Warm Your Senator's Globe - TODAY!

The debate about climate change continues. It comes to the fore this week because of an energy bill being debated by our so-called leaders.

There seems to be two main pieces of the argument over climate change:

Firstly, is the earth really warming? Well, the evidence seems to suggest it is. We have measurements and photos of our polar ice caps shrinking and Greenland melting AND we know- first hand- that our frozen Margaritas don’t last as long as they used to while we run around in our boats on ever-shallower reservoirs. Yep- we’re getting warmer and drier.

The most contentious issue seems to be the cause of that warming: Is it man-made or nature at work? Regardless of where you place yourself in this argument, you simply can NOT argue that all the crap² from power plants, refineries, factories and tail pipes is a good thing. (If you do believe this stuff is good, here is a test: Go to your garage. Start your car. Sit down next to the tailpipe and breathe deeply. Problem solved.)

So- everyone left standing after that experiment should concede that whether or not our SUVs, Humvees, RVs, etc are melting the icecaps, the stuff they are spewing is not so good. Likewise the guck that comes out of power plants, factories, malls, etc-- which by the way is a bigger factor in CO2 release than our go-carts.

I said people should concede this point. But many won’t. This bunch just can’t fathom (or won’t admit) that there might be a better, more efficient way to power this country in the next century and beyond. They will tell you that we will always need carbon fuels and any argument for alternative energy is a hoax.

Let’s look at some of the arguments the pro carbon-fuelers use:

Argument: Nature has had warming and cooling cycles for millions of years.

True. But those cycles were not nearly as inconvenient before the human showed up with the need for never ending supplies of water, food, comfort and stuff.

Argument: Carbon Dioxide occurs naturally in the atmosphere, so what we are adding can’t hurt us.

The first part is true-- the second part not so clear. Any excess, whether we’re talking tail pipe emissions or Margaritas, isn’t a great idea

Argument: We are not running out of oil.

I don’t know whether this is true or not. I haven’t had the opportunity to look deep into the earth and view the pools. One thing about oil is certain. It is getting more expensive and more inconvenient to come by. It’s not just Iraq and Iran and other middle-eastern countries where supplies are threatened. Look around the world. Nicaragua, a major oil source, is in constant upheaval-- putting oil field workers at constant risk. Venezuela is under the thumb of a certifiable nut case and other central and South American countries are about as stable as Watts in the 1960s. And, right here in the good ole U S of A, new exploration is stymied due to any number of creatures. Oil may or may not be in short supply in the ground, but it is going to continue to get more expensive due to the difficulty of recovery and ever increasing need. Eco 101: Supply and demand

AND- transportation is getting messier. Counting the news today, in the last two months we have seen three major oil spills from tankers. You don’t have to be a raging environmentalist to wonder what this is doing to our shrimp cocktails and crab salads.

Which brings us back to the discussion of cost for choices such as more efficient transportation or alternative energy sources for lighting, heating and cooling- some of which we will need no matter which way Mother Nature twists. The currently perceived low efficiency and high cost of alternatives fuel the arguments against their development and use; hence the arguments over what to include in an energy bill.

But, if carbon fuels become more expensive, then alternatives will be relatively cheaper. AND, the more we develop, the cheaper those alternative sources will become. Again, Econ 101: Mass production.

Case in point: As someone who spent many years working with large, mainframe computers, I can reliably point out that the computing power you have on your desk today would have required a room full of very expensive equipment only thirty years ago. And, even if you had such equipment, the capabilities and reliability of that investment were far less than your current laptop.

The point is-- the more hydrogen and battery and solar and wind and wave and geothermal we develop, the better we will get at it and the cheaper it will become. Thus, if oil is going to get MORE expensive and other sources LESS expensive- which would you choose to use to heat or cool your home or power your go-mobile in twenty years? If we have a choice of losing lives over oil due to world unrest and crackpot despots or increasing jobs through the development and manufacture of new technologies, which side of THAT argument do you want to take?

If you are going to opt for a more peaceful, quieter, cleaner, smarter world in twenty years, then today is the day we need a comprehensive energy policy. That means the politicians who supposedly represent our interests need to do something more than engage in partisan bickering. They need to do more with the current energy bill than line their pockets with the potential special interest money available. Call or write your Senators today and tell her/him what you would like for your kids and grandkids. It’s not hard to figure out.

Be safe and Have Fun!