Zeitgeist Zephyr

The controversial bill was passed this evening in the House by a vote of 219-212 and represents a major turning point in not just U.S. legislation towards energy and the Earth’s climate but also a turning point in the direction that U.S. industry will be guided in over the next several years.

 Here’s my reasoning and I’ll stick to this until someone can prove to me that there’s oil on the Moon, and that’s that establishing a comprehensive energy policy that encourages clean and most importantly renewable forms of energy is the best course of action that our nation can take.  I’ve heard arguments made that the “cap and trade” taxes will cripple the American economy even further; I argue that they will direct the private sector in a direction that in the long term will reap benefits that keep oil CEO’s up at night.

Arguments are constantly made that renewable energy will be the way of the future, but it is perhaps a misnomer for the larger picture.  What we are talking about is sustainable energy.  If it comes in the form of wind or solar power, hydroelectric power from dams or waves, nuclear power, be it fission or fusion, geothermal power or bio-fuels, not all are renewable (we’re talking primarily nuclear power), but all are sustainable. 

I don’t care who you are, what political party you’re affiliated with, or what industry you’re in.  The truth of the matter is that within this century, we will start feeling the affects of a dwindling supply of oil in current reserves.  Even the untapped reserves that exist in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Siberia, and even the North Pole won’t meet the world’s energy needs in this century.  The rapid industrialization of Asian countries and America’s steady need for almost excessive amounts of energy require that new sources be tapped.  All the oil will be used up in about a century and there is only a 200 year supply of coal left (several lifetimes away before we’re out) but if Michael Jackson is cryo-frozen and revived in 2209 and throws a post-mortem concert tour, will there be electricity available so that sound can be pumped through the amps at the Sprint Center II?

The likely answer is that, yes there would be electricity at his concert, but that is made under the assumption that by then, sustainable power supplies would have been developed.  To my readers out there, I’m a person of action.  I personally don’t like to sit on my hands while an issue needs to be tackled, and sustainability in energy is one such issue.

The other benefit is that with increased sustainability in indigenous power supplies, national security increases.  It’s kind of hard to sabotage the Sun or the wind, but those who control the oil control the money and power, and that ’s the way it will remain even if drilling sites are opened within the United States, and more conflicts in the Middle East and even with Russia are likely if we don’t ween ourselves from the oil bottle.  This is the kind of change that I’ve been anticipating from President Obama.

Now the last portion that I’ll only briefly address is the climate.  I believe climate change is real.  There are islands around the world that are slowly sinking into the sea, so yes, I believe that we are in a period of global warming.  If humans are causing it, or not helping matters at the very least, that is an issue that can’t reliably be calculated right now.  I see it as a matter of cause and effect and draw parallels from events in the world that could be causing temperatures to steadily rise.  The one common denominator is that as temperatures have increased, so has the rate of human industrialization based off of carbon emmitting fossil fuels.  Of course this includes primarily oil and coal.

Both resources are non-renewable, unsustainable in the long term, and are stress points in global politics.  Renewable and sustainable resources on the other hand, will be available as long as we feel it prudent to have a technologically advanced society and would allow nations to live truly independent of one another, environmentally speaking.  Call me an idealist if you’d like, but I believe this is the start of a major economic gold rush as people begin investing time and energy into sustainable energy sources. 

And to the critics of the legislation that say it will destroy the job market in America, please, look at the bigger and longer term picture on this one.  Oil is finite, the wind is infinite.  As long as the wind blows and the sun shines, there will be jobs in a so called “green economy.”  Those are the options - 200 years of coal related jobs left versus 5,000,000,000 (that’s 5 billion) years worth of sun related jobs left.  I’m choosing the latter.   

It was inevitable, but I think that Matt Drudge has successfully made the debate over Global Climate Change a political viewpoint as rational as religion’s role in politics.  Readers of the Drudge Report will know that Drudge is definitely slanted towards the anti-global warming end of things and relishes in any opportunity to prove Al Gore wrong.  In doing so, he’s not just been feeding into the anti-global warming base of support, but has been doing it to such an extent that my only conclusion is that he now supports global cooling.

Today’s front page of the Drudge Report greeted readers with a claim that Earth is on the brink of an Ice Age.  In what will be my first argument against the political viewpoint of global cooling, I’ll argue that’s completely ludicrous and inconclusive.  The problem is, that with the coming of an Ice Age, that would only further justify the existence of global warming under some theories (remember the movie The Day After Tomorrow?)

At the same time, yeah its been a colder winter than we’ve seen in a decade and a half, but that really doesn’t mean much of anything.  This past year was cooler than average, true, but that stands in the face of nearly a full decade of warmer than average temperatures.  The fundamental problem with climatology is that since measurements have only been made since the late 1800s and computer programs that can at least semi-accurately model potential changes have become so in the last few decades, its not going to be possible for either side of the debate, global warming or cooling, to argue that their view is right until it has already come to pass and its too late. 

My view on it is to be on the safe side.  If climate change period is being caused by humans, which considering the destruction we’ve wrought on the plant the last century and half is not implausible, let’s start cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions and destruction of the forests.  In the process, we could ween ourselves off fossil fuels that will inevitably run out and find new methods of product production that don’t depend heavily on a base of natural resources that can take anywhere from a half to several centuries to replace.

Either way you look at it, its a net gain for humanity.  Greater sustainability and we get to keep Earth and a climate that has been so sustainable and good to us for the better part of the last 10,000 years.