The long car commutes, resource sucking homes, and inefficient transport must go, but people must want them to go. You can't force it. Mass transit has to radically improve for people to want to ride it.

In some social circles, it is presently desirable (hip) to live in a city like Seattle (which tends to mean efficient home size and less driving), and to drive high mileage cars like a Prius or TDI Jetta. It's all in our heads. People like Gore could change what is in our heads with the right ads. SUVs, McMansions and cul de sacs do not enhance our quality of life at all. These things simply stroke our egos as we compete with percieved peers (mostly at a subconcious level). Tell owners of McMansions and Hummers that they have no clothes on. Ditto for people who are having larger families because they think it's cool.

It's all a fantasy.

Technology and lifestyles are interdependent. A Prius is new technology but, choosing to give up an all wheel drive SUV (or Subaru wagon) is a lifestyle change (swapping status symbols). New technology is no good if nobody wants it.

Living spaces that do not consume energy for heat or power are equivalent to tearing down coal power plants. Cars that double average gas mileage are equivalent to halving oil consumption. But you can't do those things with SUVs or McMansions. It would be cost prohibitive and or a physical impossibility.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

To give an example I see constantly, the previous comment refered to SUVs and McMansions, with the standard refrain that these are obnoxious, these are not sustainable, these are a fantasy, but still implicitly agreeing with the libertarians that people have some kind of "right" to these things, and that we have to (and should have to) crawl and beg and kiss their feet to get them to stop. Well, I for one find that repulsive. There are no materialistic rights, and there's certainly no right to engage in such gratuitously destructive behavior, not in such an interconnected civilization. I'd happily let them all run off a cliff themselves, but when I and those I care about are chained to them, and when the health of the earth is chained to them, they do not have any right to drag us down with them. On the contrary, we have the right to act in our own defense and in defense of the earth.

So while it may be "politically" necessary to temporize to some extent, I wish there was greater clarity on the underlying philosophy. I have no problem declaring I'd use force to restrain behavior which by now is clearly not a matter of local import, but which is a clear and present danger to the earth, the economy, and civilization itself.

Sorry to rant, I guess I just get frustrated when I feel like everyone wants even in thought to use such a soft hand with an enemy who certainly would use a steel fist upon us, indeed already does so in so many places around the world.  

Can we afford (this): YES

• Food: Permaculture, Terra Preta
  
• Comfortable Housing: Straw bale, cob, adobe or rammed earth (800 sq ft per couple)
  
• Medical Care: Cuban model
  
• Clothing: Hemp fabric lasts
  
• Transportation: Trains, bicycles
  
• Entertainment: Laptops for TV, music, phone, information
  
• Meat: see Permaculture, small quantities only
  
• Fish: sorry the oceans need a break, tilapia and shellfish ok.
  
• Lighting: LED's are cheap enough for everybody.
  
• Education: GoogleU.
  

The american lifestyle is not negotiable; nature will destroy it.

Put the Carbon Back

The technology question IS deceptive, because in theory, as Joe Romm has pointed out many times, we do have the technology.  But our institutions (such as the utility infrastructure and the automotive infrastructure) need a kickstart to changing them.  I have often wondered "why, when I read about the solar capacity in our deserts, the hypercar, various home energy reducing technologies, etc. are these things not getting done?"  And I came to the same conclusion you did - it's about our institutional roadblocks.  Some of these things make absolute economic sense (others don't yet, but when carbon is priced correctly, they will), yet we have barely moved the needle.  

So it seems to me our focus needs to be on removing institutional constraints.  This may take some time, but some of us should focus less on new technology, more on insuring that current technology is allowed to be implemented.  

When someone (like Gore) says that "we need political will", what he's really saying is that people and institutions that control large amounts of power -- like coal and oil and car companies -- would have to give up some of that power in order to solve our problems.  Is that what the Breakthrough Institute types are saying, that the current power configurations won't change, so the technology has to change so that the powerful can keep their power while we mitigate global warming?

If so, then this argument seems to be part of a long-term attempt on Breakthrough's part to move to the center-right, and differentiate themselves by wanting change, but only if those in power are not threatened.  For instance, Nordhaus and Shellenberger call for using the military to spearhead r&d.

But the military is one of the main institutions that would have to lose power in order to improve our situation, simply because they control about one trillion annual dollars, and those dollars could be used to cover all buildings with solar, etc., making all analyses about waiting until solar/wind/geothermal get under so-and-so many cents per kilowatt hour irrelevant.  Same thing by raising taxes on the superwealthy and large corporations.

