I've got big plans to break down current proposed health care reform legislation and make it palatable to the average American, who would rather not wade through hundreds of pages of legalese... this, however, is still in the works. But I did want to set the stage for discussion on health care by bringing up a point that I feel is lost in the current debate taking place. Keep in mind that this is a moral argument, not a practical one.
Can we all step back a moment and look at our health care system with fresh eyes? I think that everyone - Democrat, Republican, independent, and apathetic alike - can manage this, but it truly does take a stretching of the imagination. It is exceedingly difficult to detach oneself from the constant media onslaught (both wanted and unwanted) that penetrates the psyche via television, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, and is then recycled via word-of-mouth.
But imagine that you had no preconceptions of how health care in this country should function... how would you set it up? Now, we don't live in a moralistic society, though some would like to pretend we do when it suits their political purposes (more on that later). So let us be practical in our aspirations for establishing our brand-new, first-ever health care system. Lets go with the assumption that at least a slight majority of Americans don't really trust the government (I think that's a safe bet) and that being a capitalistic, free-market economy, we're more comfortable with creating some private health insurance companies... Done.
These companies need workers, they have overhead to pay, and of course, they have to pay the medical bills for all their consumers. They hire some brilliant mathematicians and actuaries and find out what they need to charge their customers to stay financially viable. Sounds pretty reasonable to establish rates that will bring in at least a bit of profit.
So why is it that health insurance companies have, on average, increased premiums by 87% in the past six years, while profits from the 10 largest publicly-traded companies has risen 428% between 2000 and 2007. Why have the over 400 corporate mergers involving health insurance companies in the past 13 years, that have resulted in 94% of insurance markets becoming highly-concentrated (re: near monopoly), according to the American Medical Association, been allowed to take place? Mergers resulting in an anti-competitive marketplace where companies can thrive and shareholders can demand that profits continue to increase doesn't sound like free-market America.
So I ask, why is it that we allow insurance companies to be publicly traded at all? Stepping back to our newly-created health insurance company scenario, why can't this company function at a level where it earns steady, moderate profits? Why do we have to introduce investors to an industry that has the power decide between life and death? Why do we resist reforming a system that is set up to reward those who deny medical coverage to sick people? Shareholders in any company want to see employees cut costs and increase profits... cutting costs in the health insurance industry means killing human beings. Perhaps that seems like a harsh statement, but perhaps most of the people working at these companies are too far removed to truly grasp the consequences of their actions... Wendell Potter would agree.
An estimated 18,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance. And while that may not be the cause of death listed on their death certificate, it is certainly the reason. Living without health insurance is the socio-economic equivalent of living with the AIDS virus. No one dies of AIDS, they die because AIDS has so utterly destroyed their immune system that opportunistic infections, be they pneumonia, tuberculosis, any other number of ailments can kill them almost instantly. People without health insurance are some of the most vulnerable. When you know a simple visit to the dentist for a toothache, or a trip to the ER to have a dislocated shoulder properly set, is far beyond your means, you simply don't go.
This is why our health care system is as costly as it is. Anyone working in the health care field (and most people with a little common sense) will agree that preventative care is the cheapest, most efficient way to keep our country healthy. When 46 million people don't have that option, things get awfully expensive.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Its A Small World After All
So I've started this blog... My original idea was to write about what I was up to out here in Berkeley, CA so all my East Coast friends and family could keep track of my exploits (and hoping that I would be able to keep from having to repeat the same stories over and over). Before I even started writing though, I realized that as a topic, my day-to-day life in Berkeley is going to be a pretty boring read, and probably even more dreadful to write about. So I'm going to refrain from chronicling my life out here.
There will be a sampling of life in Berkeley and my adjustment to the West Coast, but I'm going to stick mostly to public health issues, two of the hot items right now being H1N1 (one of the few things I can call myself an expert on) and health care reform (currently honing my expertise).
This first post will refrain from health issues to make one point: despite being a tiny dysfunctional speck of planet earth, Rhode Island seems to reach even the West Coast with relative ease, I'll explain...
