Ever since Steven Den Beste retired his
word processor (actually it appears he’s thrown it out the window, run over
it with his car, and set it on fire), I’ve missed the sort of technical and
knowledgeable blogging that engineers are often good at.
“Engineer Poet” is that kind of writer and so I’m glad to have him guest-blogging
today at The Speculist.
Engineer Poet regularly blogs at Ergosphere.
-Stephen Gordon
Foreword: This piece is late for its purpose. I began writing
it in late August and had a first draft in the space of a few days, then I set
it down for a 3-week hiatus. When I came back to it I had great difficulty
getting to the next stage of refinement, and it barely changed through the end
of September and the whole month of October.
Ideally this piece should have been done no later than mid-October.
Energy issues are crucially important to the USA, and anything which might have
injected some reality-based discussion into the pre-election politics could
not have done anything but good. That opportunity is now gone, but I’m
hoping it can still be of benefit.
We’ve 2 got
a problem. A BIG problem. It’s a problem as big as the biggest monster
SUV, and as old as the Model T. It’s our dependence on oil. Not
only are the costs of oil depressing our economy
3 , the money we’re paying is feeding a
movement which is inimical to the United States and western civilization in
general. Even without that, we have still not fully dealt with the air
pollution produced when the oil is consumed.
It’s obvious to a great many people that we are already involved in a war.
Why not take the war beyond the spheres of military action and financial interdiction
and attack the problem at its source, and (since You Cannot Do Just One Thing)
a few others besides?
Specifying the problems and goals
Specifying the problems and goals
Suppose that the US decided to take the following as national security issues:
- Dependence on foreign (particularly middle-east) oil and vulnerability to
price shocks. - Decreasing availability of N. American natural gas and price spikes.
- Air pollution and its consequent health effects.
- Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The goals: Reduce the need for oil and gas to moderate prices and cut
the influence of their price on our economy, reduce pollution and cut atmospheric
CO2 contributions. (Whether or not the last is necessary or even desirable
is the subject of much debate, but the scientists are the most reliable guides
we have and they don’t seem to have changed their recommendations yet.)
Further suppose that the US went on a war footing with regard to these issues,
devoting about $100 billion per year initially. What would it buy, and
how fast could we see change?