Now I suppose Breakthrough people could respond, "well, it would be all well and good if you could change the power relations in the society, but we face an emergency, and this reorganization is not going to happen, so logically the only possibility is our deus ex machina, technological breakthroughs".

And on point number one, even doomers would say, people will never change from the car/suburban/bigger-is-better model, better figure out how they can live their unsustainable lifestyles sustainably.

All I can say is this: if the vast majority of the public wanted to redistribute power, change the direction of the society and make the society sustainable, it would happen, and it would have to be democratic.  Thus, all we can do is try to convince the vast majority that this is the best direction , for them, generations beyond, and if we can get them to care, for the planet.

I believe the right questions have to do more with our own nature, our own capacities, than with any technological competence.

Are humans, individually (in a democracy) and collectively, competent to make WISE choices? I think the evidence does not support a positive answer.  But realistically, are we, Homo sapiens up to the task? Before we assert answers about the technical competence shouldn't we look in the mirror? No matter what we might be capable of technically, we are not yet able to modulate or mediate our own behaviors. Shouldn't we be focusing on that issue before assuming that we can fix things technologically?

Asking the RIGHT questions is vital. I'm not seeing that we are there yet.

George
 

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Agreed. But doesn't the vast majority of the public already want action on global warming, the US out of Iraq and universal health care? (It wouldn't be too hard to dig up the data.) So why don't we have those things?

Of course, the agenda of the majority is not the agenda of the elites who control the government, corporations and the media. (And of course, the elites have to occasionally respond to the public to maintain some sort of credibility, at least for the 50% of people who vote.)

Let's say we even got a Democratic president and supermajority Congress. How much will things change? Well, even then the sincerest politicians will be running up against structural forces that have been consolidating over hundreds of years. So while the change we will see will be proportional to the grassroots efforts, it may not be enough to turn around the coal/oil/big utility lobbies.

The lessons of history are that only extra-parliamentary movements combined with inspired leadership (eg. FDR) can force elites to move. Is this not true?

Maybe humans won't be able to collectively deal with this (for instance, reading Howard Bloom's "The Global Brain" makes me both more pessimistic and more optimistic, just to be schizophrenic).  But maybe we will be able to move together constructively, in which case we will need to have models and plans and frameworks toward which to move (the optimistic part of Bloom's book was the idea that all societies, human and nonhuman, have "diversity generators").

In the 1930s, there were several groupings with very concrete proposals -- socialists, communists, independent radicals, labor unions, and many others.  They were so "scary" that FDR was able to rail against "economic royalists" in a way that might make Dennis Kucinich blush.

In the 1900s, the progressives had a whole slew of proposals, say for regulation over food, money, etc, while at the same time the "muckrakers" were providing the reasons for the progressive proposals.

Now, all the "left" media does is "muckrake" without the proposals.  Apparently Breakthrough's big proposal is a "deus ex machina", a miracle -- but the proposals seen on this site, and others, I think provide a set of policies that can be used with the "muckraking".

Breakthroughs are not necessary to make it all work together, but no doubt breakthroughs and incremental improvements can be expected. Like new types of batteries and improvements in existing batteries.

Smart grid techology exists and is in use now, factories that power down when peak demand occurs or water heaters that only go on during low demand times, for instance.  Wider application and more sophisticated switching and storage of heat/cold in buildings and appliances is rolling out on a small scale.

The Jacob's wind machine built in Minnesota in the 40s and 50s contained most of the technology in the latest wind machines available today.

How to get the change to happen now?  That's the sociopolitical part.

Even if huge breakthroughs are made daily, without the will to implement them, nothing will happen.  The delayers create the impression of political, financial, and technological progress right around the corner, with the next big breakthrough.  But it will always be around the next corner.  Like the sign on the local bar says, "Free beer tomorow!"

Direct subsidy shifts to renewables and conservation will get this revolution going.  And it will destroy the bottomline of so many powerful multinational corporations.  so they hire delayer think tanks to create the impression that change is impossible.  just wait, hydrogen will save us, or space solar, or fusion, or new safer nukes, or clean coal, or fuel farming.

