline tax!
• Tax the oil companies more.  That’s not just silly, it’s downright stupid.  How do you suppose the oil companies would pay such a tax?  I think it’s just possible, let see, hmm, they might just increase prices.
• Break up the oil companies.  I could understand the anti-trust claim if there were just one oil company.  But there are five.  Breaking them up just eliminates economies of scale and would probably drive prices up.
• Reduce the gasoline tax.  Well actually I think they should reduce the gasoline tax; but not in response to high prices.  It’s not at all clear that the oil companies would pass that savings on to the consumer.  After all the consumer has already shown what the market will bear, simply by continuing to buy.  Americans do not seem to be changing their gasoline buying habits in any significant degree.  So, OK, reduce the gasoline tax in order to reduce government spending.  Fine.  But not to protect consumers from high prices.
• React in any other way.  We don’t need a knee-jerk reaction; (i.e. a Knee-dless reaction by a bunch of jerks) just because it’s an election year.  What we need is a "hands-off" policy that lets the market work.

By the way, I think it’s hysterical that all these politicians are dancing and leaping and otherwise wringing their hands over high gas prices.  Aren’t these the same guys who refused to drill in ANWR?  Aren’t the Democrats, at least, always trying to raise the gasoline tax by .25 or .50 per gallon?  Haven’t the liberals at least wanted the price of gasoline to be high; because that would be good for the environment, etc. etc.?  So, now they got what they wanted!  So why are they so upset?  Perhaps it’s because they got what they wanted, but they didn’t do anything to get it, so they can’t claim credit.  Or maybe it’s just a bunch of jerking knees.