I am certainly not opposed to transitioning from fossil fuels into renewable energy sources. But that will take decades, and in the meantime, we need to be sure our energy needs are met.
I saw first hand the problem when California experienced power brown outs several years ago. It helped bring down Gov. Gray Davis. Gasoline was $4 a gallon not too long ago–very bad for the economy. And now, the bitter cold snap in the UK may lead to natural gas restrictions. From the story:
The freezing weather has raised fears that Britain could run short of gas after the National Grid issued only its second warning ever over surging consumption. Demand for gas – the fuel used to heat about two thirds of Britain’s homes – has risen to about 30 per cent above seasonal norms with Britain in the grip of one of its coldest winters for 100 years. While it is unlikely that households will find their supplies restricted, a shortage could lead to higher bills. The National Grid, responsible for meeting the country’s energy requirements, issued a gas balancing alert on Monday to give warning that any further falls in supply could force big users like power plants to cut their consumption.
Those who impede oil, gas, and other energy production out of hysteria over global warming have the potential to cause tremendous harm to billions of people–and far quicker than potential catastrophic warming. If we are entering a cold period as some have stated, we had better drill, baby drill! Our warmth, our electricity, our prosperity may depend on it.
January 4th, 2010 | 8:26 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Global Warming Hysteria: The Consequences of Don’t Drill, Baby, Don’t Drill » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog – http://shar.es/aU8nO [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 9:00 am
[...] Read the rest here: Global Warming Hysteria: The Consequences of Don't Drill, Baby … [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 12:08 pm
What a joke. The writer says it will take decades to transition from oil. He must have forgotton 1973 during th eoil embargo, we transitioned from oil to no oil overnight.
Learn from history, or repeat it.
Those who impede oil, gas, and other energy production out of concern for the lives of our soldiers and the long term survival of our economy are true patriots.
The writer points out $4 a gallon prices wrecked the economy. What do you think it will be like when you can’t find a gas station that has gas availble at any price?
Shortsighted profits at the expense of long term economic and ecologic destruction is a Frontier mentality inherant in US policy.
Kill them Injuns and put them on reservations where we can starve them out of existance.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Earl E: the side that will “kill the injuns” are the utopians who wish to shut down human thriving out of hysteria over global warming or anti Western ideology. We won’t run out of oil this century, if we go for it. Alberta’s oil shale deposits have huge quantities. So do some places in the USA. We have plenty of oil off the CA coast and up in the deserted tundra of Alaska’s ANWAR. Brazil has found a huge field off her coast. Indeed, had we drilled Anwar ten years ago as many wanted, we would be on the way to a billion barrels. I suppose you oppose nuke power too. And bird lovers oppose windmills, Bobby Kennedy Jr. wind farms where he can see them. Sen. Feinstein, wind and solar farms in the Mojave, it goes on and on. We can and should transition from fossil fuels. But we can do that without killing the patient.
January 5th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
“tremendous harm to billions”
Is this a joke? Tremendous harm to half the world’s population? We’ve already endured (relatively) high fossil fuel prices for over a year – I sure didn’t see catastrophic harm to billions of people. And given that most of the fossil fuel mentioned in this article is used by N. Amercia and Europe, whose combined populations don’t hit 1 billion, I don’t see where these billions are coming from.
Nope, global warming will, if not addressed, cause more damage to people than fossil fuel shortage. Human exceptionalism demands that we take action.
I find the greatest inconsistency being applied to “global warming hysterics” who base their projections on evidence based models (scientists don’t have crystal balls or some mythological diety to guide their predictions).
They are called “hysterics”, yet those who tirade against them in the absence of evidence aren’t “hysterics”? Further, those who deride the “hysterics” point to their usage of models, yet these same deriders are quick to pull out their own “models” (usually done by some hack) to demonstrate no warming is taking place or based on the sun, etc. This is rather peculiar “scientific” thinking.
And finally, those with evidence based concern for global warming are “hysterics”, yet those who raise strong concerns over health-care reform in the US aren’t “hysterics” as well?
Those following the scientific research should know that the following contention, made by global warming deniers, is in jeopardy: CO2 levels of today aren’t that high compared to the ancient past
http://chemport.cas.org/cgi-bin/sdcgi?APP=ftslink&action=reflink&origin=npg&version=1.0&coi=1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXivFSksb0%3D&pissn=1744-7933&pyear=2009&md5=0d2ed566b3962e0e1d0a0b52b49dfc2f
January 5th, 2010 | 2:34 pm
I won’t get as worked us as your other correspondents Wes, but you really are an agent of the Forces of Endarkenment on this issue.
You offer the usual lip service to clean energy, then display the lack of urgency that is keeping us from weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
You talk about meeting our energy needs by increasing production. You completely neglect the other side of the equation, which is reducing consumption.
