Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2004 that the predominance of U.S. power in the world after the fall of the Soviet Union was a “staggering development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome.” Krauthammer and his fellow neoconservatives famously concluded from this disparity in power that the United States needed to adopt an aggressive foreign policy agenda to enhance and continue its dominance in the “New American Century.”
This conclusion was the wrong lesson from history and from any reasonable and compassionate view of the desirable future arc of humanity. Rather than consolidate and expand U.S. power in the 21st century, with a mix of military, economic and cultural coercion — the neocon strategy — the United States should instead seize what is still our unique unipolar moment and work toward a truly multilateral and multipolar world.
The last two centuries have been dominated by one nation — the hegemon, which comes from the Greek for “leader.” Britain was the first global hegemon, and indeed the “sun never set on the British empire.” Britain’s dominance was fueled, literally, by coal, which allowed the industrial revolution to work its magic first in Britain. This led to great economic might, which was translated into military might. With a sense of cultural superiority, the “White Man’s Burden,” the British empire was ruthless in its domination of areas of the world as far-flung as North America, India, Jamaica, Gibraltar and Australia. Britain at its peak, however, never comprised more than 10 percent of the global economy.
The United States, fueled by coal and oil, which was first found in Titusville, Pa., in 1859, an expansive and ever-growing territory that spanned a whole continent, and a sense of “American exceptionalism,” was the successor to the British empire, reaching 19 percent of global economic output in 1913, at the verge of World War I, and 35 percent at the height of World War II. The United States is now about 20 percent of the global economy, its share shrinking as other nations grow rapidly. The United States’ historical wealth of oil, coal and natural gas allowed it to grow to such a dominant economic and military position that it is truly deserving of being called an empire.
See Noozhawk for the rest of this piece.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Am Embarrassment of Riches
Renewable energy is taking off in many places around the world. Growth rates of 30-50% in wind and solar have been the norm for the last decade in the US and around the world. Unfortunately, California has been stuck in neutral when it comes to wholesale renewables, relinquishing its early lead in the global renewable energy race.
The nations that have led the way on renewable energy in the last decade have used robust “feed-in tariffs” to create entire new industries. The litany is familiar to those in the renewable energy business: Germany, Italy, Spain, Ontario (a province in Canada) and now China. These five regions have all seen growth go from low levels to record levels practically overnight right after they started requiring that utilities buy power at a set price from third party developers of wind, solar and other renewables.
A sixth jurisdiction is less well-known: California. But not the California we live in now. Rather, the California that created a robust feed-in tariff in the 1980s under the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). Under PURPA, California faced an “embarrassment of riches” in terms of renewable energy projects coming online, as the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) described it at the time.
The large majority of wind and solar projects online today in California came online in the 1980s and 1990s under PURPA. Since PURPA was effectively gutted in the early 1990s, due to declining fossil fuel prices and tax policy changes, California has seen very little wholesale renewable energy come online. The current system, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107), started in 2003 and has resulted in a tiny amount of new renewable energy development since then. All three of California’s big investor-owned utilities will fail to meet the current 20% by 2010 mandate for renewables and have, in fact, slid backwards in terms of their renewable energy percentages since the start of this policy
See here for the rest of this article.
The nations that have led the way on renewable energy in the last decade have used robust “feed-in tariffs” to create entire new industries. The litany is familiar to those in the renewable energy business: Germany, Italy, Spain, Ontario (a province in Canada) and now China. These five regions have all seen growth go from low levels to record levels practically overnight right after they started requiring that utilities buy power at a set price from third party developers of wind, solar and other renewables.
A sixth jurisdiction is less well-known: California. But not the California we live in now. Rather, the California that created a robust feed-in tariff in the 1980s under the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). Under PURPA, California faced an “embarrassment of riches” in terms of renewable energy projects coming online, as the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) described it at the time.
