Energy Bill Reading

Fire of Liberty

With the Energy Bill currently sitting in the wings of the US Senate waiting for the various Senators to laden it with pork as well as to push their various pet projects like the McCain/Lieberman Bill that calls for the reduction of CO2 emissions, they should find time to read this article by Jack Rafuse over at Tech Central Station. If the "Club of 100" would read this article, the would read a awesome review of the book The Bottomless Well, which takes a sensible look at some perceived energy problems and the reasoning on what the best resolution to the problems will be. While the book focuses on several solutions, it also notes that the various solutions for our energy needs being promoted in the current Energy Bill by a bunch of Senators would be yet another example of what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to call "iatrogenic government," which is that the solution is worse than the problem. Amongst the two most obvious areas in the Energy Bill that The Bottomless Well places in this "iatrogenic government" are the proposal for alternate fuels and CO2 reductions. Just read what the authors have to say:

· Alternative energy: After decades of US subsidies, 'renewables' generate about 0.7 percent of our (highest cost) electricity. "No conceivable mix of solar, biomass, or wind technology could meet even half our current demand without (at the very least) doubling the human footprint on the surface of the continent." We subsidize them for environmental reasons?

· Kyoto Accords: The US emits about 1.6 billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air -- and absorbs 1.7 billion! West-to-east prevailing winds should make CO2 concentrations in the North Atlantic 300 parts per billion higher in the North Atlantic than in the North Pacific, but "they're about 300 parts per billion lower." (From "a stunning but little publicized article," in October, 1998 Science.) Why don't we hear that in the Global Warming debate?

It's sad when Senators are so sold on pork and their self-interest that they're will to create greater problems that restrain the growth and creativity of our scientists. From the looks of it, this Energy Bill is a long way from arriving on the President's Desk. Even if it does, he might find it in his best interest to veto the bill. After waiting some four years of waiting for the bill, he should get what he wants and not a fat pork sandwich.