I want to make a prediction. Thirty years from now George W Bush will be treated kindly by historians and may even be viewed as one of our greatest presidents. This will be because of his single minded pursuit of the war on terror and - yes - the Iraq war. I make this prediction with the full knowledge of George W's current 28% approval rating.
In 1952 Harry Truman's approval rating was 22%. The country was tired and stressed out over the Korean war and major economic issues at home particularly with the steel industry and its labor difficulties. Today Truman's legacy is 180 out from the popular view of his administration at the end of his second term. This is so because through the lens of history and time, most historians now see that Truman's recognition of the Communist threat and his steadfast approach to its containment set the stage for the subsequent cold war that we finally won during Reagan's administration. During his presidency Truman was viewed as opinionated, a little arrogant, decisive and not the brightest bulb in the closet. He was respected, however, for his consistency on the issues and unwillingness to compromise his principles just to garner favorable public opinion.
Who does that sound like? You could make the same statement about George W today.
Only time and world events will tell, but I do believe that in the end George W Bush's policies and his decision take out of Saddam Hussein will be vindicated and those who today decry his presidency as the worst ever will be proven dead wrong just as Truman's critics in 1952 have been discredited.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Solution to Oil
Since everyone from John McCain and Barak Obama to T Boone Pickens and Newt Gingrich has their solution to the energy security and gas price "crisis," I feel it is only fair to put in my two cents worth. My plan would fundamentally transform the way we produce and consume energy and end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First let's be clear about how we produce and consume energy. Essentially we consume energy in two forms electricity and fossil fuel products (coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil). We produce electricity from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear (20%), with all other sources including hydro, geothermal, solar and wind making up the other 10%. The key point here is that at least in the US we do not - repeat do not - produce any significant amount of electricity by burning oil or oil distillates. The only exception being emergency power generators.
So where do we use oil. Aside from home heating oil used primarily in the northeast, almost all our oil consumption is for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, ships. The key point here is that the use of solar and wind for electrical production, while good ideas and should be developed where they make economic sense, will NOT help our dependence on oil for the simple reason that we do not use oil for electricity. One more stake in the heart of T Boone's plan to wean us off of oil. As Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, has aptly said that the only way wind energy can help reduce our dependence on oil is if we we put sails on cars.
The other key point to understand is that the US reserves of coal make us the Saudi Arabia of coal so it is a resource that we must continue to use.
So my plan is based on three major initiatives all of which are achievable by the middle of this century and if realized will end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First is to invest in developing carbon sequestration technologies that will allow us to take advantage of our enormous coal reserves for the production of electricity. Now I am not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but it does make sense that we should avoid pumping more CO2 into the air if we can avoid it. Also from a public acceptance perspective in order to take full advantage of coal, clear evidence that we can capture the CO2 will be a practical and political requirement.
Second we need a NRA style program to build more nuclear plants so that the percentage of electricity from nuclear power at least doubles from its current 20% to 40% or more. Sorry but T Boone's idea for a phalanx of wind turbines from Mexico to Canada just won't do the job. If France can generate 75% of its electricity from nuclear then so can we. It is also worthy of note that >45% of the world's supply of uranium comes from Canada, Australia and the USA so we are unlikely to be held hostage by unfriendly countries.
Thirdly we need to shift from the internal combustion engine to an all electric transportation system. This will require new batteries that can drive cars and trucks for at least 400 miles at highway speeds and then be fully recharged in 20-30 minutes. These batteries do not exist today but with the right incentives and R&D there is no question in my mind that they can be developed by 2030. That would give us 20 years to shift the corner gas station infrastructure to recharging stations.
It is true that planes and ships will still be powered by fossil fuels, but converting our ground based transportation system to an all electric fleet will fundamentally change the supply and demand equation.
This is a very simple and effective plan that can be implemented today. All we need is the political will to do so. If we are really concerned with oil prices, energy security and minimizing our carbon footprint this is the only plan that makes sense.
First let's be clear about how we produce and consume energy. Essentially we consume energy in two forms electricity and fossil fuel products (coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil). We produce electricity from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear (20%), with all other sources including hydro, geothermal, solar and wind making up the other 10%. The key point here is that at least in the US we do not - repeat do not - produce any significant amount of electricity by burning oil or oil distillates. The only exception being emergency power generators.
