Energy Policy Ignores the Elephant in the Room: Saving Us from Global Warming and Peak Oil

In current thinking, the issues presented by global warming concern using less fossil fuel and replacing that energy source with alternative”clean” energy.  We are all familiar with the options that are on the table: solar power, wind power, ethanol, and nuclear power. Oh and I suppose for accuracy one should add clean coal. There is also modest incremental talk of conservation.

However, there are problems with all of these “solutions.”  Clean coal, which requires the deep burial of carbon dioxide, will never be politically or economically viable.  For one, the energy companies want to be left off the hook legally if the gas should happen to escape its underground habitat and kill people.  Then there’s the problem of removing mountaintops and the resulting environmental degradation to access the coal.

Nuclear power, at least nuclear fission, has the inescapable and unsolvable problem of what to do with the nuclear waste product that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.  Nuclear fusion, which would be safer and produce less radioactive waste is still experimental; a test reactor is under construction in France.

The remaining “green” options are generally agreed not to have the capacity to provide anywhere close to our massive energy needs.  And even the green options, including electric cars, would need massive amounts of energy … generated by fossil fuels, of course … to be financially viable. Corn ethanol, which has only thrown world corn markets into a frenzy resulting in increased food costs for the poor, has been proven to be worthless as an energy saver.

If one is objective, one therefore has to say that all the talk about substantially reducing our carbon footprint through the use of alternative energy sources just is not very realistic, given our current  and future dependence on energy, which will just get worse as the world population grows and more of it experiences modern development.

And as one thinks about this issue, it is important to remember that there is another energy-related catastrophic event waiting to happen out there … it’s not just global warming. At some point in the future … whether it’s starting to happen already as some argue or will happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years … we will reach “peak oil.” The availability of oil then will be drastically reduced and the price of what oil is available will skyrocket to unimaginable heights.

So if one is trying to plan for the future, the inescapable question that must be addressed is how can modern man live, with a reasonable level of creature comfort (one must be practical), using only a fraction of the energy that is being used today. Only if that question can be realistically answered is there any hope for mankind’s future. If that question is not answered, sooner rather than later our economies will collapse, our standard of living will evaporate … the world will become a very ugly place, not all that different from the futuristic world depicted in “Mad Max.”  We will have destroyed ourselves, not by nuclear weapons, but through our insatiable greed.

I certainly do not have the answer.  What’s scary though, is that I am not aware of any great minds or think tanks that have addressed this issue and come up with various models for how we could live using only a fraction of the energy being used today. No one seems to be thinking or talking about this. This goes way beyond what could be achieved through conservation, energy-efficient appliances, green buildings, and the like. This would most likely require a massive change in the way we currently live.

To my mind, government and industry must join forces in a project even larger than the fabled Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The future of our children, and certainly our children’s children, will depend on whether and how this issue is addressed.

Rush Limbaugh, Have You No Shame, No Sense of Decency?

After many years of ruining peoples lives as part of his anti-Communist witch hunt, Senator Joseph McCarthy finally went too far in 1954 when he gratuitously exposed a young lawyer with a great future as having for a short time in the past been a member of what McCarthy termed a “Communist front organization” as a way of getting at, embarrassing, Joseph Welch, the lawyer for the Army, which was being attacked by McCarthy.

The response by Welch is famous.  After saying that, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness,” he said, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Today, Rush Limbaugh sunk to a far more unfathomable low.  He was commenting on a young woman who had testified before Congress supporting the provision of the Health Care Reform Act that requires health insurance, with the usual limited religious exemptions, to provide free access to contraception.

Although I think it bizarre, I have no problem with him being against that provision, as is the Catholic Church and many evangelical leaders. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. It’s the American way.

But Rush Limbaugh did not just speak out against this provision.  Instead, he lashed out in the most vile, misogynistic, cruel, and reckless manner at the young woman who testified.  Here is what he said:

First he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Then added, “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives ... We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

To which I, and I hope all of America will say, “Sir, have you no sense of decency at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?”

I urge all the companies who sponsor his program to withdraw their support, thereby making a statement that such reckless vilification is not acceptable. It is against everything that America stands for.

You Say You Believe in the Bible?

I think that if someone believes in the Bible as God’s word and thus infallible, then you need to treat everything in the Bible in the same manner, following all of His instructions.  You can’t pick and choose which rules you want to follow and which ones you deem outmoded or not appropriate for the times because that would make it your Bible, not God’s.

The Catholic Church, Evangelicals, and others on the Right use the Bible to argue that homosexuality is a sin, indeed an “abomination,” and thus should be outlawed and not given any support or recognition by society or government.  While the lesson of many of the passages often cited by opponents (for example, Sodom and Gomorrah) have nothing to do with homosexuality (in the case of S&G, it is about violence and inhospitality), there are without question two passages that directly speak to the issue of male to male sex (although the Bible puts it more quaintly, the point is clear). 

