But here’s the problem calbear… why do we as a nation continue policies that constantly drive up the cost of energy ? Why do we do that ? Surely you know that nothing puts a drag on the economy more that high energy cost. We are going in exactly the wrong direction, instead of looking for ways to make energy more expensive, we need to implement policies that make energy cheaper.

But we have all been propagandized into thinking we are running out of energy. As ridiculous as that proposition is, that is what most people think. Have people forgot what they were taught in sixth grade science…. have we forgot that energy is neither created nor destroyed ? It is absolutely impossible for the earth to run out of energy….. no matter how much we use.

Or maybe your one of those that believes we are running out of so called “fossil fuels” … well fine, maybe we could run out of “fossil fuels” but the fact is there are more known reserves of oil and natural gas on record today than any other time in history. The United States first commissioned a study on depleted oil supplies back in the mid-eighteen-hundreds. The old …. “we are running out of oil” scare tactic has been around for a long time, and it has consistently served the oil companies very well.

But suppose we did run out of oil. Do you think we can run out of nuclear power ? Do you suppose we could run out of hydrogen ? Totally impossible !!

So our policies and thinking on this subject are all wrong. We will never be able to “conserve” our way to a strong and vibrant economy. Cheap and available energy is key to a strong and booming economy. And this “conservation” is firstly unnecessary and secondly dangerous in that it leads us down the wrong path. Its the wrong path because we keep on cutting back on energy instead of putting effort into finding ways to produce it more abundantly and at a lower cost. This path can only lead to a false and purely manufactured scarcity. But that’s exactly what the left wants, that is exactly what Al Gore is selling, and most people are buying into it lock, stock and barrel.

We cannot conserve our way to a strong and vibrant economy, we need more energy. So lets knock off all of this conservation nonsense and get on with building more power plants and investing more effort into how to produce it cheaply.

And yes, global warming is complete bunk which is devoted to preventing exactly what I am advocating above.

voluntarily reducing greenhouse emissions can only be a good thing in the long run

Voluntary or not the only impact from reducing CO2 emissions is to drive up the cost of energy.

Not per person. If everyone uses 10% less energy, economies of scale mean that we won’t quite save 10%, but we’ll certainly save nearly that much. We’ll pay slightly more per kWh, but that won’t matter when we’re spending much less money overall. I agree with the original comment: Even if you believe that human-caused global warming is total B.S., saving energy is a good thing, from a strict economics perspective. I couldn’t tell you its virtuousness relative to giving up chocolate, but personally I prefer the former.

Dumpster diving just became much less fun.

I meant to say “voluntarily reducing greenhouse emissions can only be a good thing in the long run”

e-pirate on February 8, 2008 at 9:29 AM

I disagree. Voluntary or not the only impact from reducing CO2 emissions is to drive up the cost of energy. And CO2 is beneficial to the environment…. the higher the CO2 concentration the better crops grow… i.e… plants “breath” CO2. More CO2 equals more food for a hungry world.

It’s the sun that controls the global temperature and NOTHING else. I say if you’ve put 20,000 ton of CO2 into the air today… good for you, you’ve done a good thing for all humanity. Keep up the good work.

tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM

You can’t read this post and come to the conclusion that I’m a fan of those bulbs unless you’re a dolt. I’m just not a fan of over-the-line, tasteless jokes about Catholics or anyone else for that matter. So do yourself a favor and keep them to yourself.

tommylotto on February 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Dude, religious jokes, your’s especially, are in bad taste.
As a catholic, recovering, I could take offense, burn cars, torch houses, destroy businesses and demand the beheading of tommy.

But, I am a catholic… you see, recovering, and turning the other cheek.

Others may not appreciate your humor except on HBO or Showtime.

Consider this your first warning.

Bryan on February 8, 2008 at 9:19 AM

What? Are you guys big fans of CFC light bulbs or what? They really don’t fade or dim like an incandescent. At best they they’ll have a few intensity steps.