So where do we use oil. Aside from home heating oil used primarily in the northeast, almost all our oil consumption is for transportation - cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, ships. The key point here is that the use of solar and wind for electrical production, while good ideas and should be developed where they make economic sense, will NOT help our dependence on oil for the simple reason that we do not use oil for electricity. One more stake in the heart of T Boone's plan to wean us off of oil. As Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, has aptly said that the only way wind energy can help reduce our dependence on oil is if we we put sails on cars.
The other key point to understand is that the US reserves of coal make us the Saudi Arabia of coal so it is a resource that we must continue to use.
So my plan is based on three major initiatives all of which are achievable by the middle of this century and if realized will end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.
First is to invest in developing carbon sequestration technologies that will allow us to take advantage of our enormous coal reserves for the production of electricity. Now I am not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, but it does make sense that we should avoid pumping more CO2 into the air if we can avoid it. Also from a public acceptance perspective in order to take full advantage of coal, clear evidence that we can capture the CO2 will be a practical and political requirement.
Second we need a NRA style program to build more nuclear plants so that the percentage of electricity from nuclear power at least doubles from its current 20% to 40% or more. Sorry but T Boone's idea for a phalanx of wind turbines from Mexico to Canada just won't do the job. If France can generate 75% of its electricity from nuclear then so can we. It is also worthy of note that >45% of the world's supply of uranium comes from Canada, Australia and the USA so we are unlikely to be held hostage by unfriendly countries.
Thirdly we need to shift from the internal combustion engine to an all electric transportation system. This will require new batteries that can drive cars and trucks for at least 400 miles at highway speeds and then be fully recharged in 20-30 minutes. These batteries do not exist today but with the right incentives and R&D there is no question in my mind that they can be developed by 2030. That would give us 20 years to shift the corner gas station infrastructure to recharging stations.
It is true that planes and ships will still be powered by fossil fuels, but converting our ground based transportation system to an all electric fleet will fundamentally change the supply and demand equation.
This is a very simple and effective plan that can be implemented today. All we need is the political will to do so. If we are really concerned with oil prices, energy security and minimizing our carbon footprint this is the only plan that makes sense.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Nation of Whiners
I just love all the flap stirred up by former Senator Phil Gramm's comments to the effect that the nation needs to stop whining about the economy. Right on Phil!! In the wake of the controversy over his comments, Gramm backtracked quickly to say he was speaking of the national leadership and not the average American. Since the average American is never quoted in the press, his clarification is accurate since by definition it is the pundits and politicians - i.e. those quoted in the media - that are doing all the whining.
In an earlier blog post (April 8, 2008) I made a similar statement that we as a nation have to stop whining and get on with creative solutions to the issues - economic, cultural and social - that we face. Unfortunately our political leadership in both parties seem unable and frankly unwilling to step up to the task. They would rather take cheap political shots at one another in the interest of control and power and most importantly re-election. Not that they ever do anything useful with power once they have it.
Specifically Gramm was referring to the state of the economy and all the focus of the media on recession, pain at the pump, yada yada yada. The facts are that while growth is slower than in recent years we are still growing and we are not - repeat not - in a recession or even close to one. In addition the media hardly ever reports on the good news such as a robust export led boom and the jobs that is bringing to the US economy.
Sadly this is to be expected since the media has a reflexive aversion to good news of any kind and loves to play up doom and gloom scenarios wherever and whenever possible. The classic example is the "Severe Weather" teams on all the local TV stations. These folks live for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and any other form of meteorological catastrophe. What we see in the reporting on the economy is the "severe weather" effect. If it's not as bad as we would like let's just say it is and perhaps we can actually make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clearly the politicians - particularly those in Washington DC and Democrats in general given their lust for the White House - exacerbate this concern at every opportunity.
Phil Gramm is right. We are a nation of whiners and we need to get over it.
In an earlier blog post (April 8, 2008) I made a similar statement that we as a nation have to stop whining and get on with creative solutions to the issues - economic, cultural and social - that we face. Unfortunately our political leadership in both parties seem unable and frankly unwilling to step up to the task. They would rather take cheap political shots at one another in the interest of control and power and most importantly re-election. Not that they ever do anything useful with power once they have it.
Specifically Gramm was referring to the state of the economy and all the focus of the media on recession, pain at the pump, yada yada yada. The facts are that while growth is slower than in recent years we are still growing and we are not - repeat not - in a recession or even close to one. In addition the media hardly ever reports on the good news such as a robust export led boom and the jobs that is bringing to the US economy.