In Leviticus 18:22, male to male sex is termed an “abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 goes further and says that those engaging in male to male sex “shall surely be put to death.”  Pretty strong words, no doubt.

But let’s put these sections in context.  The Bible terms more than 60 things an abomination.  Included are:  lying (Proverbs 12:22), eating food that isn’t kosher (Leviticus 11), a proud look (Proverbs 6:16), the proud of heart (Proverbs 16;5), adultery (Ezekiel 18:6-13), lying with a menstruating woman (Ezekiel 18:6-13), and what is highly esteemed among men (Luke 16:15).  With the exception of adultery, no one on the Right would argue that these acts be outlawed or termed a serious sin (with the exception of the Jewish ultra-orthodox … they are consistent).

But, someone on the Right may say, these other acts don’t carry with them a death penalty; we may not believe such sanctions are appropriate in this modern age, but surely that signifies the seriousness of the sin and sets it apart.  Sorry, but that doesn’t work either. 

The Bible says that anyone who curses his father or mother should be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and that a man and woman who commit adultery should be put to death (Leviticus 20:10.)  In Exodus 35:2, it says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death.  Again, with the exception noted above, I doubt that there are many people, regardless how far Right, who would say that people who curse their parents or work on the Sabbath are guilty of a serious sin that should have legal consequences.

So unless those who foam at the mouth about homosexuality being an abomination are willing to have all the other abominations and death-sanctioned acts treated in the same way … ostracized from society, criminalized, and with no support or protection from government … then I say that they should take their Bibles and their picket signs (“God Hates Fags”) and go home and do some serious spiritual meditation on what they believe.

Republicans Say the Common Man Be Damned

In their desire to stop Mitt Romney from getting the Republican nomination, several of his opposing candidates have over the past week highlighted his role in Bain Capital, a private equity firm. They said Romney took over companies not to heal them and make them prosper but to gut them, fire employees, and eventually close them while making a tidy profit for Bain.  The term coined was, “vulture capitalist.”

This was too much for the capitalist backers of the Party, even for some strong conservatives that generally have little use for Romney.  Gingrich and Perry were admonished for their attacks on capitalism.

The headline that the Democrats should make sure is emblazoned in the minds of all voters from this episode should be, “REPUBLICANS SAY THE COMMON MAN BE DAMNED.”

If nothing else the Republicans are being consistent.  Whether it’s their position on companies like Bain Capital or the fraudulent activities of the big banks that precipitated the current economic crisis, or their opposition to any meaningful regulation of the financial industry to protect the consumer and the economy as well as virtually all environmental regulation, the Republicans have only one interest … protecting the interests of their big business donors.  Let them do what they want to fatten their wallets. If the average man suffers, tough.

Next to the positive message of where the Democrats want to lead this country and how that will help the average citizen, branding the Republicans is of critical importance if they hope to be victorious in 2012.  All voters, and especially middle-income voters, need to be very clear on where the two parties stand on issus affecting their welfare.

The Curse of the Job Killers

Once upon a time, there was a group of people, Congressmen and business owners, who didn’t want government to be regulating business. They wanted companies, no matter whether mining, oil exploration, or financial, to be able to do whatever they wanted to do.

But they had a problem because years ago when business had that freedom, they abused it and paid no heed to the negative impact of their actions on the welfare of the general public or their workers. As a result laws and regulations were passed over the years that protected the general public and workers … things like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health act.

Then an economic crisis came upon the land. Unemployment was high and people were worried about their jobs. “Aha!” thought this business-friendly group, if we say that laws and regulations that impact business are job killers, the public will support our effort to do away with these rules, even though they are there for their protection.

And so they started calling all regulation, especially environmental regulation, job killers. And the people were afraid and said that they were against government regulation.

Unfortunately, this is not a fairy tale. This is actually happening. And what’s most amazing, no one … not anyone in Congress or any editorial writer … has to my knowledge called this Republican scam for the lie that it is.

Government regulations, as a general rule, are not job killers. They certainly often reduce corporate profits, but they are not job killers.  And that’s because all these companies will continue in business, regulations or no. No existing or contemplated regulation is so onerous that it would encourage a business to fold up shop.

Now if a mining company wants to remove a mountaintop to get at coal and is told, “no,” by the government, or if hydro-fracking would be prohibited, those would indeed be job killers in the sense that new jobs would not be created. But the public’s health cannot be held hostage to the need to create jobs. When something so endangers the public health, is so egregious, that it’s not a matter of regulating a business  but actually prohibiting it, then that is the duty of government. It is the only protection we have.

All this hue and cry by the Republicans and by business interests is solely a matter of enabling businesses to maximize their profits. It has, with the narrow exceptions noted, nothing to do with jobs. Democrats must destroy this myth or we will all suffer the consequences.

The Coming Democratic Landslide of 2012!

Contrary to all the gnashing of teeth in Democratic quarters about the bad outlook for 2012, I think it can be argued that the outlook looks great … at least if the campaigns are run well.

