The Real Danger of "Climategate"
"Climategate" was the obsession of the cable news shows this weekend, as pundits analyzed the snarky e-mails from prominent climate scientists more intent on stamping out opposing views than transparently reporting their own results. With the Copenhagen conference opening today, a lot of the public debate now is focusing on trust. Do we have to add scientists to the list now? Americans are deeply skeptical about government and politicians. Business leaders and the media don’t enjoy much public confidence either. One of the most troubling results of the scandal is likely to be wider skepticism about scientists’ truthfulness.
But an even worse result would be if it led the public to believe that the United States can stick with our current energy policies and prosper over the long run. We’re massively dependent on a very limited number of fuels, and virtually every vehicle in the country runs on some form of oil. At most, the United States has a small sliver of the world’s remaining oil reserves (only about 2 or 3 percent according to BP), and there’s more competition for that from countries like India and China.
International energy experts predict the world will need much more energy as people in developing countries begin rising out of poverty -- 40 percent more in just the next two decades. They say we’ll need five times as much electricity as we use now. The International Energy Agency calls these global trends "unsustainable," regardless of whether they are examined based on economics, the environment, or global energy security.
Assuming global warming is the only energy challenge we face -- or that we can stick with the status quo as long as there’s even a shadow of a doubt about it from any quarter -- is a dangerous, self-destructive fantasy. We just can’t afford the complacency and gridlock it spawns.
Stay up to speed on the issues with our updates on Copenhagen, on our Twitter feed (@TheEnergyBook) as well as here at PublicAgenda.org, the energy book mini-site WhoTurnedOutTheLights.org and the Citizen's Survival Kit guide to climate change.
Tags: 
Jean, I heard you on WASH FM in D.C. this past Sunday. I would like to ask you two questions:
1. If you buy into the new Socialist religion of the global warming hoax, and advocate the development of energy sources that do not emit C02 (which is not a pollutant by the way; we all exhale it), then why don't you or any of the "Experts" ever speak about nuclear energy as a solution? France for instance, produces about 85% of its power from nuke plants. I have noticed that liberals will not talk about nuclear at all.
2. If you seriously believe that we need to free ourselves from imported oil, (most of which comes from Canada and Mexico, with Saudia Arabia being only number 4 on the list of U.S. import sources), then why won't you speak about drilling for our own vast oil reserves so we CAN be independent? Chile, China, and Venezuela are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for oil that we should be retrieving; why is it okay that they do this but we can't.
Jean, I heard you on WASH FM in D.C. on Sunday speaking about your book and global warming in general.
I have two questions I would like to ask you.
1. People who buy into the Socialist religion of the man-made global warming hoax, and believe that we need to find alternate energy sources that do not produce Carbon Dioxide, never want to talk about nuclear energy, why is this? The French produce 85% of their energy from nuclear, why are you opposed to that here in the U.S.?
2. So called Environmentalists talk about energy independence, but will not discuss development of our own resources. While it's true we are dependent on foreign oil, most of it comes from Canada, with Mexico being second. Saudia Arabia is number 4 on the list, not number one as opponents of U.S. drilling would have us believe. Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, and China are all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, while Environmentalist wackos in the U.S. block every attempt to develop these resources for our use. Why is this? Why do you spout energy independence but block every effort to achieve it?
What is your real agenda?
Thanks for your comments. We do believe that nuclear power is something Americans need to think about in responding to the country's energy challenge. In fact, we devote a whole chapter to it in Who Turned Out the Lights and include the idea of having a "fast track" for approving nuclear plants as one of the ideas "from the left, right and center" highlighted in the book.
As for more drilling, again we list the idea of drilling for more oil and natural gas here in the U.S. as one of more than a dozen proposals Americans should think about, and we point out repeatedly that the United States is going to need fossil fuels like oil and natural for a long time to come. The only glitch we think people need to be aware of is that the United States only has about 2.4 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Most are in countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Iran (http://www.publicagenda.org/whoturnedoutthelights/world-oil-reserves).