Just a few more breakthroughs, right around the corner.  Don't get nervous or frustrated or vote for green tax and spenders.  Stick with us good ole energy boys and keep giving us 100s of billions in subsidies.  Let us worry about it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Let's assume the earth is getting cooler. And of course if you do assume that then you can't argue that emitting more GHGs are going to warm things up, right? That would be absurd. So if you assume the earth is getting cooler then you also have to assume GHGs don't matter. So let's a assume both... Does that make you any more fine about spending over $3/gal of gas? Does it make you any more fine about spending over $500 billion a year importing oil? Does that make you any more fine about supporting unstable regimes? Does that make you any happier about living next to an oil refinery or a coal mine?

I read a study recently that indicated that the people living in the counties surrounding an open pit coal mine in WV were four times more likely to develop some form of cardiopulmonary disease, presumably from the toxic fumes that emanate from the mine. A recent study by the American Lung Assoc indicated that over 15 years a transition to electric vehicles (i.e., eliminating internal combustion engines) could save about $100 billion -- in CA alone. Another study indicated that by investing in what's needed to optimize energy efficiency around the world could recoup about $900 billion/yr over their investment. The US's share would be around $180 billion/yr. The bottom line: burning fossil fuels wastefully like we do is not only bad for the bottom line, it's unhealthy (which is also bad for the bottom line). The above assumes current prices, too. If energy prices or health care costs go up, the savings would be greater.

Many people seem to think that because there appears to be a reasonable amount of oil left in the ground, and certainly gas and coal, that it will remain as inexpensive as it is now to recover in sufficient quantities to keep up with demand. Well if you think that, I challenge you to find a credible source to back you up. In particular, I challenge you to find such a source which doesn't rely on "possible future technology developments". If you do that it seems to me you also have to admit that "possible future technology developments" aren't limited to the oil industry. Broadly speaking, it is the thing that has made America great. And given that the oil industry has been a mature one for a long time, the likelihood is much greater that "possible future technology developments" will occur in emerging, alternative technologies.

Drilling in ANWR, although arguably the most economical current option in terms of oil exploration, will cost billions in infrastructure (and take many years). Drilling deep off shore will cost even more billions of dollars (and take years). Harvesting tar sands or oil shale (assuming someone eventually figures out how to do the latter on a commercial scale) requires large amounts of water and natural gas, which puts a pinch on both of those resources. Converting coal to oil also requires lots of natural gas -- and coal, of course.

I'm afraid there's no way around it -- fossil fuel prices will continue to go up. That alone is reason to consider other options. And really... are we that far away? Solar thermal is still more expensive than coal (at present prices), but not by much. And with new heat storage technology they can run all day (and night) long. Solar photovoltaics are still more expensive than coal (at present prices), but the prices there are dropping quickly too. Geothermal is already cheaper than coal (at present prices), though only in certain spots. But new advancements are making it economical in more and more regions. And in that regard it's important to keep in mind that if you drill deep enough anywhere you will find really hot rocks. So geothermal has huge potential. On shore wind is almost as cheap as coal (at present prices) in many locations. Nuclear is very expensive up front, but they're also cheap to run. So unless you assume coal prices won't go up over the next 40 years or so they are also worth a look (assuming you have no problem with radioactive waste). These are alternatives that require little to nothing in terms of "possible future technology developments". All they require are improvements in manufacturing and deployment efficiencies -- which invariably come with economy of scale. Future technology developments can't be ruled out. In fact, I'd say that's a very good bet. But they aren't dependent on them.

There are those of the attitude, "well, when those sources get down below coal, then we'll talk". But it's really a chicken and egg sort of issue: economy of scale pressures which drive prices down significantly can't kick in until you reach ecomomy of scale. So basically, it boils down to a question of... do you want to pay more now and effectively lock in a price, or pay more (perhaps much more) later? That's the only risk involved in everything said above. Climate change or no climate change, the potential solutions regarding the future of energy remain largely the same. Either way, getting on the bandwagon of renewable fuels represents a huge economic opportunity -- assuming we aren't real stupid about it. Then again, we'd be stupid to do nothing as well. Unintended consequences cut both ways.

Now let's assume global warming is real and humans are responsible... What changes fundamentally from what I described above? I would argue nothing changes at all. Said in another way, where you stand on global warming matters little in the above contexts, and thus should not be part of the global warming debate.