The large majority of wind and solar projects online today in California came online in the 1980s and 1990s under PURPA. Since PURPA was effectively gutted in the early 1990s, due to declining fossil fuel prices and tax policy changes, California has seen very little wholesale renewable energy come online. The current system, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107), started in 2003 and has resulted in a tiny amount of new renewable energy development since then. All three of California’s big investor-owned utilities will fail to meet the current 20% by 2010 mandate for renewables and have, in fact, slid backwards in terms of their renewable energy percentages since the start of this policy
See here for the rest of this article.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Debate That Will Shape America's Future
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, the Massey, West Virginia coal mine accident, the Tennessee coal ash disaster in 2008, the BP oil refinery disaster in Texas in 2006, and countless other fossil fuel disasters are finally having an effect on public opinion. And the sting of record prices from 2008 is still in the recent memory of American consumers. Fully 2/3 of Americans believe Congress needs to make our country's energy needs a top priority.
Recent polls have found, however, that a shrinking portion of America believes that climate change is a human-caused problem or that we need to take serious action to mitigate climate change. A May, 2010, poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that only 32% of Americans thought that climate change should be a “top priority” for Congress (see chart, below).
This is the debate, revolving around energy and climate change, that will define America’s future. It is not the only debate that will do so, but I believe it is the most important debate we will have over the coming decades.
Read the rest at www.renewableenergyworld.com
Recent polls have found, however, that a shrinking portion of America believes that climate change is a human-caused problem or that we need to take serious action to mitigate climate change. A May, 2010, poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that only 32% of Americans thought that climate change should be a “top priority” for Congress (see chart, below).
This is the debate, revolving around energy and climate change, that will define America’s future. It is not the only debate that will do so, but I believe it is the most important debate we will have over the coming decades.
Read the rest at www.renewableenergyworld.com
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Dan Dennett Is a Panpsychist
Daniel Dennett is a panpsychist. He wouldn’t admit it in public, and he might not even realize it. Yet Dennett, one of the foremost materialists in the early part of the 21st century, advocates views regarding consciousness, biology, and philosophy that unavoidably lead to that most ridiculous of philosophical views: that all things have some degree of consciousness, otherwise known as panpsychism.
For those who don’t know, Dan Dennett is a professor of philosophy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. I had the good fortune of meeting Dennett recently and found that he is in fact a very pleasant man, courteous, and with a great sense of humor.
Dennett has written numerous books, including, most recently, Breaking the Spell, an anti-religion screed that places him firmly among the “new atheists” school of thought. The new atheists, which include Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, take as their primary target the traditional view of God as a creator and patriarch who exercises an ongoing role in his creation. This traditional view, known as theism, is quite hard to defend for anyone who has scientific or philosophical training. But Dennett and the rest of the new atheists go too far, in my view, in rejecting most notions of divinity as part and parcel of their rejection of traditional religion.
See the rest of this piece here.
For those who don’t know, Dan Dennett is a professor of philosophy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. I had the good fortune of meeting Dennett recently and found that he is in fact a very pleasant man, courteous, and with a great sense of humor.
Dennett has written numerous books, including, most recently, Breaking the Spell, an anti-religion screed that places him firmly among the “new atheists” school of thought. The new atheists, which include Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, take as their primary target the traditional view of God as a creator and patriarch who exercises an ongoing role in his creation. This traditional view, known as theism, is quite hard to defend for anyone who has scientific or philosophical training. But Dennett and the rest of the new atheists go too far, in my view, in rejecting most notions of divinity as part and parcel of their rejection of traditional religion.
See the rest of this piece here.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Exotics and the March of Technology
And now for the good news…. Those of you who read my columns may have noticed that while I'm generally optimistic I do tend to worry a lot about the big scary issues. In this piece I'm going to take a break from worrying and indulge in some unfettered technophilia.
Like most Gen X males, I’m into my gadgets. I follow new technologies pretty closely and when I can afford it I indulge in some cool toys like the latest smartphone or computer, etc. In the renewable energy field, there are a number of cool gadgets either already here or in development that should give us all some real hope for the future — a class of renewable energy technologies I call “exotics.”
The key trend for exotics is the improvement of information technology and its associated computing power. Moore’s Law — the rule that computing power doubles about every two years — is akin to magic when we ponder the fact that in the 60 years since Moore’s Law was formulated we have increased computing power by a factor of one trillion (2 to the 30th power)! This kind of computing power allows for an increasing control over our environment, or, at least, important parts of it. And this is just what the new exotics do.