Instance 1: My thankfully uneventful plane trip was made at least slightly interesting by the commonalities I discovered between myself and the middle-aged couple sitting to my right on board our Boeing 757 from Boston to San Francisco. Carol happened to ask if I was 'coming or going', I replied that I was going... for quite some time... and explained how I was starting an MPH degree at UC Berkeley. Upon hearing that I attended URI, Carol and her husband Neil inquired if I knew Professor Manchester... "well there is no professor Manchester at URI [to my knowledge] but I know a Margaret Manchester that teaches at Providence College," I replied, "and she happens to be a close family friend." 'Yes, thats it! We know the Frees... I teach with Scott at Berkley [School of Music]' replied Neil. The Frees lived next-door to the Manchesters for years as I was growing up in Barrington, RI, and both families were close friends of my own family, as most of us kids were around the same age. The Olmsteads (Neil and Carol) had been to the same beach houses in the summer and met many of the same folks I knew as I was growing up. I hope they enjoyed their vacation in San Francisco.
Instance 2: After arriving in Berkeley and moving into my apartment on Tuesday (Aug 18th), my roommates and I split up to hit all the yard sales in Berkeley that Saturday. Alex and I took his Subaru wagon around south Berkeley, while Bobby and Doug took the north. After getting a 'New England Discount' on a set of chairs for our dining room from a woman wearing a UMass sweatshirt (Alex is from Western Mass), our second stop was looking much less interesting. We did however find a functioning iron for $1, so I we happily made the purchase from the couple staffing the yard sale. When they inquired where we were from (I think my Rhode Island Ultimate sweatshirt gave it away) and I responded with 'Rhode Island'. They happily informed me that they too, were both from the Ocean State. Upon further discussion I found that Janet had worked as an RN at Rhode Island Hospital for quite some time (and of course knew a couple colleagues of mine at the RI Dept of Health) and was now the immunization coordinator for the city of Berkeley. When I informed her of my concentration at Cal in Infectious Disease, and my work on H1N1 back in Rhode Island, she gave me her business card. I'm excited to put it to use.
[Update: I'm currently in conversation with Janet working the logistics of having the Association of Public Health Infectious Disease Students (APHIDS) help staff flu vaccination clinics]
Instance 3: Three days later I was attending the 'Center for Public Health Practice' leadership day prior to the start of class. As they were busy pumping us full of accolades and promises of the many opportunities that lay ahead of us, I asked the other students of the table I was sitting at where they were from... Virginia, California, North Carolina...RHODE ISLAND!? I had certainly expected myself to be the only one at my table (indeed, in the whole auditorium) to be uttering that state name. It turns out the Divya, a 1st year Epidemiology MPH student, graduated from East Greenwich high school the same year that I graduated from Barrington High. She had been my college roommate's square dancing partner in Jr. High, she knew a co-worker of mine from the kayak shop in Wickford, and knew my friend Sushil (now a law student here at Cal) and highschool classmate Nick Bauer from when they attended Brown University. I had wondered if my immediate high-five to her for both being from RI was a little over the top, but apparently she has just as much pride in our tiny state as I do. The only people a bit perplexed were the rest of the students at our table... I guess you don't get quite as excited when you meet someone else from North Carolina.
Instance 4: Last but not least is Andrew, the sandwich shop counter attendant where Divya and I went to get lunch between classes. He happened to comment ('hey, nice shirt') on the Narragansett Little League t-shirt I was wearing, obtained from when Maria worked at their Parks and Recreation department. I was of course confused, because it is not a nice shirt. Seeing my confusion, he explained that he graduated from Narragansett High in 2000. Of course he knew both Toby Johnson and Carris Transue, Narragansett natives whom I worked with at summer camp.
It is indeed a small world. The one-degree-of-separation rule holds strong for Rhode Islanders, even ones transplanted to the West Coast. Every RI native I've met has had more than one mutual aquaintence. I take it as a sign that I'm on the right path...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Where to Find $12,000,000?
With URI dealing with a $12 million reduction in state funding this fiscal year, a problem compounded by rising energy costs and the constant threat of further budget cuts as the state of Rhode Island battles an estimated ~$350 million deficit this year, everyone at the university has been forced to find ways to cut costs. Whether it's improving facilities to make them more energy efficient, raising tuition, or the unfortunate loss of several of our varsity athletic programs, URI's administration is being forced to 'do more with less' at a time when our school has grown at an unprecedented rate.