Sorry for any offense ;-)

You mean like how Bush vetoed research on embryonic stem cells? A decision based on science and data, not on values?

e-pirate on February 8, 2008 at 8:58 AM

A number of folks have already commented on this, but the bigger question is:

- Should the government use our tax dollars to fund research that is not in the public interest?

By that I mean, this is a private sector research effort.
Could you imagine Thomas Edison getting research grants to invent the light bulb in todays litigious environment?

Free market – free enterprise – free willie

put them in all the places I *hate* changing the bulbs. Some of them around my house are still going after over a year of always-on use.

I bought some about a year ago for the same reason (also for the much-ballyhooed energy costs savings), and replaced most of the regular lightbulbs in my house. A year later, I’ve seen no savings on my electric bill, and two of the CFC bulbs (which were advertised to last 5 years) have already burned out — even though they were in lamps that are used only 2-3 hours each day. Add to that the fact that I had to don plastic gloves and wrap up the used CFC bulbs in a plastic bag, sealed with duct tape (per the disposal instructions from my local energy company) before putting the burnt-out bulbs in the trash — and the whole thing smells like a big scam to me.

I’m now stocking up on regular bulbs.

I’m giving up lent for lent.

- The Cat

MirCat on February 8, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Oxymoron?

However, a mass edict for a carbon fast from the Church of England bishops is another story. Bishops have more of a leadership role in religions than a nun, and therefore should be more responsible in declaring something not substantiated.

`It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.

No, that’s what you are saying. Basing a decision on a lack of scientific data is still a decision based on science and data.

- The Cat

I can’t help but wondering why liberals who believe so much in evolution doubt that mankind could evolve to prosper during climate change.

If you want to drive Darwin-worshipping libs really nuts, point out that species and sub-species evolve in response to their environment and that no two genomic groups evolve at identical rates.

In effect, this means that certain groups will be superior while others will be inferior – even within a species.

When they go ballistic and accuse you of being a hate-filled racist Nazi, smile and politely inform them that they can’t have Falstaff – and have him thin.

I’m sure they’d sleep comfortably knowing that.

As for the Union of Concerned Scientists…a bunch of church-trrashing, freedom-hating. one-world-government-pimpimg Marxists.

Bryan has a wonder post about this link
Professor Mary Frohlich wears trim business suits, teaches global climate change and talks about historical links between the oppression of the earth and the oppression of women.
She is a Roman Catholic nun.
â…

The Brits have already given up enough. Enough in this case being their country, and in a strange little quirk of life they can thank religion for it. That would be the infamous Religion of Peace, which doesn’t ask it’s own followers to sacrifice anything for Lent but does ask believers in any other religion to give up their lives.

What are the nuns, bishops and archbishops drinking over there, tainted goat’s blood?

Color the UK gone.

Perhaps these nuns should go back to the basics of the Catholic Church.

some recent discoveries have vindicated his call,

Bryan on February 8, 2008 at 9:07 AM

All you’ve said is that recent science has backed up his moral decision. Who’s to say that next week we won’t discover some new factor that scientifically backs up this nun’s call to give up carbon? You’ve proved my point for me, not argued against it.

With the recent development of skin cells being turned into cells with the same characteristics as stem cells, the use of embryonic cells might even be unnecessary.

Bigfoot on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 AM

The fact that you had to include a “might” in your last sentence is my exact point.

Just like in embryonic stem cells, climate change is such a politicized thing that this point, and the science so nebulous, that both sides can easily present data that makes their case. There’s a lot of data saying embryonic stem cells are the best option, and there’s data saying they’re unneeded. There’s data saying reducing carbon emissions is a great idea, there’s data saying it’s a waste of time and money.

My only point was that this was hardly the first time “morals” have been used to make what ought to be a scientific decision. It’s a shame that we can’t have objective science in this country anymore, on pretty muc any issue. Too many demagogues. I lean towards the “reducing greenhouse emissions can only be a good thing in the long run” POV, but having Al Gore make in his gigantic mansion and zipping around in his private jet is incredibly stupid. Sorry to slightly threadjack.