LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Conservative Columnist Can't See Opportunity
-- Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I wonder if Walter Williams is aware that his recent Op/Ed column, "Global Warming Rope-a-Dope" is a litany of distortions? Williams cites a Senate Minority Report of 650 scientists who dispute human-caused climate change -- but does he know that the report was compiled by Marc Morano? Is Williams aware that Morano is anything but objective (and that the same can be said of many of the industry-paid scientists Morano cites)?Morano's career includes a long stint as Rush Limbaugh's producer, and he was midwife to one of the nastiest and most biased political attacks in our history -- the Swift Boat ads of 2004. Morano is a political operative whose job is to promote his, or his employer's, viewpoint. Who might be his employer in this case? James Inhofe, senator from the great state of ExxonMobil.
For a moment, let's pretend that Morano and Williams are right and climate change is not human-caused. Regardless, we still need to move away from rapidly depleting fossil fuels to renewables to secure our nation's place in the world. The more fossil fuels we use, especially oil, the more the petro-dictators of Saudi Arabia et al. grow stronger and richer.
We are currently fighting a war against the very forces that we enrich with our energy money; I'd rather my nation-building money build my nation.
Finally, there are huge opportunities in the renewable energy market that American ingenuity can exploit so that we are once again leading the world's innovation curve. Williams is so conservative that he can't see opportunity when it's right in front of his nose.
Tricia Dunlap. Chester.
Responsibility Is Also Found in the Dictionary
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Amarillo Uasai's letter, "U.S. Immigrants Deserve Respect" implies that all immigrants, legal and illegal, are entitled to respect and anyone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "respect" should consult a dictionary.I am in full agreement that all individuals are entitled to a certain amount of respect as human beings. Those same individuals have a responsibility to abide by the laws of the country in which they live. The word "responsibility" also appears in the dictionary.
Jimmy Adams. Richmond.
Chesterfield Schools Should Revisit Budget
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
The Virginia budget shortfall and how it will affect public schools has been a big topic of discussion. As a student in Chesterfield, at Manchester Middle School in Center Based Gifted Program, I am concerned that the quality of education in Chesterfield will be negatively affected.First, there has been talk of layoffs in various parts of the school, from teachers to office staff. If you take away a teacher, the ratio of students to teachers automatically increases. This further reduces the personal attention a student may receive: One-on-one teaching can be very important to a student's education. Second, according to one principal, Chesterfield Public Schools will be looking more carefully at field trips and possibly reducing them. If field trips are taken away, fun, hands-on learning experiences will be lost. Finally, specialty programs in Chesterfield will probably be affected negatively by the budget cuts. Most likely they will not receive the current amount of funding, because the school system will have to provide for the general education purposes first.
Chesterfield schools should make many adjustments in how they budget their expenses. First, they should get rid of the expensive Scantrons and start utilizing the sought-after computers for test-taking. Second, notes and newsletters should be posted on Edline or similar services and printed only when necessary. Finally, the school system should increase its recycling efforts in order to decrease its operation expenses.
Chesterfield's quality of education will suffer if it does not consider making some changes to the proposed budget.
Bruce Ensley Jr. Midlothian.
Despite Uprooted Lives, Bay Is Still Polluted
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
In the late 1970s, as superintendent of the Virginia State Farm in Goochland and Powhatan, I was ordered to remove the cattle from all pastures that drained into the James River and remove the hogs from access to creeks that drained into the river. The cattle did not seem to mind the move; however, the hogs were another matter.I was faced with a herd of disgruntled swine. None of the older boars and sows would speak to me during my tenure as head of farms. When I approached one of the hog lots, the group would get up and start moving about aimlessly and grunting a lot -- a sign of displeasure in hog circles.
The state's order was followed by an order from the Health Department that we could no longer feed the hogs the cooked "slop" from the kitchens. The environment police disturbed the not-unpleasant life of the hogs, and made me feel unwanted by the hog population and some of the unhappy inmates.
And, in 2008, the poor Chesapeake Bay was still polluted.
R.M. Oliver. Richmond.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The original topic of Mr. Williams’s article I believe was the statements of
x number of scientists made in refutation of the global warming question. Ms. Dunlap questioned not the
science or the scientists but the partianship of the compiler of the list. While not entirely irrelevant if one is really interested in the question of global warming it is merely a distraction. It is imperative that one read not ONLY those theories that agree with ones own but also those that disagree.
The scientists involved and their very solid scientific opinions were to be dismissed because the compiler of the list was considered biased.
The science is what is important. Not the ideology or partianship that has become associated with it.
It is always useful to remind people of the genesis of the global warming theory. James Hansen the GISS guru of the famous “computer models” first programmed his “models” to predict the new ice age. And they did. Then he met his Svengali of the glitteratti. Mr. Al Gore who was obsessed with the Keeling Curve which is the double helix of the science. Mr. Gore had met Dr. Keeling in his school days and had been very impressed with his work. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Gore got together and created a new world crisis. The Keeling Curve is now in the process of being re-examined and James Hansen reported the exact SAME data for the months of September and October. A bush league mistake to be sure but “extradionary claims demand extradionary proof.“
And James Hansen is no different from any other scientist who will accept grant money from the devil himself in order to further his work. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Heintz Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society might be considered as corrupting as the dreaded petrodollars.
