Last Friday NASA lost a satellite whose mission was to study parameters affecting climate change when a Taurus XL rocket and its payload named “Glory” failed to reach orbit because the shroud encompassing the satellite failed to jettison. This was the second failure in a row for the Taurus rocket which is produced by Orbital Sciences Corporation; the first also resulted in the loss of an Earth science satellite in 2009. An investigation team has been formed, but according to Rush Limbaugh, there’s really no need. Rush knows exactly what happened. Liberal conspirators who feared that the two missions would provide data to prove that climate change is not being affected by burning oil, deliberately sabotaged the missions. Think I’m exaggerating? Watch the video here.
I’ve long been puzzled as to why climate change has turned into a liberal vs conservative issue. The preponderance of evidence shows that the Earth is getting warmer. Less clear is whether this is a natural cycle of the planet, or whether we are exacerbating it by burning hydrocarbons. Rush’s assertion that proof we are not causing climate change is because liberals say we are and they are all liars provides a clue. The biggest thing that Al Gore has done in his post vice presidential life is his awareness work on climate change. Gore is a liberal therefore a Rush disciple would conclude that we are not causing climate change because Gore must be wrong. Have we really become this simple minded as a nation? Afraid so.
The sad thing is that whether we are affecting climate or not, the best thing to do is to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons. Isn’t that something that liberals and conservatives should agree on? OK, let’s exclude any politician who is in the pockets of the oil companies, but shouldn’t this be an approach with bipartisan support? Before the term “climate change” came into vogue, there was air pollution, smog, and acid rain. I don’t remember any partisan disagreement on those conditions being bad. But one of the best reasons for reducing our dependence on oil is that this would be great for the US economy.
People in China, India, Taiwan, Mexico, etc , have a lower standard of living than we in America do, but technology has given those countries the ability to produce quality consumer products at lower costs than we can. That’s why virtually nothing in your closet was made in the USA. We make good airplanes, computer chips, pharmaceuticals, software, and as GM and Ford are proving, cars. We can’t compete with Asia in the production of well developed technologies (like TVs), but we are better than anyone else at creatively turning new technology into viable products. America needs to be on the front end of the technology train, and developing alternative energy sources offers that opportunity.
Wind, solar, and nuclear power won’t completely replace oil, but they don’t need to. Efficient coupling of renewable energy sources like wind turbines with fast starting aeroderivative gas turbine generators can provide cleaner energy and the ability to meet peak demands. Hybrid cars have carved out a niche in the US market and the Chevy Volt is an example of a high tech innovative US product. However, cheap gas prices will stifle development of these technologies because there won’t be enough incentive to the consumer. As heretical as it may sound, the recent spike in gas prices may be very good for our economy in the long run.
So why can’t both parties agree on a comprehensive energy policy that at the same time, cleans up our air, and provides a golden opportunity for American entrepreneurship? Unfortunately, politicians will have to think past the next election and long term planning hasn’t been our strong suit. Oh and stopping the name calling would help too.
No comments:
Post a Comment