Read the rest at Renewable Energy World
Like most Gen X males, I’m into my gadgets. I follow new technologies pretty closely and when I can afford it I indulge in some cool toys like the latest smartphone or computer, etc. In the renewable energy field, there are a number of cool gadgets either already here or in development that should give us all some real hope for the future — a class of renewable energy technologies I call “exotics.”
The key trend for exotics is the improvement of information technology and its associated computing power. Moore’s Law — the rule that computing power doubles about every two years — is akin to magic when we ponder the fact that in the 60 years since Moore’s Law was formulated we have increased computing power by a factor of one trillion (2 to the 30th power)! This kind of computing power allows for an increasing control over our environment, or, at least, important parts of it. And this is just what the new exotics do.
Read the rest at Renewable Energy World
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Was Jesus a Hindu?
A recent piece I wrote on Cameron's new movie, Avatar, inspired an indignant response from a reader, decrying my suggestion that Christ's teachings are compatible with the idea that we are all, each of us, God. Rather than write a full response here now, I'm going to be a little lazy and link to someone else who wrote a great response. And see below for more from Alan Watts, who inspired the below writer's thoughts.
Chris Watson's thoughts on John: 10.
Alan Watts was an amazing teacher and scholar. See here for one of his many very illuminating lectures. And check iTunes podcasts for more of Alan Watts.
Chris Watson's thoughts on John: 10.
Alan Watts was an amazing teacher and scholar. See here for one of his many very illuminating lectures. And check iTunes podcasts for more of Alan Watts.
Is the Magically Deflating Oil Price All About Speculation?
I wrote this piece in 2009 when oil prices were very low. As oil prices continue to rise - perhaps back to their historic highs in mid-2008 - it's worth pondering these thoughts again. I think prices will in fact rise far higher than the 2008 levels by 2012 or so, but the timing depends very much on the timing of the recovery of the global economy. The bottomline is that the structural problems in the global oil supply system are still there, just masked by the global recession.
Question: Are speculators and Enron ex-employees behind oil price turbulence, as 60 Minutes recently asserted? Answer: No.
That line alone would be a tad short for an op-ed, so let me explain. 60 Minutes, the most popular and respected newsmagazine on television, devoted a segment on January 11 to dramatically declining oil prices. The show gave airtime to many commentators, all of whom argued strongly that the key factor in the run up of oil prices in the first half of 2008, and the precipitous decline since then, was oil market speculation. There was even a brief discussion of Enron's erstwhile employees and their continuing role in energy markets. The implication was that there may yet turn out to be some malfeasance in the oil price gyrations over the last few years.
60 Minutes opened the piece with a disclaimer about the complexity of the forces behind oil price movements. But then the show spent 15 minutes painting a very one-sided story about the reasons for oil price movements, with not a single dissenting view presented.
I agree that oil markets are highly complex. And I agree that at this point literally no one knows the full answer as to why markets have been on such a wild ride. But the sketch provided by 60 Minutes is only half the story, at best. The more complete analysis takes into account the fact that prices have been driven as much by supply and demand, and the perception of supply and demand, as by speculation. I'll unpack this statement below.
Read the rest at Energy Pulse.
Question: Are speculators and Enron ex-employees behind oil price turbulence, as 60 Minutes recently asserted? Answer: No.
That line alone would be a tad short for an op-ed, so let me explain. 60 Minutes, the most popular and respected newsmagazine on television, devoted a segment on January 11 to dramatically declining oil prices. The show gave airtime to many commentators, all of whom argued strongly that the key factor in the run up of oil prices in the first half of 2008, and the precipitous decline since then, was oil market speculation. There was even a brief discussion of Enron's erstwhile employees and their continuing role in energy markets. The implication was that there may yet turn out to be some malfeasance in the oil price gyrations over the last few years.
60 Minutes opened the piece with a disclaimer about the complexity of the forces behind oil price movements. But then the show spent 15 minutes painting a very one-sided story about the reasons for oil price movements, with not a single dissenting view presented.
I agree that oil markets are highly complex. And I agree that at this point literally no one knows the full answer as to why markets have been on such a wild ride. But the sketch provided by 60 Minutes is only half the story, at best. The more complete analysis takes into account the fact that prices have been driven as much by supply and demand, and the perception of supply and demand, as by speculation. I'll unpack this statement below.
Read the rest at Energy Pulse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)