“If I’m wrong, all we have done is increased the quality of our water and air, and become less dependent on fossil fuels; if you’re wrong, we’re screwed.”
This the plea from the global warming fear mongers when discussing global warming. The Rainbow-Warrior liberals want to save humanity, even if it doesn’t need saving, by imposing “solutions” from which the country would actually need saving.
The typical liberal fallacy is that the world is not in black and white. They believe there is a magical energy source out there that will just replace everything, and we should chuck fossil fuels to the wind. Roy Spencer illustrates this point brilliantly for the National Review:
“The energy demand by humanity is simply too large – and it is growing rapidly in developing countries like India and China. Electricity in the United States is supplied by the equivalent of 1,000 one-gigawatt power plants. It would be a major feat, both politically and monetarily, to replace 50 of those 1,000 power plants with solar and wind generation facilities.
Then, once we have patted ourselves on the back over that accomplishment, we could start working on replacing the other 95 percent of our electricity needs.”
Until those liberals quit denying reality, the rest of us will have to take charge and look for solutions. The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Feulner proposes just such a thing. Imagine that, advocating a real solution, something not heard of from the reality deniers.
For number oriented people, the U.S. alone uses about 100 quadrillion Btu’s of energy a year, we currently import 30% of that energy. As the rest of the world becomes more energy hungry, prices will go up. Simple economics. We are really going to have to compete with international markets. Private oil companies hold about 5% of the world’s oil and gas reserves (hardly “Big Oil”), the other 95% of the world’s oil reserves are held by state-owned oil companies. Large portions of the 95% comes from Russia, Venezuela, China, Iran, Nigeria, Algeria, and Iraq. Hardly the bastion of stabilized and free trading countries, and does not bode for a secure future of relying on international oil.
What can those of us back in reality-land do? Well, the U.S. has energy it can develop in terms of coal-to-liquids, coal for electricity, drill offshore for oil and gas, drill onshore for oil and gas, or build nuclear. The reality-deniers are against all of this. They advocate clean energy. Clean energy simply does not cut it. To comprise the Btu’s the U.S. produced and consumed on domestic soil last year (per the Department of Energy) coal produced about 23 quadrillion, petroleum 13 quadrillion, natural gas 19 quadrillion, and nuclear 8 quadrillion. Roughly 30 quadrillion Btu’s were imported last year (from the government owned companies, as if foreign aid was not enough already). The green energy that reality deniers advocate, which is hydro (unless it’s killing fish in streams), geothermal, wind, solar, biomass, tidal, ethanol, and millions of gerbils on wheels created a whopping 6.7 quadrillion Btu’s. Okay, so we made up the part about the gerbils.
Clean energy is land intensive, not to say that it is bad. Ted Kennedy clearly opposes it, at least when he has to look at the windmills in his yachting bay. Solar energy is land intensive; windmills are large and can only be placed where the wind blows enough to make it worth while. Hydro power is maxed out. These new power generators are nowhere near energy grids, and grids will have to be built. Even if this industry is increased (Congress wants all power to be 15% renewable by 2020 at the latest), it will have to be built with the energy of fossil fuels.
With reality deniers and their friends in Congress hell-bent on starving America of its own natural energy resources, a crisis does loom in the not too distant future. The next time a reality-denier claims they simply want to save the planet, be sure ask them if they really know what is going on.