Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Life In A Post-Global Warming World

In the aftermath of the foreseeable death of the Antrhopogenic Global Warming scare, we shall be experiencing life in a new world. What then? And of course, by that question, I mean after hunting down Al Gore and feeding him to the polar bears?

I was a bit horrified to see Instapundit's answer to that question:

Nothing. At least, in my opinion, we should continue to try to minimize the use of fossil fuels regardless. Burning coal and oil is filthy, and they’re more valuable as chemical feedstocks anyway. We should be building nuclear plants and pursuing efficiencies in the shorter term, while working on better solar (including orbital solar), wind, etc. power supplies for the longer term. That doesn’t mean “hairshirt” environmentalism, where the goal is for neo-puritans to denounce people for immorality and trumpet their own superiority. It just means good sense.

I still think that we are headed towards the mother of all energy problems if we "do nothing" and follow the current path laid out by Obama. He is warring on coal - something that provides over 50% of our electricity, and he is refusing permits that would allow us to exploit our other natural resources - oil, oil shale and natural gas. We are already relying on foreign oil to meet 70% of our daily needs, and it will only get worse as we come out of this recession. Alternative energy cannot possibly supplant fossil fuels on a cost efficient basis in the forseeable future, and we will be cutting our own throats if we don't soon go after our own natural resources. What I am suggesting is not in place of "building nuclear plants and pursuing efficiencies in the shorter term," but rather insuring that we are not devestated by an otherwise certain spike in energy costs during the period it will take to develop the technologies for out next generation of energy.

1 comment:

OBloodyHell said...

Most of the true issues (waste is NOT one of those) behind nukes can and should be addressed by encouraging the development of a standardized reactor design with fail-resistant safety measures for a wide range of situations, then licensing the tech to not less than two different producers (encouraging competition). Such a design can be both compact and largely modular and could result in an actual industry for which America would receive considerable payments. Such designs, by being terrorist-resistant should also be inherently disaster-resistant, as well, and vice-versa. If an earthquake and a terrorist can't breach the shielding, then pretty much nothing else should be able to, either.