Having been at URI for several years and having also worked for a state office this summer, I've seen firsthand how much our state's budget crisis has affected state workers and institutions across the board. I could rant all day about how Governor Carcieri should be doused in water and beaten with a sock full of flour for failing to recognize the potential that URI has to generate revenue for the state, and failing to make the intelligent investments in higher education that nearly every other state in our nation sees as absolutely critical. But instead, I decided to come up with a few creative solutions of how URI could potentially regain some of those lost millions...
- We name academic buildings and residence halls after donors right? I propose we sell the rights to name each individual dorm room on campus for a donation of $500. I'd love to remind anyone living in 312 Merrow that it was once my room, back when cockroaches were the problem as opposed to being tripled up.
- And while we're on the topic of selling naming rights, why not attract corporate sponsors for each college or academic department? The Exxon/Mobil College of Environment and Life Sciences... The Frito Lay Nutrition & Food Sciences Department... the list could go on and the potential for irony seems endless.
- URI 101 classes have mandatory community service... why not turn that community service into actual hard-labor? University College could pimp out all those freshman as cheap labor to landscapers, construction companies, and all those nearby sod farms at harvest time.
- If parking services really wants to strike fear into the hearts of commuters, simply put a little clause in the fine print of all parking sticker purchases that gives URI the right to auction off any towed cars... at the very least freshman would stop parking in the commuter lots.
- Athletics was forced into the position of having to cut men's tennis, men's swimming & diving, field hockey, and gymnastics... Maybe we could afford to retain some of those teams if we started imposing fines on any unsuccessful athletics programs that we still have left.
- Speaking of athletics, maybe we could actually make use of the Ryan Center to draw in some revenue... Based on the fact that I'm charged a substantial 'Ryan Center Fee' every semester on my school bill for a facility I've only been in a handful of times, I'd say its not currently a very successful economic venture.
- URI could also take a page from all the airlines' playbook and start adding obnoxious up-charges on any minor convenience... you want to use a mouse with that desktop at the computer lab? $2... Want to access the on-campus wireless? $0.10/min... You want a second-helping at Hope? That'll be a $3 charge...
- And lastly, URI should tap its most valuable resource... its students. I propose that any URI graduates making over $80,000/year be subject to a hefty annual royalty payable to their alma mater. After all, URI made them what they are today, right?
As students have undoubtedly been reminded, while we can't get rid of Gov. Carcieri until 2010, there's plenty of local representatives that you can hold accountable for allowing the millions to flow out of URI's budget. The voter registration deadline for Rhode Island is October 4th, and since students at URI live here the majority of the year, regardless of where they're from, they can register to vote in Kingston (or Narragansett if you live off-campus).
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Green Monster: The Slow Start
Well its been two months since I moved into my new home in Narragansett, RI, and I, of course, haven't made the progress in my efforts to 'go green' that I would have liked to have made by this point. Nevertheless, the experiment continues on sluggishly, and I suppose I will at least document my minor successes...
My 5-bedroom home currently houses seven permanent residents. My younger sister Bethany (a senior communications major at URI and overworked lifeguard), my friend Christina (a 5th year elementary education major), and myself (a political scientist doing post-bach work in biology, in hopes of escaping to a graduate school of public health) are residing there for the year (June 1, 2008 - May 31, 2009). We are joined in our lease for the summer by Tom and Claire, who will be replaced by Graeme and Kayla on September 1st. The catch is that China revoked Graeme's student visa earlier than expected as part of their Olympic Crackdown, so now he lives on the couch. Maarten lives in Claire's room and pays the electric bill.
So far I've paid little attention to house energy costs, as there are generally fewer costs in summer, with only electricity and hot water to pay for. The fact that our windows are all of the horitzonal (rather than vertical) sliding variety, makes installing any air conditioners impossible. While sometimes distressing, I suppose it is an inescapable way to reduce our carbon footprint.
My biggest initial goals were in the realm of transportation and recycling, and I'm pleased to report that I haven't totally failed in either. With gas at $4/gallon, I estimated that it would cost me a minimum of $70 per week to commute from Narragansett to my job at the RI Dept. of Health in Providence. To avoid this unpleasant scenario I've taken the bus to work every day this summer, and astounded that I haven't missed it once. For $11.50 (student rate) I can obtain a 15-ride pass from RIPTA. Not a bad deal when a ticket costs $1.75 each way at the standard price.