Republicans have been doing a good job of shooting themselves in the foot. They are so high on their ideological mission and bent on pleasing their Tea Party base that they seem to have forgotten that there are other voters out there who they need to be reelected. Perhaps that’s because at least some freshmen Republicans in the House have indicated that they have no interest in whether they get reelected; they’ve said they are there to do a job.

Recent polls have consistently shown that Republicans in Congress are held in even worse regard by voters than Democrats.  Even in strong Republican districts that elected Tea Party candidates in 2010, support for the Tea Party and for the Republican Party has fallen way off … to less than 50%. And then there’s the general anti-incumbent sentiment, which will fall more heavily on Republicans in 2012 since they have a clear majority in the House.

And what about Obama? Yes, the economy will be a challenge. If the Republicans nominated a strong moderate, I think an Obama win would be almost impossible under these conditions.  However, that is certainly not in the offing. Romney may in fact be a moderate Republican, but he has worked so hard to paint himself as a Tea Party conservative in the primary race that he will be an easy target for Obama in the election campaign. Gingrich is a moderate in many ways. But Gingrich comes with his own problems that make him an unlikely victor.

Given the disgust of the American public towards the failure of Congress to deal with recent major economic issues, and their placing primary blame for this failure on the Republicans, the Democrats have a real opportunity if they run a smart campaign. And what is a smart campaign?

A smart campaign is first running a very positive campaign that tells people clearly where Democrats see the country going and how they propose to get us there … a clear vision statement with legislative particulars, communicated in a way that the average voter will get. This must be the main thrust and the counter to Republican laissez faire policies.

But at the same time, Democrats cannot let the public forget who has kept our current economic problems from being solved; the public could care less at this point who caused the problems, but they do want them fixed. And Democrats must nail Republicans for being the hypocrites they are … they pose as the party of the people but really are the party of big business and the rich. Those are the interests they are protecting.

This election could be the biggest Democratic victory since Johnson v Goldwater in 1964. The question is whether Obama, the other Democratic candidates, and very importantly the consultants that fashion the campaign, have the right stuff.

The Lords of Finance Are Today's Money-Changers in The Temple

At least since the time of Christ, there has been some degree of moral opprobrium in Western culture against making money solely from the use of money.  First he drove the money-changers from the temple (as well as other businesses, but the image remains a classic) and later he spoke against lending money at interest. This opprobrium was so strong that for centuries Christians were prohibited from lending money at interest. That task, so crucial to commercial life, was left to the infidel Jews, who were nevertheless frequently sanctioned for their practices.

In more modern times, the opprobrium has lapsed as we all know, but there remained both a moral opprobrium and a legal sanction against lending at usurious rates … such as the practice of loan sharks. Currently all states have laws against usury that set a maximum legal rate of interest and federal law criminalizes charging twice that amount and attempting to collect it. Making a reasonable profit from one's money has beenn deemed respectable and moral; but making too much was beyond the pale.  In the latter case, one was thought to take advantage of people who were in difficulty.

After the stock market crash of 1929, Congressional hearings revealed that the mixing of commercial and investment banking activities during the 1920s had created conflicts of interest and fraud, which helped bring about the 1929 crash.  To prohibit such practices, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933.

Until its repeal in 1999 by a Republican Congress (and yes, unfortunately signed into law by President Clinton), commercial banks had been prohibited from engaging in speculative investment by being prohibited from owning other financial institutions, such as investment banks. The act basically limited commercial banks to helping individuals and businesses in every-day activities such as holding deposits and making loans.

After the repeal of Glass-Steagall, commercial and investment banking activities could again be combined (that’s how the “too big to fail” banks came into being) and banks were free to play the market for their own benefit.  And have they played! Both before the 2008 financial crisis and since, the large banks, such as the iconic Goldman Sachs, have made fortunes from playing the market … and not in the sense that the individual investor might play the market. They have acted unethically if not illegally.

They have created questionable financial instruments often only to then bet against their own clients who purchased these instruments. They have undermined the global financial system through their enabling countries, such as Greece, to assume huge debt levels off the books and then undermining those same countries by betting against them. They have manipulated the market to the detriment of individual investors, countries, and the general public and they have made fortunes in doing so.

This is an example of capitalism run amok. I think that everyone should be able to make a reasonable profit from the use of their assets. And if someone is producing something unique of value to society, then they should be able to make more than what might otherwise be considered a reasonable amount … such as is allowed by virtue of the patent laws.

But the money made by today’s large commercial investment banks and the way in which they make it add up, in my mind, to ill-begotten anti-social gains. They are beyond the pale. Not only should practices such as derivatives trading and credit default swaps be closely regulated for the safety of the broader economy … which the banks are fighting against tooth and nail … but those gains should at a minimum be taxed at a very high rate to discourage such activity and preferably be made illegal.

The modern-day lords of finance are a cancer on the structure of our economy and as such they need to be controlled with laser-like precision.