Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Cheap Dirty John E. Sununu Energy Math

By

In his attack on support for alternate energy Sununu regales the reader with a list of programs that he says failed, ranging from support for natural gas, to high mileage vehicles, to carbon sequestration, though he also manages to bring in Evergreen Solar.  Sununu keeps talking: all the projects he describes cost lots of money, a terrible waste, because all the time good old fashioned energy was still there!  What’s more, all the alternatives, Sununu predicts will continue to cost more: “Ten years from now, I very much doubt that we’ll be driving cars with high-compression diesel engines, or powered by cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, or electricity from carbon-free coal.”

In citing carbon free coal Sununu manages to cherry pick from some of the least likely alternative energy sources of the future, but what is interesting is that he does not appear to have any problem with regular chock-full-of carbon coal. In Sununu energy math, costs only exist as upfront energy-production costs, not as the costs of environmental degradation and damage.  With this math coal is cheap because the price does not include the cost of arsenic in water, elevated deaths from cancer, or mountain-top removal.  (Dr. Paul Epstein, in contrast, estimates the cost of these coal impacts at half a trillion dollars a year. See: http://www.reuters.com/article…  Sununu energy math apparently never means having to think about what it costs to use something.)

At core Sununu energy math is not only illogical but unethical because the former Senator never mentions the greatest cost of continuing to use traditional energy: accelerating global warming. Ignoring the this cost of using coal and oil would be much like calculating the cost of a lighter employed to burn down a forest without including the cost of the forest.  We start a fire so that we can drive, fly, and use electronic gadgets and gear at the cheapest possible cost now while ignoring the destruction we cause by refusing to shift to alternatives with slightly higher up-front costs.  It’s not really surprising that Sununu refuses to even mention this cost because as Senator he helped to pioneer the ‘I just don’t know’ approach suitable for Republicans in New England who want to pretend to be moderates but don’t want to anger their base. Thus in 2007 he told the Concord Monitor he needed to see more research to determine to what extend human activity caused global warming.( http://www.concordmonitor.com/…  That’s the same basic approach adopted by Charlie ‘just not smart enough’ Baker and by the People’s Senator Scott Brown.

An ethical conservative position on climate change would require recognizing the dire nature of the threat and suggesting a sufficient response.  If Sununu does not want the government to fund specific forms of alternate energy he could advocate a cap and trade system or a carbon tax that would then leave it up to the market to determine the most cost effective forms of clean energy.  In the past Sununu has at least at  times supported cap-and-trade but that Republican idea has apparently became such anathema to the base that it is unmentionable-what’s left is nothing, a truly illogical and  unethical stance.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Including the corporate welfare to the green energy industry.  Isn’t the problem the Kochtopous and corporate welfare.

  2. If you accept that it is a real and dire problem for which we are responsible you and the Senator could (as I explained) logically recommend a carbon tax or cap and trade in place of funding for particular plans.
    So which do you support:
    Support for particular forms of alternate energy
    Cap and trade
    A Carbon Tax

  4. Is there any conservative who is willing to step up and state that human-caused global warming is a a serious problem?

    • in the history of the earth it has been both warmer and cooler than it is now.  And it will be warmer and cooler than it is now again.  The only thing constant in the earth’s climate is change.  Our effect on climate is negligible in the grand scheme of things at best.

      <

      p>The whole problem has been ginned up by a group of elites to get rich on taxpayer subsidies.  

        • And those are the facts Christopher.  ARe you disputing that the earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now?  Because that is a fact.  

          <

          p>Prominent scientists who have no dog in this fight have called the hysteria over global warming the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.  I tend to agree. There is no data which shows that mankind will end if we keep using fossil fuels none, will coastlines shift, yes as they always done.  Will some areas in the next 100 years become more fertile and some become less so, yes like has always happened.

          <

          p>Just because I’ve laid out facts you don’t like doesn’t mean they are not facts.

          • …and the consensus among scientists not on the payroll of an interested party that it is getting much worse largely with human help is near universal.

              • This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries.
                . . .
                The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed the peak warmth of the “Medieval Warm Period”. Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire “20th century” to describe “modern” conditions , fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.

          • Yes, the climate has varied quite a bit in the past. But you are spouting BS when you claim that our effect on the climate is “negligible”. There is already quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the current warming period is due to human-produced carbon output.

            <

            p>Perhaps anything we do won’t effect changes in the Earth’s orbit or rotation or volcanic activity etc. which could effect the climate many thousands or millions of years from now, but our actions can and do effect the climate enough for us to suffer the effects very soon.

            • It’s not real science it’s group-think.  If it were real science counterpoints would be allowed into the discussion in scientific journals, none are.  

              • don’t publish fantasies and industry-funded denials by people who aren’t qualified to make assertions about climate science. I suppose that means there’s a Giant Conspiracy to suppress the theories of the Petroleum Institute or something.

              • that allows you to determine if many 1000s of academic articles, published in 100s of journals and written by 1000s of academics are groupthink and not consensus?  As a PhD engineer who’s spent many hours reading, discussing, and writing journal articles, I’m just curious, s’all.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>There are plenty of journal articles criticizing particular studies which suggest climate change is real, happening now, and man-induced.  That doesn’t disprove climate change though; it just helps the scientific community refine its methods and understanding of the process.

                <

                p>But keep your fingers in your ears shouting la la, convinced that you know more about geology than geologists, about the solar system than astronomers, about the carbon cycle than biologists, about Earth’s atmosphere than chemists, and so forth.  Or, just cut the crap, and admit that you’re not even capable of reading and understanding a single journal article about climate change because that’s not where your expertise lies.  Whatever.

                • This exchange, like arguing evolution with a Creationist, is not worth the effort. Of course you are correct, but all we accomplish by arguing is to raise the number of google-hits for such pure unadulterated garbage.

                • as a trained Chemical Engineer I’ve read my fair share of journal articles and understand the math.  That doesn’t change the fact that there has been a concerted effort by those involved to silence those with different theories and the data to back them up.  

                  <

                  p>This is a classic example of follow the money.  Billions of dollars to line the pockets of so called “climate scientists” is at stake.  Nobody can disagree less the funds dry up.  

                • Eabo: to do chemical engineering you get a chemical engineer.
                  To model climate you get a climatologist.

                  <

                  p>Remember that great athlete Michael Jordan?  He was only minor league when he stepped out of his field of expertise.

                  <

                  p>Thus it is with chemical engineers who say that 98% of climatologists are “wrong.”

                • Billions of dollars to line the pockets of so called “climate scientists” is at stake.

                  Is this like the Milwaukee teachers making an average of $100K a year? In other words, is it another made-up BS number from EaBo?

                  <

                  p>If it’s not, you can give a source for the claim. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

                • http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/

                  <

                  p>

                  In 2004, NASA’s spending on climate science exceeded all other Federal agencies, combined. NASA spent $1.3 billion on climate science that year, out of a $1.9 billion total. The agency provides information on solar activity, sea level rise, the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, the state of the ozone layer, air pollution, and changes in sea ice and land ice. NASA scientists regularly appear in the mainstream press as climate experts. So how did the space agency end up taking such a big role in climate science?

                  <

                  p>Next?

                • You’re pointing at an agency that is famous for building the most complex and expensive hardware on the planet and putting it into space, using other complex and expensive hardware, and claiming that their spending $1.3 billion somehow “lined the pockets of so called ‘climate scientists'” with billions?

                  <

                  p>Next, watch EaBo pull a rabbit out of his … hat.

                • If you understand the math, than you understand that climate change is real, and that man’s actions [notably burning fossil fuels] have a direct and significant impact on climate change.

                  <

                  p>And yet, instead of using your chemical engineering knowledge to point to a single problem with a single journal article, you’re alleging a mass conspiracy where 1000s (10,000s?) of scientists around the world, who get funding from all kinds of different unrelated sources, are all conspiring to find new and exciting ways to establish the trend of carbon levels and Earth’s response, despite the reality that there’s far more money to be made [in research dollars, grants, etc] by proving that climate change doesn’t exist.  I mean, just think about it.  Every single company involved in the coal, petroleum, and natural gas industry has an incentive to show that the scientific consensus is wrong, and they’d be more than happy to pay for the research.

                  <

                  p>Problem is: they can’t find any science to back up their ideas, so instead they’ve convinced folks like you to forget your academic training and sign on to a nonsensical conspiracy theory that suggests 10000s of scientists who get funding from 1000s of different sources all cop on to the same made up story.

          • Peer-reviewed science is peer-reviewed science. If you have a better approach, offer it — rants in blogs don’t cut the mustard.

            <

            p>We are each entitled to our own opinion. We are not each entitled to our own facts.

  5. Doesn’t it make sense to diversify our energy sources?

    <

    p>And therefore, wouldn’t we invest in industries to do that, and reduce our dependency on unstable foreign governments?

    <

    p>Wouldn’t that enhance security, and global competitiveness?

          • Do you commute? The trains are pretty crowded these days. How crowded do they have to get?

            <

            p>Some days I drive, and have to be careful to avoid killing bikers. How many of them constitute a demand?

            <

            p>I’m sorry, I can’t just live at the whim of market demands. Market leaders will self-preserve, prolonging markets beyond their maximum use and value. Alternative-fuel cars are way behind where they should be — where they should have been a generation ago.

            <

            p>In England, it took Mary Barton, a widely read novel about factory work, to bring change to factories in the 19th century. Today we still have men going into mines — why not robots? We have predator drones patroling our border with Mexico — can’t that technology be put to better use?

            <

            p>

            • The market exists without a government, it always had. It is the fundamental means by which we as people interact with each other.  The market was created when the first cave man traded a stone tool for a piece of meat.  You don’t need a government for that.  

              • It’s the derivatives of the meat/tool trade where we get into trouble and need the government.

                <

                p>Oh, and to regulate the feeding and keeping of the animal the meat comes from.

                <

                p>Maybe the weight of the tool too.

                <

                p>And to tax the sale.

              • but the free market doesn’t.  A pure free market requires perfect information, zero transaction costs, enforcement of contracts, etc.  What we think of as a modern day free market is a market where the government limits shenanigans — ensures contracts are upheld, deeds are legit, some protection of property, flow of information, low transaction costs, etc.

                <

                p>The market before government was so inefficient that to call it a “market” is to use a different definition of the word.

      • …to enhance security and global competitiveness?  Not only is it the government’s job to do these things; government is the ONLY entity that can do most of this.  Last I checked individual consumers don’t decide where their gasoline and oil comes from, who we import from, or the fortunes of various industries.  Really, you’re not presenting very well on this thread.

      • The Government has to be involved in energy leases for publicly owned lands, rights-of-way for power lines, gas pipelines, permitting and regulation of power plants, oil depots, etc. Energy requires way too much infrastructure for the Government not to be involved heavily. Don’t forget that maintaining our military and economic dominance requires reliable and affordable supplies of energy. So this is most definitely the Government’s business.

  6. For any member of the Sununu family to talk about energy subsidies without mentioning the N word is bizarro-world funny.

  7. @ EaBo Clipper

    <

    p>Why should we take conservatives seriously on any issue when they so clearly reject any amount of scientific evidence in the case of human caused global warming (agw)?

    <

    p>Do you really think that anyone is going to remember anything that American conservatives do or say if they continue to succeed in blocking action on global warming and end up as the political movement, more responsible than any other, for destroying the world’s environment?

Archives