As for recycling, I have to say I'm pleased with our efforts, but there's always room for improvement. Its inevitable that items which can be recycled are thrown away because no one realizes they actually are recyclable (case in point: Dunkin Donuts iced coffee cups). Aside from the occasional recyclable being tossed in the trash, we've done a decent job of recycling cans, bottles, cardboard, plastic bags, and so forth. With the amount of beer cans that get emptied here, it would be a travesty to do otherwise.
My latest 'green' development was the procurment of a vintage Univega 10-Speed bicycle from someone's trash heap. While rust seems to be a persistent feature on both the frame and most of the components, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, and so I've made plans to refurbish it and turn it into my very own fixed-gear bike, which I'm hoping I won't injure myself terribly on while getting accustomed to it. I'll detail my efforts in bike recycling in my next post once I can get my hands on a camera to snap a few photos with.
My 5-bedroom home currently houses seven permanent residents. My younger sister Bethany (a senior communications major at URI and overworked lifeguard), my friend Christina (a 5th year elementary education major), and myself (a political scientist doing post-bach work in biology, in hopes of escaping to a graduate school of public health) are residing there for the year (June 1, 2008 - May 31, 2009). We are joined in our lease for the summer by Tom and Claire, who will be replaced by Graeme and Kayla on September 1st. The catch is that China revoked Graeme's student visa earlier than expected as part of their Olympic Crackdown, so now he lives on the couch. Maarten lives in Claire's room and pays the electric bill.
So far I've paid little attention to house energy costs, as there are generally fewer costs in summer, with only electricity and hot water to pay for. The fact that our windows are all of the horitzonal (rather than vertical) sliding variety, makes installing any air conditioners impossible. While sometimes distressing, I suppose it is an inescapable way to reduce our carbon footprint.
My biggest initial goals were in the realm of transportation and recycling, and I'm pleased to report that I haven't totally failed in either. With gas at $4/gallon, I estimated that it would cost me a minimum of $70 per week to commute from Narragansett to my job at the RI Dept. of Health in Providence. To avoid this unpleasant scenario I've taken the bus to work every day this summer, and astounded that I haven't missed it once. For $11.50 (student rate) I can obtain a 15-ride pass from RIPTA. Not a bad deal when a ticket costs $1.75 each way at the standard price.
As for recycling, I have to say I'm pleased with our efforts, but there's always room for improvement. Its inevitable that items which can be recycled are thrown away because no one realizes they actually are recyclable (case in point: Dunkin Donuts iced coffee cups). Aside from the occasional recyclable being tossed in the trash, we've done a decent job of recycling cans, bottles, cardboard, plastic bags, and so forth. With the amount of beer cans that get emptied here, it would be a travesty to do otherwise.
My latest 'green' development was the procurment of a vintage Univega 10-Speed bicycle from someone's trash heap. While rust seems to be a persistent feature on both the frame and most of the components, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, and so I've made plans to refurbish it and turn it into my very own fixed-gear bike, which I'm hoping I won't injure myself terribly on while getting accustomed to it. I'll detail my efforts in bike recycling in my next post once I can get my hands on a camera to snap a few photos with.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Benefits of Specialization
Human beings figured out long ago that if you do something well, stick to it and you will reap the benefits. This is the basic concept of specialization. It applies to so many aspects of the human existence, from manufacturing cars to creating music, that it is a natural, ingrained concept for most. The same goes for writing, and most blogs (but not this one) in particular are a great example of this. Focus on a topic, build readership based on your expertise with that topic, and presto! You've got yourself a successful little piece of the information superhighway.
When I started this blog, I envisioned it as nothing more than a bucket into which I could spew a multitude of thoughts and ideas. There those ideas would sit, waiting to be fished from the bucket should they prove to have any merit. But, in an effort to write more often, as well as more consistently, I'm going to attempt to streamline the topics I choose.
At the moment I'm thinking these might work...
When I started this blog, I envisioned it as nothing more than a bucket into which I could spew a multitude of thoughts and ideas. There those ideas would sit, waiting to be fished from the bucket should they prove to have any merit. But, in an effort to write more often, as well as more consistently, I'm going to attempt to streamline the topics I choose.
