[Vision2020] Ives' "The Unanswered Question" Re: Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway

[Ted Moffett]

Sometimes the theme music for Vision2020 should be Charles Ives' "The
Unanswered Question."

http://www.charlesives.org/ives_essay/index.htm

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6co3j_charles-ives-the-unanswered-questio_music

Unanswered question from previous post below:

Do you approve of development of US oil shale?

On 6/3/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> I went along with what I understood to be your basic argument when I asked
> why large scale development of the oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming
> is not being proposed on Vision2020, to expand domestic oil reserves and
> potential supply, given realistically our economy is going to be oil
> dependent for decades, and questionable international sources of oil.  This
> is a oil resource multiple times the size of Saudi Arabia's reserves.
>
> Do you approve of development of US oil shale?
>
> Though oil from oil shale is expensive, it is only a matter of time before
> oil becomes more scarce and much more costly, and then oil shale may be
> economically profitable.  Also, developing the oil shale now could be viewed
> as a matter of national security (
> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
> ).  I received an "Off List" response from an Idaho legislator about my
> suggestion, and they agreed that the huge amounts of water required for
> shale development are one of the problems, with environmental contamination
> also.  They said the water laws of the west would need to be rewritten for
> oil shale development.
>
> Of course, Alberta tar sands production is also an environmental problem.
> I thought you were defending the Alberta tar sands production, even with
> its negatives, given the necessity for access to oil from friendly allies,
> and the reality of our oil dependence continuing for decades.
>
> Are you defending the environmentally destructive Alberta tar sands
> production, or did I misunderstand?
>
> I also sourced "Plan B" from the Earth Policy Institute ( *
> http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf*<http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf>
>  ), though even if it is possible to some extent, I do not think it is
> politically likely.  Too many very powerful entrenched economic interests
> are making a killing on the global fossil fuel economy.  And many people
> simply do not want to change how they live, or even believe there is any
> substantial reason why they should.  Anthropogenic climate warming is a
> hoax!
>
> I agree that next generation nuclear power should be greatly expanded, but
> again, this does not appear to be promoted to the extent required to largely
> replace coal as the US number one electrical power source.
>
> I don't realistically think these problems will be addressed in a timely
> fashion, and that as climate change, oil depletion, overpopulation,
> environmental degradation, etc. come together in a perfect storm during the
> later decades of this century, with numerous nations armed to the teeth...
> But for anyone who cares about the next generation etc., there is no time to
> waste to move civilization off fossil fuels, to a sustainable way of life,
> with all that implies.  There is no other sane choice but to promote these
> goals, even if the odds of success this century are meager.
>
> And I don't mean a return to ox driven agriculture and horse drawn
> buggies.  One critical reason we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuel
> oil is to save them for energy needs difficult to replace by alternative
> energy, along with all the other products from oil.  Powering a combine with
> fossil fuel oil might be one of those necessities, rather than wasting
> fossil fuel oil on a horsepower fiend race car to impress the co-workers in
> the commute to work.
>
> I do not agree that addressing climate change now is so costly it is not in
> the long term economically reasonable.  The long term costs of allowing
> climate change to accelerate by not now addressing it, are greater that the
> costs of taking action now.  Arguing that China and India won't
> cooperate, therefore let's continue contributing to a problem that is
> inevitable anyway, is a fatalistic and irresponsible approach.  If the US
> makes substantial progress to address climate change, China and India, who
> both face dire consequences from climate change, will be encouraged to also
> address the problem.  It is in their long term interest also.
>
> Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman addresses how we can afford to
> address climate change in this analysis at the website below:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html
> -----------------------
> The Stern Report on the economics of climate change is one of the most
> often referenced reports arguing that taking action now is less costly than
> allowing climate change to accelerate.  Below is a reference to the Stern
> Report, followed by a critical academic analysis that finds merit and fault:
>
>
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
>
> http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/JELSternReport.pdf
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>  On 6/2/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You don't like my plan.  *sniff*
>>
>> Well then, what would you suggest?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose the analysis, "Plan B," at the website below, from the Earth
>>> Policy Institute, is not worth reading, compared to the "critique" you
>>> praise, given that you "don't think anyone has said it better?"
>>>  http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf
>>>  To more fully flesh out the tax issue regarding fossil fuels:  "Taxing
>>> everything that uses fuel... is economic suicide" the no one has said it
>>> better critique states.  */Yet the Earth Policy Institute analysis I
>>> reference advocates what is regarded by prominent economists as a reasonable
>>> economic policy to assist the transition away from fossil fuels to other
>>> energy sources, "tax shifting./*"   Income taxes, for example, are lowered,
>>> to offset taxes on fossil fuel emissions.  The tax burden on the consumer
>>> and the tax revenues to the government can remain stable.  The full economic
>>> implications require a professional economic analysis, beyond the scope of
>>> this post.
>>>  But to make broad and hyperbolic statements about "economic suicide"
>>> from taxing fossil fuels is to not address the complexities of some of the
>>> proposals on this issue from professional economists.  There are several
>>> other oversimplifications, misrepresentations and logical errors that should
>>> be addressed.  But this thread once again so far is just restating from the
>>> same participants the same positions in general terms that have been parsed
>>> over and over on Vision2020.  I'll offer a proposal for fossil fuel oil
>>> domestic security that I do not recall being advocated often, if ever, on
>>> Vision2020.
>>>  The argument is that we cannot "realistically" lessen our dependence on
>>> fossil fuel oil soon enough to avoid these more environmentally damaging
>>> developments, such as the Alberta tar sands.
>>>  */Therefore, given this logic, why not open the oil shale in Utah,
>>> Colorado and Wyoming to full scale development?  This is the largest fossil
>>> fuel oil deposit in the US, by far.  Why is there no advocacy for this from
>>> those arguing on Vision2020 for the saneness of the Alberta tar sands
>>> development?   Would they rather Canada shoulder the environmental damage,
>>> rather than the US, if we developed our domestic oil shale?/*  I understand
>>> from my reading that one of the problems with shale development is the huge
>>> amount of water required.  But for those who are "realistic" about our needs
>>> for fossil fuel oil, they won't object to Idaho's water resources being
>>> diverted to Wyoming for shale development, assuming this is feasible,
>>> correct?  The most "commercially attractive" oil shale are mostly on federal
>>> land (read "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS" info at website below).
>>>  But if we can stop those big government regulators and bureaucrats and
>>> environmentalists, who might block development, the free market can work
>>> it's magic for domestic oil security.  Info on the immense US oil shale at
>>> websites below, with arguments that this resource can be "realistically"
>>> developed:
>>>  From "Oil and Gas Journal":
>>>
>>> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
>>>  From "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS":
>>>
>>> http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
>>>  Domestic fossil fuel oil, more than Saudi Arabia!  After all, let's be
>>> "realistic."
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>  On 6/2/10, *lfalen* <lfalen at turbonet.com <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Paul
>>>    An excellent critique. I don't think anyone has said it better.
>>>    Roger
>>>    -----Original message-----
>>>    From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>    <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>    Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:48 -0700
>>>    To: "nickgier at roadrunner.com <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>"
>>>    nickgier at roadrunner.com <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>, Ted
>>>    Moffett starbliss at gmail.com <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>>>    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's
>>>    Wilderness Gateway
>>>
>>>    >
>>>    >
>>>    > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>    > Some argue that it is a matter of national security and economic
>>>    necessity to develop and gain access to this huge oil resource
>>>    that can reduce oil dependence on other foreign oil sources, while
>>>    we work on alternative energy sources.  But this is short sighted,
>>>    given that climate change is a national security and planetary
>>>    wide risk that is increased with continued greenhouse gas
>>>    emissions, while time is running out to prevent climate change
>>>    tipping points that will be difficult to stop.
>>>    >
>>>    > I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it "realistic".
>>>    >
>>>    > Here's how my logic goes:
>>>    >
>>>    > 1.  We need power.  We need it for a lot of
>>>    things.  Transportation of goods, heating and cooling, powering
>>>    factories, running our financial systems, gathering resources,
>>>    military defense, etc.
>>>    >
>>>    > 2.  It would be better, for a lot of reasons, if we weren't
>>>    dependent upon fossil fuel use.
>>>    >
>>>    > 3.  There are no alternative energy solutions of sufficient size
>>>    that we could turn to today to completely remove our dependence
>>>    upon fossil fuels, except nuclear (which the same people that are
>>>    telling us to get off of fossil fuels are throwing bureaucratic
>>>    roadblocks in the way of).
>>>    >
>>>    > 4.  There is no way that we could nix fossil fuel use within 20
>>>    years, maybe even 50, even if we had the will to do it.
>>>    >
>>>    > 5.  Using fossil fuels produced in politically insane countries
>>>    that are politically our enemies is unwise.
>>>    >
>>>    > 6.  Given all the above, it would be better (in my opinion) to
>>>    switch our fuel usage as much as possible to local fuels or fuels
>>>    from politically sane countries in the short term, build up a
>>>    network of nuclear power plants to handle our minimum energy
>>>    needs, switch over to electric cars, implement a "smart" electric
>>>    grid, and supplement with alternative energy as needed and as they
>>>    are developed.
>>>    >
>>>    > If the right incentives were given at the right times, it might
>>>    be the quickest way to remove our fossil fuel dependence.  Taxing
>>>    everything that uses fuel, which is everything of any use to
>>>    anybody pretty much, is economic suicide.  I'd rather that the
>>>    government implement a Manhattan-style project to bring up nuclear
>>>    power, preferably using breeder reactors and the latest
>>>    technologies, and quit naively hoping that if we tax the hell out
>>>    of everybody they will magically find a better alternative instead
>>>    of just doing without and reverting to an agrarian
>>>    society.  Meanwhile, China and India will continue to burn fossil
>>>    fuels and (assuming anthropogenic global warming is as dire as
>>>    they say it is) we won't have the resources or ability to handle
>>>    the disasters as they happen.
>>>    >
>>>    > Anyway, that's my take on it.
>>>    >
>>>    > Paul
>>>    >
>>>    >
>>>    >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100606/c832c339/attachment-0001.html