Having read much in the popular press, heard most of the talking heads on TV and radio, watched Al Gore's film and seen the opinions posted in this forum, I can't resist giving my $.02 worth.
Almost everyone is missing the point. We shold be doing everything feasible the "experts" recommend to combat global warming. However, we shouldn't see the environmental benefit as our primary objective. It is much more importantly a matter of national security and economic stability.
We absolutely should be running a "Manhattan Project" scale alternative energy effort to drop the bottom out of our oil consumption. This accomplishes several important things. First and foremost, it reduces our dependence upon resources we don't control and for which we face increasing competition. Second, it diminishes extranational political influence. Third, it increases the need for domestic manufacturing and distribution. Fouth, it moves our economy away from a dying model and toward the future. Fifth, it leaves plenty of incintive for our cheif competitors (China and India) to remain stuck on the old model for decades to come. This will again give us a strategic advantage that has been eroding over the last several years. Sixth, it will dry up some of the funding sources for Persian Gulf state sponsored terrorism.
That's why we should do all the green stuff. Not because of some questionable science. The one true thing Bill Clinton ever said was "It's the economy; stupid!"
9 comments:
I agree 100% Barenjager.
Unfortunately, the global warming crowd is anti-economics, anti-capitalism and anti-American. They want a big tax, big government solution.
For example, one of the the best private sector approachs to U.S. energy independence and cleaning up the air is nuclear power.
Yet, as I heard the CEO of Avista state a few weeks ago, we'll never see a new nuclear power plant built in the Northwest.
A National Journal survey of Congressional Democrats and Republicans illustrates this point
Only 58% of Democrats favor more nuclear power, while 90% of Republicans favor it. On the other hand, 50% of Dems want to see a carbon tax while only 3% of the GOP support a tax. The Dems also strongly favor mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions (88%), while Republicans strongly oppose caps (19%). At least there is strong bipartisan support for alternative fuels, with many Republican comments focusing on national security.
Barenjager: "However, we shouldn't see the environmental benefit as our primary objective. It is much more importantly a matter of national security and economic stability."
Agreed, but that's not where the big pushers of the global warming scare try to focus our attention. Like Tom alluded to, a lot of this is Marxism wearing a different coat, and the truth is that they could probably care less about the environment. Getting their hands on more of other people's wealth to redistribute as they see fit seems to be the big interest. Such people have zero interest in helping us maintain our individual and national sovereignty, naturally, and we do have to address their points before suggesting a different course, lest we create the impression that their predictions are valid.
Nuclear is the way to go. If I was to build more nuclear power plants in Washington, I would locate them on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near the existing Columbia Generating Plant. The Columbia reactor already generates over 1 Gigawatt of clean electricity.
I would see the Greenies, Pinkos of Seattle and Commissar Gregorie blocking construction of nuclear power plants. They would bring up Chernobyl as an excuse. Even though the Chernobyl reactor was an overworked first generation design when we in America are designing fifth and sixth generation designs. I remember the Portland greenies managed to get their Trojan reactor shutdown. A perfectly good nuclear core was moved from Portland to Hanford and buried. 12% of Oregon's power came from that reactor.
If you guys want to learn more about nuclear reactors, not many people know this but there is a pool type TRIGA reactor on the WSU campus. They are more than happy to give FREE tours.
Mr. Mechanic -
I've seen photos of the TRIGA reactor in operation, and I've driven past the site. One of these days I would like to take a tour of it.
I've heard good things about "pebble bed" reactors. Are they better than the alternatives?
I know the Pebble Bed Reactors use a low pressure gas to moderate the reaction and to turn the turbines. I remember reading once that they want to use the weapons grade material from the bombs that we had to destory under treaty in the Pebble Bed Reactors. I will have to read up more on this type of reactor.
Some other nuclear alternatives that we should pursue is the breeder reactor. It converts inert Urainium-238 (Urainium-235 is used for power) into Plutonium - 240. This great for re-use of spent nuclear fuel. The research into this was cut in the 90's by Bubba Clinton. I remember INEL (Idaho National Engineering Laboratories) had one along with other prototypes for reactors.
One reactor that is popular and low cost is the CANDu reactor. This reactor is made in Canada, it uses Heavy Water (Deterium Oxide) as a moderator (moderator controls the speed of the reaction) and a much lower grade of Urainium 235. How the Canadians make money is selling the Heavy Water. Canada uses its hydroelectric dams to seperate the Heavy Water from the Light Water. It takes a lot of electricity to do it. It is basically a tradeoff.
Agreed that the scare mongers pushing global warming are doing it for their own benefit. What I advocate is that reality based people run a false flag operation. We jump in as their friends and then transform the effort to pursue useful goals. Things like nuclear power.
What really cracks me up is that the whole militant green movement and especially the anti-nuke movement orignated as a Soviet operation to hamper the US' productivity and the idiots of today don't even know (or care) why they exist or how they got started. If you ever want to call one of them "unamerican" in polite company, just lay that on them and let them stew on it. The facts are there and available to the public to check. The Greens party was 100 percent Soviet funded at its inception.
Baren -
Ah, I follow you, and I like the idea! I just wonder if I could bite my tongue long enough to stay on the inside and help bring about those sorts of changes. :)
I'm definitely going to have to take a look at the history of the Greens.
Paul, check this column from General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. It discusses some of those connections.
Tom -
Thanks for that! I'll have to keep digging a bit into this one, now that it has my interest. The article referenced some things I don't recognize, but that's where great cross-referenced research begins. :)
Post a Comment