The global warming debate should only change one's inclination to do even more -- like get the rest of the world involved, particularly developing nations like China and India. Obviously, that's exceedingly difficult. And as [a poster -- name omitted] pointed out, it can lead to some immense unintended consequences. Some people mistakenly point to those sorts of things and use them to insist we should do nothing about burning fossil fuels ourselves. But if you insist that you've just rejected everything I said above.

I personally believe that developing nations would heartily welcome technologies that would allow them to forego the burning of fossil fuels. They understand that fossil fuels are going up in price, that they're unhealthy, and all that. But they don't have the expertise to do anything about it. And they sure aren't going to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of future promises. So unless and until we have something better yet equally cost-effective to offer them they will resist mightily.

Technology WITHOUT Policy will NOT lead to the change we want.

Therefore what we need is a change of Policy.

-David Ahlport

What we need is institutional change.

And the only real factor that individuals play in that is political, not direct.

-David Ahlport

http://www.news.com/1606-2_3-6213248.html

Which I think trumps a lot of complicated discussion.  This modular green techology works, seeing is believing.

The core provides the uncertain part of the green equation, mass produced for lower cost, it allows any sort of home to be constructed around it.

People will want this technology so they will vote for leaders who help them get it.  A green (instead of black) box, no need to understand how it works, just how to pay for it with government subsidy and energy savings.

Plugin your vehicle to this and you have the essential GHG free, low cost energy you need.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Something thats always hard to do is "translate" an argument into someone else's value set.

You pulled it off pretty well.

_

Frankly, thats the type of communication we need most with this issue.

"This is the right thing to do, even in the context of your own personal values"

-David Ahlport

I think that also goes without saying. But like technology is not one single thing, neither is policy. There are many individual facets to policy which differ in size not only in terms of the jurisdiction to which they apply (local through international), but also in terms of the amount of sociopolitical will required for implementation. And just as it is argued for technology that the "good enough" in the here and now should not be held hostage to some future "perfect", so too, IMO, should it apply to policy. And that, I think, is a point that's getting lost in the din.

I'm not a policy wonk, but I think there's considerable truth to what the people at the Breakthrough Institute say in this passage: It is here that the We Campaign suffers a failure of imagination -- they insist upon framing the issue as an environmental one, rather than making it about something that Americans actually care about. The environment may not be high on Americans' policy priority list, but energy independence is.

I didn't realize that was up there before I said what I said in my previous post. Apparently we came to the same conclusion independently. Be that as it may, I think it's abundantly clear that people really do care about energy -- people across the political spectrum. It's something they can understand directly, something that affects their pocketbook directly, right here, right now. I am thus convinced that there's very broad support for both technology solutions AND policy solutions that bear directly on the energy issue IF they are framed in that way. The fact that they also bear heavily on the climate change issue is as much irrelevant as it is an added bonus. But I would argue that a critical amount of support remains latent precisely because the energy issue has been presented mostly as a climate change issue, and thus hijacked by the emotions associated it. That, I think, is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. IMO, there is a lot of common ground to be had, provided the argument is framed appropriately.

Trick being so far biofuels and coal to liquids are looking like they are the exact opposite of what we should be doing to counter-act global warming.

So focusing on Energy Independence is counter-productive.

-David Ahlport

1. Global Warming focuses on reducing emissions
   
2. "Energy Independence" focuses on increasing consumption of fuels

My point is that it's easy to reject the science if it is perceived that it's only the science that is motivating the policy. I'm not saying we should reject the science, I'm saying it's not the only motivator that can propel us in the interests of carbon mitigation. Energy issues provide a much more direct, more understandable motivator. Attempts to shape policy to mitigate carbon emissions merely under the guise of climate science will be seen by many as a sacrifice, and an attempt by "commie elitists" to control the masses. That might sound ridiculous, but I'm telling you, it would be a very hard sell on the other side of the aisle because that's exactly what they think. On the other hand, attempts to shape policy to mitigate carbon emissions in the name of health, trade imbalance, domestic employment and manufacturing, energy independence, and national security are much more easily (and properly, IMO) viewed as investments rather than sacrifices. And that, I would say, is true of a much broader spectrum of people. And with the right policies in place we can make tremendous inroads into carbon mitigation without ever referring to climate change. In that scenario, climate change becomes a feed-in variable, not the primary object of contention.