The kind of thinking you’re displaying is exactly the thinking that got us dependent on oil in the first place.
As Thomas Friedman has pointed out, whether you believe in climate change (or as you chronically mislabel it, “global warming”), all the measures to be taken for it have positive benefits environmentally and potentially economically as well.
Cleaning up our energy systems is a win-win. Going down the denial path is a slow slide into a pool of our own waste. I have no idea how you could see it any other way.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
paidraig: Endarkenment? That’s the second time I have been accused of that. The first was by Alta Charo because I oppose human cloning. But I digress. We rely on it because it brought us so much prosperity. Reducing consumption via artificially hiking prices and other methods of coercion will destroy our economies! And it won’t necessarily rely in a magic green carpet to bail us out. Indeed, some of the hoped for alternatives, such as geo-thermal, are not working out. Also, biomass may lead to more, not less, emissions.
I am not willing to sacrifice our prosperity or that of the developing world on this hypothetical crisis. If that is endarkened, buy some infra red lenses.
As for, Thomas Friedman, mostly what he does is think of clever soundbites to build books and columns around. Frankly, he is not worth heeding, particularly after he extolled China as a splendid example of how to deal with these issues. Perhaps he should give up his big mansion before he spouts.
January 5th, 2010 | 3:47 pm
David,
According to my sources, OPEC only held out for five months. I’m not in a position to get into an in-depth comparison to see whether the five months were worse than the year we just had, but even a year is still a blip, relatively speaking; things could have been worse for longer.
I am curious how people “transitioned” during the embargo: by going without heat in their homes, struggling to hold down a job and to feed their kids? Because that is exactly the kind of pain I kept hearing about when gas was $4/gal. Now, that’s poverty in this country. Try to imagine poverty in China or India, which from everything I hear are the main up-and-comers in oil consumption — and their combined populations are well over two billion.
January 5th, 2010 | 3:49 pm
I was actually quoting Alta Charro, should have credited her.
But yes, if you continue to promote prosperity and freedom as the ability to consume and generate waste to our hearts’ content, then I think “endarkenment” is an appropriate label. It’s a short-sighted and backwards stance.
There are plenty of energy alternatives besides the failed ones you deliberately limited your list to. Wind and solar are getting more economical and I recognize the importance of nuclear in providing power on demand. I believe the key will be diversified and decentralized power generation.
If we as Americans lead the green power R&D, we’ll be the ones to profit from it. Or we can listen to you and the other denialists, and watch the world economy pass us by. Again.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
padraig: When did I ever say we should be able to consume and generate waste to our hearts’ content? I have said we should both reject the anti humanism of radical environmentalism and not dismantle our economies. That is hardly endarkened. I have repeatedly stated that proper care for the environment is a human duty. We can debate the details, but it is certainly reasonable to object to the radical “solutions” offered by the likes of Al Gore and Gordon Brown. And wasn’t it I (me?) who criticized Diane Feinstein for blocking such projects in the Mojave?
January 5th, 2010 | 4:07 pm
P.S. That should have been addressed to Earl, too.
January 5th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. I invite you to my web-pages devoted to raising awareness on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.html
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
David Scott: You must have this for cut and pasting, because you have posted the precise same comment before. Please get a new script.
January 5th, 2010 | 5:41 pm
padraig:
I have some sympathy for your position, but it’s hard sometimes to figure out who’s serious. Thomas Friedman has a home about the size of the Chrysler building, so unless his entire extended family lives there, he’s an odd one to lecture us on sustainability. That man wastes more energy in a month than I will my entire life.
We desperately need to diversify our power production – I’m for wind/solar until we max out their contribution in the grid (about 25% or so), then more nuclear plants and hydroelectric. But it’s hard to find anyone willing to countenance even the smallest bit o’ construction for any kind of power plant at all, so we wind up building more and more natural gas plants since people complain the least about them.
Houses et al can be made more energy-efficient, but you can’t ignore comfort and convenience or nobody this side of the “green” neo-flagellants will go for it.
I think the problem is not people who want to promote this or that form of power production, but those who have forgotten that electricity, heat, all these things need to be MADE. Plenty of folks will oppose the construction of every kind of power plant possible, but still expect the lights to come on when they flip the switch. That’s our big problem, not people who want to tap the reserves of fossil fuels we have lying around. Frankly, I think your using the “endarkenment” label on Wesley is an insult.
January 5th, 2010 | 11:13 pm
Wes: who’s saying we have to dismantle our economy? We just have to do a better job of cleaning up our messes, and if we do it right we can make money at it.
Sparky, yeah, I know about Friedman’s house, and Gore’s car, etc. I’m more concerned with what’s being said than who’s saying it, and what Friedman said made sense. Going to green energy makes the most environmental and economic sense. I don’t care if he said it from the steps of his castle in Dubai.