Jean Johnson
I wouldn't be so eager to accept the "facts" about proven oil reserves from advocacy groups like Public Agenda. Estimates of proven oil reserves and oil consumption are all over the map http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4681935.stm. I don't trust the "US has only 2.4 percent of known oil reserves".
Let's stop living in a fantasy world where alternate energy sources are "just around the corner" -- they are not. It will take years to develop alternatives that are technologically and economically comparable to nuclear, coal, oil, and gas.
We need to use the actual energy sources that we know work. Yes, we should develop nuclear energy for electricity generation (if only the environmentalists will let us. Gosh, if France can do it, why can't we?). Let's use the the oil and gas we have here in the US now rather than let is sit in the ground. Let's continue to use coal -- which we have in abundance.
Rather than spend all our money on risky experimental alternate energy technologies that may never pan out, let's spend at least some of our money increasing gas mileage of our cars to extend the supplies of US oil, retrofitting coal plants with scrubbers that can remove 90% of sulfur and other pollutants, and on building capabilities to recycle nuclear fuel to reduce waste disposal concerns (again, just like France does).
Copenhagen's Real Agenda
The 'Climategate' scandal seems to have added fuel to the fire. The conference organizers realize
they have to ram their agenda through before it's too late. Even the conference president
acknowledged this in her opening remarks. Connie Hedegaard, former Danish Climate and
Energy Minister, said, "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new
and better one. If we ever do." That sounds a lot like US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
announcing at the European Union that our government was taking advantage of the global
economic crisis to ram home massive changes under the guise of responding to the emergency.
She actually said, "Never waste a good crisis."
If the Administration gets its way, we'll see massive increases in the cost of all fossil fuel energy.
It's an open secret that the government wants the price of gasoline to hit $8.00 per gallon. That,
in turn, will drive the price of everything that requires energy, including manufacturing, agriculture,
transportation, heating and cooling, through the roof. Copenhagen is all about controlling the
world's energy sources, then being able to dictate how that energy will be distributed
-- and taxed. Many strategically-placed individuals (Al Gore and George Soros come to mind),
government officials, political parties (take a guess), corporations (GE is leading the pack), and
science institutions and universities (as well as the scientists who receive huge government grants
for coming up with the goods) will grow massively wealthy as a result. But, trust me, none of it
will filter down to you and me. In fact, we'll be the ones paying the new taxes to enrich these
parties and many of the 'underdeveloped' countries in the world.
You know, it's ironic that some of the underdeveloped nations in Africa that depend on
income from their oil sales will be hurt by the drive to eliminate fossil fuels as an energy
source. I suppose that's why the 'developed' countries will be expected to replace that
lost income. It's sort of like the Obama Administration demanding that Israel freeze
settlement construction in the West Bank. A freeze puts thousands of Palestinians out of
work in the construction business. Come to think of it, the Administration's policies will
do the same thing right here in America. At least they're consistent!
We are now witnessing in "Hopenhagen" is perhaps the most concrete step toward a
one-world bureaucratic regime in recent history. And it could reduce some of the
world's most prosperous nations to the level of third world countries. To give our
President some bargaining clout in Copenhagen, the Environmental Protection Agency
this week declared 'greenhouse gases,' most notably carbon dioxide, a public health
hazard. This allows the EPA to regulate it -- read that 'tax it' and 'outlaw it' -- under the
Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court had ruled that the Administration had to go back to
Congress for that authority. No longer. This declaration by the EPA, just in time for
Copenhagen, is almost a criminal circumvention of the Constitution. The Agency has
already begun developing permit requirements for 'carbon dioxide pollution.' And I'm
sure those permits will cost a pretty penny.
The good news about all of this hidden news is that I am sure we will all be getting these
facts soon from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. When hell freezes over.
Post new comment