GreyFlcn says, "Energy Independence" basically implies that we would create domestic liquid fuels." To which I say... re-read the three paragraphs of my first comment starting with "Drilling in ANWR..." You hit upon one of the major retorts I get when talking to my conservative buddies though. But I wouldn't make the argument if I thought it was easily rebutted. And when they try I don't dismiss them. I simply ask them to document for me how exploiting whatever oil and gas reserves we as a nation have left is likely NOT going to be more difficult, costly, time-consuming, energy-intensive, and worse for health and environment than cleaner alternatives. So far no one has been able to do that. To be sure, some continue to believe what they want to believe based upon obsolete data and the old "Club of Rome" argument. But you can't reach all the luddites.

As for the contention that "energy Independence" focuses on increasing consumption of fuels, I don't see that. In fact, I don't see how it could be anything but the opposite. The more we burn fuels like drunken sailors -- ANY fuels (even renewable ones) -- the less likely we will be energy independent. Actually, that's true of any nation, as China is on the threshold of finding out.

I'll tell you where I see my argument coming up short, though: CCS. I don't see where you can argue for CCS without resorting to climate change. But still, it's an easier sell if you convince people to stop building coal plants in the first place based on more of an economic, health and national security argument than merely on a climate change one.

http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy

-David Ahlport

Nuclear batteries.

They answer all our needs for this century.

It gives us the break we need from hydrocarbons.

They can carry baseload.

They can be swapped into existing fission reaction structures.

They can power automobiles and houses independently.

"Of course we need aggressive investments in R. and D. -- I for one have been arguing that for two decades," Mr. Romm wrote in a post to his blog, climateprogress.org. "But if we don't start aggressively deploying the technologies we have now for the next quarter century, then all the new technologies in the world won't avert catastrophe."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.h ...

We need massive low-carbon infrastructure repair for economy and jobs financed by public capital.  It is not rocket science.  Just do it.

I know many would favor more drilling off the coast lines. And presumably some of the nut-cases would advocate "liberating" "our" oil and gas from the middle east. But is there a split developing between the "Burn-all-we-got" sorts and "develop-new-energy-sources" factions? Is the idea of peak oil and limits-to-growth getting any traction that you observe?

We had a Cato Institute fellow argue here recently that he believed in neither AGW nor in limits-to-growth -- you know, eat-drink-and-be merry.

One more question. I presume market-based approaches like cap-and-trade would be preferred  over direct government intervention? (I'm thinking Gingrich, here.)

Any thoughts on how we could craft policy more effectively?

I can add nothing to this discussion, save that the battlecry "Energy Independence!" might indeed bring together activists (or enthusiasts, or politicos) from across party lines, in the short term.  And in the short term, that might be OK.

But further out, we should not desire to be nationalists or isolationists or chauvinists.

We in the US might not impossibly do a good thing for the people of petroleum-rich and otherwise relatively undeveloped countries, by leading a movement away from our own, and others', dependence on petroleum.

We certainly do no one any good,, really, in the long term, by drilling for petroleum in ANWR, or off the coast of ANWR in the Beaufort Sea, or further west in the Chukchi Sea, as Rico wrote.

When the Democratic candidates use the rhetoric of "energy independence," or "independence from foreign oil" (as though American oil is fine), I wince.

Energy policy should NOT be a national security issue, or a foreign policy issue, primarily, however much all those interests are entangled.  When the politicians of either party suggest that the energy issue does indeed belong to either or both of those other issues, then we should be aware that they are leading us astray.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Well, like I said, I'm not a policy wonk. I try to work on understanding and then shifting attitudes. Attitudes have a lot to do with framing, so that's what I've tried to do. Caniscandida suggests my proposal is only a short term solution. Yes it is! It's a start, not an end-point. Even more to the point, it's a way to sell the start, to make it more palatable to the most people. There is an immediate resistance to renewable energy in this country, mostly because it's new -- and different. But people do understand that fossil fuels are getting expensive, and will likely continue to get more so. They feel it in their wallets, and they know a lot of the money is going to foreign countries. Jobs are declining. So there's an opening right here, right now, to stimulate the development and deployment of renewable fuels, and energy conservation technologies.