None are pure and immune.
Virginia energy came into the discussion also.
From the offered report.
“New nuclear, hydrogn, methane hydrates, and ocean power are beyond the scope of this Plan.“
I don’t think I would be waiting for “alternatives” to pop up any time soon. Pilot plants don’t prevent rolling blackouts.
You are absolutely right that a new global market is emerging. I also agree with you that the United States must be a leader in the development and implementation of all technological breakthroughs not just those surrounding energy. I differ with you however in my opinion of where the leadership for those breakthroughs should come from. It is far better to let the private sector control the pace and direction of growth. Allowing profit as end result of a project will be far more alluring to entrepreneurs and capital investors than any promise of government subsidy or altruistic outcome.
Nearly all reports that come out of the United States Senate have a political bias attached to them, just as reports from the United Nations, Sierra Club, or Earth Liberation Front all contain varying degrees of bias as you originally pointed out. Who is behind those reports? Unfortunately, other organizations are not as transparent as the US Government. As you eluded it is the ability to see through that bias to the facts that is truly important. When it comes to global warming, those facts just don’t add up. It is inconceivable to me how 100 years of human industry could create worldwide temperature rise, if in fact the temperature is actually rising.
In response to construction of power plants and gasoline refineries not being built you claim that my response was overly simplified that the real reasons they are not built are far more complex. You stated that it is because of the difficultly in determining costs, profitability, and uniform design that no plants have been built. I believe that you are incorrect in your summation. All nuclear power plants work on the same theory whether they are built in New York, Virginia, or California. The materials and labor for these plants can be estimated and figured into a budget. What cannot be estimated are the court costs, licensing, fees, and negative media attention that would be associated with construction and operation of these facilities. It is that reason and purely that reason that they are not built. Environmental groups spend an amazing amount of time and money on litigation professionals to fight development under the guise of protecting the environment. If they feel they can do a better job or create a cleaner form of power they should focus their efforts in that direction.
While subsidies may have existed for a long period of time to fossil fuel industries, I was attempting to make the point that Exxon paid 49% of the money it made to the government, subsidy or no that is an enormous burden for one company to carry. The excessive tax burden could be reinvested by Exxon into cleaner fuels or increased efficiency at refineries, instead it is paid to the government. Subsidies are by design given out to governmental pet projects regardless of their vitality, look no further than the failure of corn based ethanol for an example. I argue that it would be much more effective to cut taxes across the board and “let the cream rise to the top.”
Finally, I would like to thank you, Ms. Dunlap, for a spirited debated. I hope to read and comment on more of your letters in the future. I truly hope that you feel no personal animosity in my comments as they were not designed to reach that end. I believe that an open dialogue is vital and exchange of ideas and information in a civil manner, such as this, is preferable to the name calling and partisan politics exhibited to our north.
I agree with Grant. The real energy problem is that people who believe we have an energy problem are focusing their energy on the wrong problem.
Miss Dunlap, with regards to this comment:
Why shouldn’t the U.S. invest money, time and effort in drill, baby, drill? For the same reason that Henry Ford didn’t invest in breeding a faster horse. Conservatives can pretend we don’t have an energy problem, but their short-sighted, head-in-the sand approach will prevent the long-term solutions that will make us more secure, productive, and free.
Conservatives know that we have an energy problem that was dreamt up and perpetuated by environmental alarmists, not by a limited supply of untapped oil.
Thank you for your efforts, we just don’t buy it as credible.
Grant, your post was outstanding!! Great rebuttal.
It’s awfully funny when people with an agenda who have their mind made up on a particular position want to define what is or is not objective. I haven’t seen any report on the topic of the environment that is objective, particularly when one familiarizes themselves with the report writing process.
I agree completely with celtworm and certaintly did not intend to suggest that fossil fuels will cease to be a source of energy. I’d also like to issue a mea culpa for the extent to which my comments were polarizing. I see this issue as one of national concern that transcends partisanship (or should). In fact, my beef with Walter Williams is that he is willing to distort what is an essential national debate in service to his political agenda. That skewed argument is what I was trying to counter. Beyond climate change, energy issues are already impacting our lifestyle, the ability of businesses to control expenses and thus protect their profits, and our national security. Regarding Grant’s two points: 1) it is ridiculous to say that no report can be considered objective. There are degrees of objectivity that reasonable people can determine in deciding to accept or refute the findings. It is important, however, to know who is behind the curtain and in the Senate Minority Report on Climate Change, the man behind the curtain is unabashedly biased. Let’s not pretend that his report is otherwise. 2) subsidies to the fossil fuel industries have existed for over a hundered years and include everything from the construction and maintenance of highways to the tariff imposed on Brazilian ethanol in order to protect American corn-based ethanol. It is not a matter of “whether” government will be involved with the energy industry, but “how.“ For more information read this report produced by the Texas state comptroller, Susan Combs. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ My larger point is that an entirely new global industry is emerging—sustainable, renewable energies—and if we want to remain competitive in the global market, we’ll have to lead rather than be left. Finally, the reasons for our failure to build more nuclear power plants are far more complex than Grant is portraying. Two huge factors that have restricted growth of that industry are that it is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of a new plant and thus hard to predict profit level and there is no universal design which drives up the cost of construction.
To follow your (Ms. Dunlap’s) reasoning then, no report could be considered objective since the writers of those reports are eventually beholden to either the needs of funding or the desire to consolidate political power. I guess we should take everything we read with a grain of salt, regardless of it origination.
Evidence does exist that the United States can maintain supplies for its energy needs through increased exploration and market driven mechanisms. Unfortunately, there exists a NIMBY mentality in the minds of many citizens and to a greater extent members of the environmental lobby, who as Henry’s Ghost pointed out would rather outsource our energy production rather than produce it domestically. We have millions of barrels of oil sitting untapped in Alaska, within the continental United States, and on the continental shelf. Coal gasification is an up and coming technology. Oil Shale production will become viable in the near future. While more promising then an many other forms of alternative energy, they receive the ire and scorn of the environmental lobby simply because they do not mesh with the global warming agenda.
The report that you pointed to may be a step in the right direction, but I doubt that Virginians will be able to reduce their power demands by 40% in the next 8 years. Instead of curtailing energy use, an emphasis should be placed on creating more. If that energy comes from wind, solar, nuclear, biodiesel, coal, human methane reclamation, or any other source, great, but it must be competitive with fossil fuels and not dependent on government handouts. I believe as do many others that when the free market is allowed to work, it will create a superior product at a lower price.
Perhaps one of the reasons that Virginia cannot increase its production of energy is because of the regulatory hurdles that are put into place. These hurdles have kept the United States from being able to build either a new nuclear power plant the last one was built in 1977 or gasoline refinery the last was built in 1976. It would take a team of lawyers, engineers, surveyors, biologists, and countless others to erect an outhouse in certain localities of this state by the time federal, quasi-federal, state, local, and regional governmental officials were satisfied.
I am not sure how you can say that our regulatory structure favors fossil fuels when in the first quarter of 2008 Exxon paid 9.3 billion dollars in taxes, nearly 49% of its income. I know of almost no other industry that bears such a tax burden. Compare that to a 100% tax credit on the value of wind energy systems and the numbers just don’t add up. Energy regardless of its form would be much cheaper if the government got out of the business all together. As of 2005, Virginians paid 37.7 cents per gallon in tax on gasoline purchases. This is more than the gasoline company makes per gallon in sales, averages are between 20-28 cents per gallon.
I and many other conservatives do not believe that we have an energy problem. We have a government problem. Allow the free market to work with as few constraints as possible and energy problems will vanish.
If I understand the goal, it is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, not eliminate them. This suggests that fossil fuels will still be used, just in smaller, hopefully cleaner ways. It doesn’t have to be “either-or”! In fact, if we want to continue life as we know it, it will be necessary to continue some use of fossil fuels while the country makes the shift to add other sources of energy. Why are we always so polarizing in our approach to problem-solving?
In response to Grant’s comment above:
1) My criticism of Mr. Morano and Mr. Inhofe was for the purpose of exposing the fact that the report they generated cannot be considered objective.
2) No evidence exists that the United States can meet it’s current or projected energy needs through domestic resources alone—even if we drill in every conceivable field.
3) Consider Virginia, as one small part of the challenge ahead of us: since 1960, the Commonwealth has seen a consistent growth in demand for energy. Virginians currently use about 2,500 trillion BTU’s of energy annually, but we produce only about 1,500 BTU’s of that energy. We import the rest. Virginia’s energy use is projected to grow dramatically as the use of electronics (among other technologies) grows. Our production of coal is projected to decline as the available supply is depleted and as the international market increases it’s demand and some of Virginia’s coal is diverted there because it is profitable. In short, Virginia cannot meet it’s energy needs in either the short-term or the long-term without renewables and as international demand grows, the price of fossil fuels will also grow. See the Dept. of Mines, Minerals & Energy’s 2007 report at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/2007_VA_Energy_Plan-Full_Document.pdf
4) For 100 years or more our tax and regulatory structure has overwhelmingly favored fossil fuels with the result that these fuels have been cheap and renewables (which are not subsidized) are expensive. In order to meet our future needs AND get a cleaner, more sustainable system we must shift our subsidies to favor renewables.
Why shouldn’t the U.S. invest money, time and effort in drill, baby, drill? For the same reason that Henry Ford didn’t invest in breeding a faster horse.
Conservatives can pretend we don’t have an energy problem, but their short-sighted, head-in-the sand approach will prevent the long-term solutions that will make us more secure, productive, and free.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement