Integrated Man

Ridin' to the City on Acela

If I were poetically or musically gifted, this blog would glide to the cadence of Arlo Guthrie's 'Ridin On The City of New Orleans'. But I'm not so gifted, so you're stuck with my stilted prose. 

Nonetheless my recent ride to New York City from New Haven on Amtrak's Acela summoned the same wistful, mournful tones of Guthrie's ballad, with perhaps a touch of irony borrowed from Peggy Lee's 'Is That All There Is?'.

Georgia on My Mind

Cast a stone into the water and watch the ripples spread.  Russia's incursion into Georgia is such an event. Georgia just got stoned, and we will feel the ripples.  It is not just Georgia that is profoundly affected by this event.  It's not even the Ukraine, and Belorussia, and Finland, and Estonia and Lithuania, and Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, and all the other 'stans which are the remnants of the old Soviet empire. It's not even Poland which just signed a treaty to allow us to deploy anti ballistic missiles on its soil, and received a threat of nuclear attack from the Russian high command in response.

The Odd Couple

A few weeks ago T. Boone Pickens unveiled his energy plan to deal with our oil addiction.  At the same time, Al Gore put forth his own prescription for the energy crisis, apparently coming to the realization that the energy crisis will drive the climate crisis, because we will respond to the energy crisis by any means necessary, even at the risk of the climate.  Neither readily embraced the other's position, though both are apparently singing from the same hymnal.

Offshoring Our Energy Resources

Sometimes you've got to wonder about the brain trust that runs our country, and the free enterprise buccaneer's who reward themselves so richly for their strategic prowess.

Take for example the blather of recent weeks about opening drilling offshore and in ANWAR, and opening other interior lands to further exploration.  Not that we don't need the oil, but....let's de-construct the argument. 

Everybody seems to grasp that this is not a short term solution, inasmuch as little, if anything, is likely to come on stream until five to eight years out.  And it's not a long term solution, because nothing suggests that at our current rate of consumption, even allowing for conservation measures offsetting the demands of continued growth, we'd buy much more than another decade, maybe two. 

If I were a jingoistic, America-First-er, and if I were a true conservative of the native garden variety as compared to the neo-Con posers, the last thing that I'd want to do is to tap into the so called low hanging fruit in ANWAR and off-shore until I had satisfied myself of two premises:

1-  that I have the technology in place to replace oil when I need to, before I need to; and

2-  that all those vast reserves of oil in Canada's tar sands and the western states' oil shale is truly recoverable at acceptable environmental and economic costs.

Until I knew the answer to those two questions, I would want to keep our reserves......reserved; and buy on the open market, as long as there is one, and let the higher prices do what pricing is supposed to do in a so-called rational, market driven economy -- ration resources consistent with supply and demand.

That gets us to the intermediate term feasibility, where a number of interesting questions arise.

The first involves the assertion that the oil companies are seeking further leases while they have yet to fully exploit the ones they have.  In fairness to the oil companies, there may be more to this than meets the eye; but on the surface, the implication is a motivation on the part of the Oils to hoard resources from the market.  Certainly not conducive to the highest principles of competition.  It suggests a land grab, somewhat reminiscent of Mr. Cheney's Iraq adventure.

But let's play along for the sake of discussion and say that we permit exploitation in the name of 'national energy independence'.  I  haven't heard any government or political or business leaders describe exactly what that would mean.  Does  it mean that we would explore, and exploit, and withhold from the world market any resulting product for exclusive use in the US?  If we did that, how would such 'oil nationalism' be  viewed in the rest of the world, particularly among our 'allies' and our current suppliers?  What would be the unintended consequences, or blow-back, from that strategy of energy self-dealing?

Alternatively, and more likely, would the same Sunshine Capitalists who cry for access to the offshore assets in the name of national economic security then turn around, once granted access, and sell it to the highest offshore bidder in the name of "competitive free enterprise"?  Would we do for the Chinese with Atlantic Coast oil what we did for the Japanese with the North Slope oil?  Are we being invited to observe yet another game of Three Card Monty.  The economic elite  will of course deny  this,  today.  Just as they assured us two years ago that  'there would be no real  estate  bubble; there  is no problem with sub-prime lending; and who needs to regulate the hedge funds?  The investors are all big boys and girls who know what they're doing...Bear Sterns, Citigroup, Lehman and all'!

Hold on to your wallets, and oil your bicycle.

*   *   * 

Speaking of which, another revelation in the past week:  GM has noticed a dip in truck and large vehicle sales.  Given that the US auto industry hasn't learned a blessed thing from the Japanese in nearly thirty years, even with the US government holding the Japanese with one arm behind their back, it was truly refreshing to see the US auto makers fathom the impact of higher gas prices with such lightning speed,... after three years of dramatic increases.   But fear not.  GM's Volt will set it free in another two years, just as hybrids are helping us turn the corner on high oil prices, over the next twenty years at their current rate of production.  Does GM know how to make....buses?

*  *  * 

Meanwhile, I notice that my neighbor has a nice pile of firewood waiting to be stacked.  Something I haven't seen in my New England community for several years except among the few stalwarts.  But news reports confirm that more people are turning back to wood as an answer to oil.  As this solution gains momentum, the next news report will acknowledge the problem that will inevitably emanate from it: greater contribution to global warming.  This supports my thesis that the energy crisis will assure the escalation of Climate Change to its higher projected trajectories, because we will cling to the energy demands of our current way of life before the consequences of that choice thrust themselves upon us, and Inconvenient Truths become Irrefutable Realities. The July 4th edition of the ODAC newsletter seems to confirm this.

*   *   * 

The unfortunate truth in all the recent energy news, and the broader economic news that is evolving from it, is that none of our leaders are telling us what we need to hear in explicit, concrete terms:  We are beginning a prolonged period of profound economic and social change which will render much of our current economic structure obsolete, and will require painful personal sacrifice, and wise community investment if we are to sustain the personal and civic values that we claim to hold most dear.  The thrills are gone, and soon so will be the frills. It is time for our country and its people to mature, or to accept our self-relegation to second world status.

Onward.

Imagine

Today's post was an item that was previously published by The Day of New London, Connecticut on 2007, May 27.  As I pay $4.99 today for diesel, and others in my  town pay $4.07 for regular gas, the article may seem somewhat behind the time, or are we merely crossing the threshold?

*    *    *    *

Imagine

S.F. Gale

This is a test. 

The good news is:  it's self-grading and you don't have to share the results with anyone but yourself.

The bad news is...well, I'll leave that to you to determine.

Here's the test, and it's a two-parter.

Part 1.  Next Monday morning as you slip into the cockpit of your four-wheeled living room and crank up the stereo, or voice dial the cell phone, take a look at the odometer and note the mileage reading.  Write it down.  A week from then, do the same and calculate the miles you drove in the past week.

Now, for the next four weeks, try to reduce that weekly mileage by 10%.  If you drove 200 miles in the prior week, try to drive no more than 180 miles for each of the next four weeks.  Keep track of your results.

Part 2.  Look at last month's electric bill.  Look at the kilowatt hours you  and your family used.  Look at the closing date of the bill, the fifteenth or twentieth of the month, or whatever.  Now, beginning with the next billing cycle, do whatever you think feasible to reduce your total electric usage by 10%.  Check the bill at the end of that cycle.  Compare it with your base month, and with the same month last year in case seasonal fluctuations are relevant.

Now, here's the test:

1.   How difficult was it for you to achieve the 10% reduction goals?

2.   If it was reasonably easy, is it worth continuing as an adjustment to your lifestyle?

3.   If it was difficult or impossible to achieve, why was that so, and what would it take to make it possible for you?

4.   How difficult would it be if you had to reduce by 20%?

Now, imagine one of two scenarios:

Scenario 1:  The Middle East goes 'boom', and the next big hurricane whacks the Houston shipping channel (or plays a return engagement to the Big Easy this autumn).

Scenario 2:  Five to ten years from now statistics substantiate the validity of peak oil and climate change beyond rational doubt, and prices for all forms of fuel escalate rapidly, driven by ever growing international demand from a world that is still foolishly striving to emulate our unsustainable lifestyle. 

If either of these scenarios were to occur, either this year or next decade, how would you adjust?

Relax, this is just a test.  You have time to think  about what you've learned, and the next time you choose to take this test, you may score better. 

On the other hand, the next time you are presented with these questions, it may not be a test.

In the mean time, happy motoring!

*    *    *    *

Onward.

Reality - The First Speed Bump on the Way to Green

I try not to go to the Connecticut State Legislature more than once a year.  When I do so, it is only because my frustration with the status quo exceeds my frustration in watching how we struggle to make progress through the legislative process.  Nor is Connecticut unique by any means. 

But there I was on February 27th, endeavoring to testify on Raised Bill 5600, Section 3, regarding a proposal to study the impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut; a bill similar, but inferior to, Bill 1432, Section 3 of last year which suffered death by calendar at the end of the legislative session.

Convergence

The New York Times’ editorial of Feb. 23^rd, “Before the Next Bridge Falls”, fell short of the mark. It focused on one issue, largely ignoring two other related issues and a fourth which encompasses all three.

We are facing a convergence of three paradigms, wrapped in a fourth. Infrastructure, climate change and constrained energy are proceeding along seemingly parallel lines, but will converge in time, and vary by place. How we deal with them will be a combination of our perception of their interrelationships, and a fourth paradigm, demographic-driven economics.

Inconvenient Truths, Asymmetric Response and Unintended Consequences

I have often thought that the most valuable contribution of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was its title.  Although it spoke specifically to Climate Change and our unwillingness to face its multifaceted implications, there are many inconvenient truths in our lives, and our unwillingness to address them directly accounts for many of the problems we face. 

Take Iraq for example. 

Random Reflections on: Connecting the Economic Dots

We're all familiar with the exercise of 'connecting the dots' to find the picture.  Sometimes, when the 'picture' is dynamic and evolving, it is helpful to engage in a little constructive procrastination, letting the dots fill in a little more.  It makes connection much easier; sometime almost automatic.  Like with the economy.  Like now.  The dots are dropping in fast and furious, and the picture is looking rather dark. 

"Just give me the facts, Ma'am"

2008/01/04

Remember that line, delivered by the granite-faced Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet?  Probably not if you're under 50 years old, but it comes to mind whenever I listen to debates on energy or the environment or the economy or globalization or (you name it) these days.  The first challenge is not in assessing the information, but assessing the individual who is conveying it.

In the civic arena there is a spectrum of participants in the public discourse on critical issues. True Believers, a term popularized if not coined by the late longshoreman-philosopher Eric Hoffer, embrace an issue as an absolute, unquestionable truth. Theirs is often an emotional attachment, often bordering on the irrational.  Advocates may embrace the same issue, but based on fact and logic and with sufficient detachment that they will modify or even end their commitment if presented with compelling countervailing fact or logic.  Their opposite number is the Skeptic, who does not accept the prevailing conclusion, but is open to persuasion to change based on compelling fact or logic . And finally, there is the Cynic; often confused with the Skeptic, but distinguished by being impervious to reason or logic and therefore the polar opposite of the True Believer.