Actually you and I are largely in agreement about energy strategies. Of course the nimby’s will use the arguments Wes has been advancing to show why they needn’t be inconvenienced. (I pay a small voluntary premium on my power bill which is earmarked for wind power. Other than that I haven’t had much opportunity to walk the walk, other than turning off a lot of lights and lowering thermostats.)
As for insulting Wes, 1) He’s a big boy, 2) He’s heard that one before, and 3) his labeling of anyone concerned with climate change as being “hysterical” is not only insulting but a tad sexist as well.* So if he wants to dish it out he can take it too.
*Check the etymology of “hysteria” if you don’t know what I mean.
January 6th, 2010 | 1:24 pm
The meaning is archaic, padraig. You’re grasping at straws.
January 6th, 2010 | 8:59 pm
I’m pretty sure it took some fossil fuels to produce all of the computers we are using to dialogue about this. Not only that but to produce solar panels and windmills will also devour fossil fuels. Not just for production but transportation of said ‘green’ products/energy as well. I was in Peru at the time of our high gas prices (in this century) and they were paying approximately the same prices we were here in the good old estados unidos. The only difference is that their economy was just beginning to develop after years of economic strife(to put it mildly). The average income was two hundred dollars/month(u.s.) and climbing at the time….in great part to tourism. So until there is a soybean that can be flown to copenhagen for the next summit……I say drill!
January 6th, 2010 | 9:41 pm
CG, it wasn’t a serious point, it was just a way of saying people shouldn’t seek out ways of being offended. Judge not lest ye etc.
January 8th, 2010 | 10:15 am
Okay; subtlety once again a casualty of cyberspace.
January 12th, 2010 | 4:41 am
Wesley, look at this Department of Energy website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Motor
Gas prices in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK are all well above $6 a gallon. They’ve been above $4 a gallon for at least the last ten years. Why do you claim that $4 a gallon prices are going to kill the US?
Are you really serious about drilling in ANWAR? There’s not enough oil there to make a big of difference to oil prices. OPEC could cut back their production a few percent and oil prices would be right back where they were pre-drilling. Remember the North Slope and how gas prices didn’t budge when it came online?
“Alberta’s oil shale”. That sure sounds nicer than “tar sands”, doesn’t it. People were almost ready to start digging them up and roasting them for their oil – back when gas was $4 a gallon. Now that the price has fallen back down, it’s not economical any more. Don’t count on the Canadian Tar Sands to lower gas prices! It’s too expensive to get at their oil.
We’ve been drilling, baby, drilling since 1859. Let’s assume that we keep drilling and finally suck up the last wisps of oil in US territory. What would you do in case of war? Ask whoever our enemy is at that time to kindly stop sinking our oil tankers long enough for us to refuel our war machine?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Yes, $4 will kill US. We are far more dependent on driving. We have less public transportation. Our cars get less mileage. Our standard of living is higher than that of most of Europe. Look at the fallout from the $4 a gallon two or so years go. I found it ironic that the very people who want prices that high went on the attack because prices were that high. It would also increase the cost of food, manufactured items, home heating–thank fossil fuels for keeping you warm this arctic winter–depressing the economy and killing jobs. It would be a train wreck.
January 13th, 2010 | 3:51 am
The fallout from the $4 a gallon gas was because of the sudden rise in the prices, not the prices themselves.
Our cars get less milage – and that’s because gas is cheap and China continues to lend us money to cover our trade deficit. If gas had been selling for $6 a gallon, we wouldn’t have to have the government leaning on the pitiful remants of Detroit to improve their milage. And there would be a lot more left of Detroit.
Our standard of living is higher than Europe’s? It should be, the average American worked 1996 hours a year in 1997. Comparable figures for Germany: 1560, UK 1371, Norway 1399, Sweden 1552, Ireland 1656, Denmark 1689 and the Netherlands 1679 (both in 1994).
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/steady-cn.htm
Here’s the dollars per capita for various countries: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
You do the math. But don’t figure in the price of health insurance in the US – it will subtract $5 or $6k per year from the luckier, higher income Americans. And don’t factor in housing subsidies or any of the other benefits the European welfare states provide. It just makes the calculations worse.
If it wasn’t for Heinlein’s razor, I would swear that conservatives are deliberately trying to destroy the US.
Meanwhile, you didn’t address my claim that Alaskan oil won’t lower oil prices and that you won’t get Tar Sands oil until the price of gas is well above $4 a gallon. And what are we going to do when we’ve burned the last drop of domestic oil and we’re at war?
January 14th, 2010 | 5:36 am
Also, what’s going to happen to oil prices when and if the economy improves with China now buying more cars than we do and India close on their heels?
We’ll be utterly unprepared, of course, and longing for the good ol’ days when gas was only $4 a gallon.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact