The new “We can solve it” ad is out, and I have posted it here. Without question Al Gore draws some pretty heated responses, even on this blog. (Jules, this video is for you!) Some have said that the goals he outlines are unattainable, or to expensive to be implemented. A fair point for debate which leads me to a Tom Friedman op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times. Friedman writes on the Danish experience with energy, and it is eye opening. I concede up front that solutions that work in one country may not necessarily work in another, but I was struck by the Danish government rolling up their sleeves and implementing plans that have led to Danish energy self sufficiency. Beyond that the Danes have created jobs and growth by becoming a world leader in alternative energy. From Friedman:
“For example, the wind industry — it was nothing in the 1970s. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark.” In the last 10 years, Denmark’s exports of energy efficiency products have tripled. Energy technology exports rose 8 percent in 2007 to more than $10.5 billion in 2006, compared with a 2 percent rise in 2007 for Danish exports as a whole.
Not bad. And how about the Danish experience with imported energy.
In 1973, said Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero.”
A good op-ed piece, and one that brings us to the point. There has been no effort by our government to change the energy situation here in America. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Promote measures that conserve and promote alternatives to fossil fuels? Our government has done nothing, and allowed us to flounder to the point of endangering our national security. So when I hear that Gore is selling a pipe dream, I wonder what the alternative is. Bring more oil online? Maybe in the short term, but when will we we start thinking about the long term prospects for the United States if we continue on this road? My final thought for this posting is that Gore has been accused of promoting plans that will make energy prohibitively expensive. As we prepare for a winter that will have people unable to pay for home heating because it is so expensive I wonder who is really promoting unaffordable energy. Read the Friedman piece here.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
Very interesting presentation.
First; I completely disagree with the issue of man effecting the climate. Nobody on this blogosphere can argue the science of it (including me) so the round robin of..yes it is..not it isn’t, should be avoided.
Second: All other issues have desirable goals. We certainly mucked our planet both in the atmosphere and in the ground.
Let’s look at Denmark’s experience. The Danes have realized that to be successful in ridding themselves of carbon fuels they have to raise the price in order to make alternative energy technology attractive. The substantial tax increase would be the same as creating a shortage of fuel, except it is artificial.
The Danes apparently accepted this strategy. Tom Friedman’s article goes on to tell what they did.
Now to reality. If you can get the “we have to develop alternative renewable energy” out of your head and face American reality you find the following problem.
This is not Denmark;
Americans will not be taxed into modifying their life style.
If you tax them the poor will still suffer high heating oil costs. (of course the political class will want to subsidize the “poor” adding to the tax burden further)
If you live in Methuen and work in Boston you will not take your bike to work.
To achieve what the Danes did would require a complete re-engineering of the American social structure.
In this country energy has become politicized. Our diversity goes against resolution of the problem through the political system.
So the question is; how do we wean ourselves off carbon fuels when they are relatively cheap and we have an abundance of it?
As you saw $4.00 gas brought out a spate of energy activity, but has it’s hardships on our economy and the poor who benefited from $2.00 gas.
So, to start the discussion,I ask the following question; Can the political class tax the diverse American society to encourage the change we need?
Keep in mind we are a people of diverse ideas and visions as to what we should be.
This ain’t going to be easy.
Your turn. I see this as an ongoing discussion.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
I will concede to you on some of the points you make on the differences between the U.S.A. and Denmark. In my initial posting I readily concede that those differences make some of the Danish solution impractical for the U.S. I realize that our society has been built with auto use as a major component of our lifestyle. Our cities and states have made planning decisions (sprawl)that have locked us into some pretty poor dead ends.
Our points of disagreement come on your contention that fossil fuels are abundant and cheap. They are neither. And I remind you of your own contention on drilling that had we begun drilling in the banned areas ten years ago that oil would be coming online now (as you rebut Democratic critics of drillings). I make the same case on renewables and tax policy to you now. If we had imposed a tariff on imported oil when it was relatively cheap and dedicated revenues derived to fund alternatives to our current policies we would be substantially better off today. The Friedman article mentions that the Danes plow back the money from energy taxation right back to the public. My point was and is not that we need to mimic the Danish model, but that government that is willing to be honest and ask for some short term sacrifice for the overall long term good can produce results. If our political class is so frightened to tell the truth then our system will be unable to make the minimum adjustments necessary to wean ourselves from foreign oil, and we cannot continue on this path. I think both right and left have made some bad representations on energy, but I think the moderate left has been more right than wrong on energy. I see the right as totally bankrupt on this issue, and simply pandering.
LikeLike
Your Honor,
You are wrong on all accounts. Let’s take it by the numbers:
I reiterate, there is still an abundance of oil in various forms. If the price is high because of acts of the private sector, then the SEC and the justice department should be looking for violations of Taft hartlry act and other anti monopoly laws. The SEC should be chasing violation of commodity market rules.
The main problem is government interference in the search and harvesting of our resources largely to satisfy the environmental lobby.
This interference has, through many ways, interfered with the free marketing of carbon energy especially to meet the needs of a growing world market demand.
In my years on earth I have found the federal government cannot prevent future predicted problems or fix it when there is a need.
Let’s look at your proposed idea (in the past):
“I make the same case on renewables and tax policy to you now. If we had imposed a tariff on imported oil when it was relatively cheap and dedicated revenues derived to fund alternatives to our current policies we would be substantially better off today.”
If we were ruled by a benevolent dictator it could be pulled off. However, we are a Republic and are free to make up our own mindes as to what we want. Can you imagine what would happen to you politically if you proposed taxes to create replacement technology not yet needed? Your political future would be nonexistent.
In practice we have not been successful at saving tax money to meet future needs. Examples;
Mike Dukakis set aside taxes in a “bank” for road repair. This is actually a good idea. What happened today? We need to borrow 20 Billion dollar to fix th infrastructure that the “banked” funds were suppose to fund. What happend to the “bank”?
Social Security is paid into the general fund in the form of a loan from the “lock box”. The folks will pay to fix this by delaying retirement or raising FICA taxes.
These are just two examples of the inability of government to keep it’s hands off loose cash.
If you were to convince everyone to pay a tax for development of alternative energy technology the money would have been diverted. The funds that were commited would be divided among companies that would vie for the funds without even an idea of what they would do. I have been involved in coal mine ngineering consulting for the depatment of Energy. Money is wasted and achievement is minimal.
There is nothing like a free market to identitfy the most efficient solution. keep in mind many ideas will fail.
Government entities have no special ability to see into the future.
Today stuff:
We have reduced our driving miles by millions of accumulated miles do to high gas prices. Several Automobile manufacturers are bringing electric and hybrid cars to the market. Technology needs lots more development, but it’s happening.
However, the price of gas is coming down. If it gets low enough will the folks increase their driving distances and return to SUV technology?
Maybe we should set a price floor to keep the development going. So I ask you, would you propose a floating tax to keep the price of gas from going below $4.00? And who takes care of the heating oil costs for the “needy”.?
Drill now.
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Have you noticed that Nancy Pelosi has invested a lot of money in renewable energy technology including T. Boone Pickens efforts.
Did you hear the good house speaker say if she “allows” an up and down vote on drilling it must contain renewable energy legislation and tax investments.
She has also invested in natural gas as the coal burning plants convert to natural gas to stem emissions.
Talk about corrupt and self serving.
Check it out Your Honor and let me know if you find this to be true.
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
This web site has the story. It’s probably a right wing site so you may want to check out a lefty site to confirm.
http://dontgomovement.com/2008/08/11/nancy-pelosi-invests-in-energy-scheme-and-water-grab-by-t-boone-pickens/
Jules
LikeLike