At the moment I'm thinking these might work...
- 'The Green Monster' - Documentation of my efforts to be more environmentally conscious
- 'Super Tuesday' - Once-a-week ramblings on 'Election 2008' & domestic politics
- 'Precession' - Musings on international politics & global affairs
- 'Three Fourteen' - For my love of technology & theoretical physics
- 'The Ivory Hut' - Academia-related nonsense
- 'The Road to Nowhere' - Travel writing
- 'Its a Sport' - Ultimate... 'nuff said
- 'How 'Bout Them Apples?' - Boston Sports
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Super Tuesday: Kinetic America, Potential Energy
In the face of $4.00 per gallon gasoline prices, the American public has been inundated with calls from various political, economic, and social sector figures, each with plans and ideas to solve America’s energy crisis. Whether it has been John McCain and George W. Bush’s call for the lifting of the Federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling, Al Gore’s plea to switch to carbon-free electricity production within the next decade, or any of the other myriad plans being advocated to the public, it is quite obvious that our energy production and consumption habits must change, and they must change quickly.
Unfortunately the topic of energy reform has become so politicized that it is difficult for most citizens too see through the political posturing, the partisan blame game, and the half-truths created by the energy industry. There are a variety of alternative energy sources that, used in conjunction, can greatly reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, and petroleum in general.
While there are certainly untapped oil reserves in the U.S., as well as abroad, it is a fact that the vast majority of the largest oil fields have already been discovered and are currently being utilized. Only smaller and smaller oil fields are left to be found and exploited, with the cost of building the infrastructure to pump the oil from these fields rising as the reserves become smaller and smaller. Barring a monumental global investment in building more pumps and refineries, it is likely that 2005 was the year of peak global oil production - output has fallen every year since, as a result of the aforementioned factors.
Several politicians, Bush and McCain being the most prominent, have advocated lifting the Federal ban on offshore oil drilling, as well as the restrictions on speculation in Alaska’s ANWR. In an election year, such a proposal must be met with skepticism. While many politicians would like to make Americans believe that oil is sitting on our doorstep, just waiting to be pumped from the Earth, the matter is far more complex.
There are two Federal moratoriums on offshore drilling that currently prevent oil companies from accessing what the Department of the Interior estimates to be roughly 19 billion barrels off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. The first moratorium was enacted by Congress in 1981 and must be renewed every year as part of the Interior Department spending bill to stay in effect. The second moratorium was imposed by George H.W. Bush in 1991 after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. This executive moratorium was recently lifted by George W. Bush through a presidential order.
Many Republicans are pushing for a vote to lift the Congressional moratorium as well, while Democrats are advocating a plan that would push oil companies to explore much of the land (and sea) that they are already leasing from the government, but have yet to tap into. Even if a Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted, any new exploration must be approved by the States whose territory exploration might take place in. With many State-level officials, most notably Arnold Schwarzenegger (otherwise a McCain supporter), Governor of California, opposed to such plans, the prospect of offshore drilling seems unlikely. Opponents on the state level cite a range of environmental concerns, and perhaps even moreso, concerns over how such exploration could affect tourism to costal areas, a valuable component of many states’ economies.
Even if new exploration were to take place, it would be several years before any such exploration would translate into true production and potentially lower prices at the pump. Even T. Boone Pickens, the 80-year old Texas billionaire oilman, dubbed the recent Republican attempts to convince the American public that more drilling would reduce gas prices as, ‘totally misleading’. Remember that this is the same man who helped Republicans in the 2004 election by giving nearly $3 million to finance the infamous ‘Swift Boat’ attack ads against John Kerry.
At the other end of the spectrum from the drilling advocates sits global warming’s greatest nemesis, former Vice President, Al Gore. Last week Gore, in a speech delivered in Washington, called on the United States to forsake oil consumption and make a concerted, national effort to achieve carbon-free energy production within the next decade. In addition to averting further contributions towards global warming, which Gore claims has the potential to produce millions of ‘climate refugees’ and cause serious political and economic instability worldwide, he cites the nation’s tangled foreign policy as requiring urgent revision. “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has got to change.”