Just on the most nitty gritty level, there are many policy shifts necessary. Most obviously, we need smart grids if we want to promote plug-in hybrids and EVs, or solar and wind power. Smart grids essentially pay for themselves in the here and now just by virtue of their load-leveling features, which increases the efficiency of even "traditional" energy sources. But they are essential for optimizing the efficiency of many forms of utility scale renewable energy, and hybrids, and distributed systems like roof-top solar, or backyard wind turbines (that, by the way, has a great deal of appeal on the right side of the aisle). You get over that little hump and all sorts of things become possible. But just that requires many municipalities to change their utility regulatory structures. They have to allow utilities to decouple sales from earnings. If that happens, it really could fundamentally change things. Then not only do smart grids make sense, but so does helping utilities partner up with smart appliance manufacturers, and efficiency engineers to retrofit energy-poor buildings, things like that.

There is going to be resistance to just that, to be sure. And it won't be just from the right wing, either. Different politicians have different power bases which are likely to try to  impede progress. But I sincerely believe that once the transition starts, and people see that this stuff really is good for everyone involved, people are going to ask, "gee, why didn't we think of that before?" You get to that point, then even more becomes palatable that wasn't before.

And there's another element to the story: I sincerely believe that a lot of the resistance we see to transitioning away from fossil fuels in developing countries is due to the resistance here in the US. We're the big energy pigs. If we can show we can change, the resistance in other places will fade as well. So concentrating on what is wrong right here in the USA! USA! USA! might sound nationalistic or isolationistic or chauvinistic (and frankly, I don't have a problem capitalizing on those sentiments in the short run), but in the long run the intent is just the opposite.

So yes, it's only a start. But you have to start somewhere. And you can't hold the good hostage to the perfect. I think we're making too much of the "energy independence" meme all by itself. But I do think it works, along with others. Clean energy is not just about energy independence. It's also about domestic jobs, about reducing the trade deficit, about innovation, about getting our heads out of the sand and once again, finally at long last, leading by example rather than force.

In the 1960's and 1970's, it was recognized that there was smog in cities and much of it was caused by cars and other vehicles.  President Nixon and Congress passed laws requiring vehicles to have smog control devices on them before they could be sold.  

The political will of the time was found to solve the problem with laws.   They had to convert an entire industry to not use lead in gasoline and to add catalytic converters to all cars.  

They could have waited around to more generations of technology to solve the problem, but they didn't.   Car manufacturers complained about the costs, but magically the costs decreased when they actually had to put them on the cars instead of what they projected it would cost.

Those who want to solve the global warming problem with more spending on technology are hoping that Breakthroughs will happen and the cost of non-carbon energy will be cheaper than carbon energy.   But a lower cost non-carbon energy technology may never be found that is cheaper than building new carbon energy technologies or especially already built carbon energy technologies.  Game over.  

Waiting for breakthroughs in technology to do things is the same as not doing something about it.   I added insulation and windows to the south on my house that decreased how much energy it used.   Should I have waited until the Breakthrough Institute got the federal government to spend 30 billion on non-carbon energy technology before I did that?

I've been reading this debate and have a question to throw out into the blogosphere:

Do you really think that the Breakthrough Institute supports ONLY R&D for technology breakthroughs -- $30B/year -- and no policy action on global warming?

After looking at their website, and responses to some of these more recent conversations, it seems that they strongly support R&D, and a lot of it, but certainly are in favor of policy actions directly associated with global warming as well.

What say you?

Further, I agree that focusing on changing our energy sources and energy consumption is something that all Americans can connect with, rather than climate change, especially with our economy entering a recession and 81 percent of Americans feeling that our country is headed in the wrong direction (NYTimes article, Friday April 4).

The inflation part of the equation is immediate, the foreign sourcing and cash outflow is feeding the inflation and destroying the economy.

And how about the economic destruction wrought by GHG climate disaster?  And endless oil war, and very soon resource war over coal, gas, and nuclear fuel.

It is a good idea to address one part of the total picture as part of a strategic argument, with, for instance, dimbulb limboob GHG climate disaster deniers.

Or delayers, like the "Breakthrough institute".

But it is also important to put the whole argument back together, citing the cost to the economy of all these factors aociated with not only fossil fuel..  but also nuclear and fuel farmed fuels like ethanol (twice the GHG of oil).

If you rely on fuel, inflation is inevitable, in energy costs and running on up through the whole economic food chain.  If that fuel is in the hands of others, you have to steal it (with war) and/or buy it (with ever more scarce currency).

If you rely on energy that is renewable and everywhere free for the collection, like wind, wave, solar, water power.  Inflation is defeated at it's source and no foreign power controls you access to energy.

If your energy source destroys the human friendly nature of the climate or the water, air, and food supply, the cost is incalcuably immense.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin