Politics, Crises and Reality
Posted on another blog, but useful here.
There are too many blog streams littered with conservatives and liberals noting irrelevant points and insulting each other and the candidates. By definition, half of the people in the US have double digit IQs. Why do so many of them populate these boards?
Sadly, this has now slopped over to a CAPS blog. This is a pile of crap, and is irrelevant to reality.
It doesn't matter who is elected. The next government (executive and legislature) are facing the greatest collective set of problems we've ever faced. I shan't list them. Read Alstry's "sky is falling" daily screed to see them all.
But Alstry is (overblown, screamingly, daily numbingly) correct. The consequence of this should be obvious. No administration is going to "change" this pile of doo-doo. It's a ten-twenty year job for intelligent, committed, supported leaders.
But politics is about the next fundraiser, the next campaign, the next election. There is no time nor power available to any elected official(s) in this political environment.
So what will happen? The "leaders" will respond to the inexorable pressures of our world and our economy by rushing from crisis to crisis, passing short-term legislation designed to show they are "doing something" for the "hard-working American family".
The vast majority of this short-term, ill-considered crap will do exactly nothing to solve the real challenges. Only REAL crisis will get anything useful done, when it may be too late to adjust to the real problems.
One simple but illustrative example. Can any informed person disagree with the fact that crude oil is finite and that demand (world-wide) is monotonically growing? If you disagree, you are not well-informed. Google "peak oil" and learn. It is the most important problem for the world. Go ahead, blow four or five hours learning.
Can any informed person disagree with the fact that sooner or later (probably sooner) the energy for transportation must come from somewhere else? Can any informed person disagree with the fact that the only big-time scalable source to fill this need is electricity? If you believe in ethanol or hydrogen fuel cells or natural gas or liquified coal, you are not informed. Google them and learn.
And can any informed person disagree with the fact that the only baseline grid scalable electricity source is nuclear? Coal, which we'll use plenty of, will not pass environmental muster. Natural gas for electricity is an absurd notion. It is far, far too valuable to burn.
Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Wonderful, well-meaning. Green. But nowhere near enough to fill a significant fraction of baseline grid needs. And certainly nowhere near enough to shoulder the burden of replacing fossil fuel for transportation.
This is one example of a massive problem we (and the world) are facing. What is needed? Shortcut==>rubberstamp applications to build plants with previously vetted/tested reactors. Government backed loans and liability insurance for the utilities building nuclear plants. Absolutely necessary.
Debate nuclear with me. But be very certain that I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
Will the politicos do what is required? No. They don't have the power. Will they when the cars run out of gas and the lights start flickering off? Probably. I hope it's not too late. Oh, and pray every night for A123 (the company).