Sadly this is to be expected since the media has a reflexive aversion to good news of any kind and loves to play up doom and gloom scenarios wherever and whenever possible. The classic example is the "Severe Weather" teams on all the local TV stations. These folks live for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and any other form of meteorological catastrophe. What we see in the reporting on the economy is the "severe weather" effect. If it's not as bad as we would like let's just say it is and perhaps we can actually make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clearly the politicians - particularly those in Washington DC and Democrats in general given their lust for the White House - exacerbate this concern at every opportunity.
Phil Gramm is right. We are a nation of whiners and we need to get over it.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Obama vs. McCain
This is going to be a very interesting election. In the left corner you have an unproven albeit eloquent middle aged man of partial African (Kenya) decent. In the right corner you have an aging, not so doctrinaire conservative war hero maverick with impressive foreign policy credentials.
Let's look at Obama. The fact is that although brief his legislative record is one of the most liberal in congress. He talks about reaching out and bridging differences but he has never once led or participated in any meaningful bi-partisan legislation or initiative. He gives a good speech and in this area he is often compared (even by himself) to Ronald Reagan. The key difference is that Reagan's rhetoric was based on a fundamental belief in the goodness of America, its people and its economic system. It was Reagan's positive and uplifting message that inspired and resonated with his listeners and won him the moniker the Great Communicator. When I listen to Obama, his lofty words seem to me to come from a darker place. One that is based on the notion that there are many things wrong in and about America that need to be "changed." This is troubling. I also find it somewhat amusing that now that he has the Democratic nomination in hand, he is running to the center as fast as he can. So much for principled politics - although that may be an oxymoron.
Now for McCain. McCain is a bit of an enigma. He is anything but a traditional conservative which is why many on the far right are suspicious of him. What I like about McCain are the same characteristics that made him the media darling a few years ago. He has some very specific ideas on what is right and what isn't and is not afraid to express them clearly and forcefully. The "Straight Talk Express" was just that. While Obama talks in grand themes and generalities, McCain cuts to the chase with specific proposals. My worry is that like Obama in trying to position himself for the general election he seems to have tempered and hedged his rhetoric and temper in recent months. I prefer the blunt, irascible version better but he is still my choice to lead the country.
I think this will be a very close election. In the end I think McCain will win based on the arithmetic of the electoral college, but Obama just may pull it out and even win the popular vote in a losing cause - ala Al Gore in 2000.
One thing I do know for certain is that no matter who wins the presidential election and no matter which party controls congress, the Republic will survive so I don't lose sleep worrying about it.
Let's look at Obama. The fact is that although brief his legislative record is one of the most liberal in congress. He talks about reaching out and bridging differences but he has never once led or participated in any meaningful bi-partisan legislation or initiative. He gives a good speech and in this area he is often compared (even by himself) to Ronald Reagan. The key difference is that Reagan's rhetoric was based on a fundamental belief in the goodness of America, its people and its economic system. It was Reagan's positive and uplifting message that inspired and resonated with his listeners and won him the moniker the Great Communicator. When I listen to Obama, his lofty words seem to me to come from a darker place. One that is based on the notion that there are many things wrong in and about America that need to be "changed." This is troubling. I also find it somewhat amusing that now that he has the Democratic nomination in hand, he is running to the center as fast as he can. So much for principled politics - although that may be an oxymoron.
Now for McCain. McCain is a bit of an enigma. He is anything but a traditional conservative which is why many on the far right are suspicious of him. What I like about McCain are the same characteristics that made him the media darling a few years ago. He has some very specific ideas on what is right and what isn't and is not afraid to express them clearly and forcefully. The "Straight Talk Express" was just that. While Obama talks in grand themes and generalities, McCain cuts to the chase with specific proposals. My worry is that like Obama in trying to position himself for the general election he seems to have tempered and hedged his rhetoric and temper in recent months. I prefer the blunt, irascible version better but he is still my choice to lead the country.
I think this will be a very close election. In the end I think McCain will win based on the arithmetic of the electoral college, but Obama just may pull it out and even win the popular vote in a losing cause - ala Al Gore in 2000.
One thing I do know for certain is that no matter who wins the presidential election and no matter which party controls congress, the Republic will survive so I don't lose sleep worrying about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