For all of his lofty goals, Gore fails to bring the discussion down to the level of specific planning and initiatives. Over the past 25 years he has done perhaps more than anyone to bring the world’s attention to the problem of climate change and the burning of fossil fuels, but much of Gore’s effectiveness stops there. He no longer holds public office, and while he certainly earns a comfortable living, he does not possess the financial capital to make the type of investments in alternative energy that he is advocating. Gore is a mouthpiece to push those who have the means to actually make such investments towards action. And while climate change is still debated by some, Gore’s campaign can do nothing but benefit from high gasoline prices, which may draw the attention of far more of the American public than his warnings of environmental catastrophe ever did.
This is where individuals such as T. Boone Pickens enter the fray. At 80 years old, the geologist who built his wealth by pumping oil out of the ground seems like an unlikely champion of alternative energy; however, patronage of his sort is exactly what the drive towards energy independence needs. Pickens has recently spent $58 million on a media blitz to promote his energy plan for the United States – a plan that includes a $1 trillion proposal to build wind farms across the American Midwest, from North Dakota to the Texas panhandle, one of the most wind-rich areas of the world. And Pickens’ plan is not just talk… he has recently invested nearly $10 billion in the construction of what will be the nation’s largest wind farm, north of Sweetwater, in the Texas panhandle.
Wind farm construction is part of his larger strategy to reduce America’s dependence of foreign oil (roughly 70% of our country’s supply), and free up natural gas reserves to be used as transportation fuel. Indeed, there are a good deal of natural-gas powered vehicles produced by major automobile manufacturers, but few are purchased within the confines of the United States. This writer recalls driving a natural gas powered Ford F-150 in the summer of 2004 during a stint as a Park Ranger in Bristol, RI. There was little, if any, noticeable difference in the function of the vehicle, the only downside being the 15+ mile drive to refuel at one of Rhode Island’s only 3 natural gas refueling stations. This highlights the necessary change in infrastructure that would have to accompany a shift from oil and this change will certainly come at a cost. But as Pickens likes to point out, the $1 trillion investment in wind farms is a one-time investment, whereas our $700 billion addiction to foreign oil is an annual cost.
At the moment natural gas is significantly cheaper than oil, with natural gas selling in Rhode Island at $2.57 per gallon, compared with prices of gasoline hovering around $4.00 per gallon. In other parts of the country natural gas is even cheaper. Natural Gas can provide an easy alternative transportation fuel, especially in the realm of commercial vehicles, where other technologies (such as electric) have not evolved to the point where they can power large machinery.
But the solutions to the nation’s energy problems do not end with the Picken’s Plan. Americans must realize that it is an imperfect plan, as most are bound to be, and it is merely one man’s effort to create a stronger, more stable America. Other alternatives that can help reduce our dependence on petroleum include the prospect of biofuels, such as ethanol. And while there has been much debate about ethanol’s role in rising food prices worldwide, as essential food crops are turned into fuel instead, there are two companies, INEOs Bio of the U.K., and Coskata of Warrenville, Illinois, who both claim to be on the verge of producing ethanol on a commercial scale without the use of food crops.
Instead of crops such as corn, both companies are pioneering techniques to transform municipal waste into ethanol by heating the waste with a limited amount of oxygen in order to create a carbon monoxide/hydrogen gas. This mixture is then fed to certain bacteria capable of transforming it into ethanol. On top of that, the process uses as little as 1/4th the amount of water needed to grow ethanol crops. Coskata is hopeful that they will achieve a $1 per gallon production cost.
When you consider all this in conjunction with the constant push for more hybrid and electric personal vehicles (Toyota is on pace to sell 200,000 of their Prius models in the U.S. this year), the enormous potential of the American southwest in terms of solar power, potential that rivals the Great Plains states’ potential for wind power, the continuing increase and developments in recycling, and the dizzying array of everyday ‘green’ items like compact fluorescent light bulbs, there seem to be few limits to the alternative energy resources that we can harness.
America can, and will, solve its energy crisis, it is only a matter of time. With $4.00 per gallon gas perhaps being the tipping point for American society, more and more people will turn to alternatives such as hybrid cars and public transportation. As always with our capitalist society, once conditions begin to adversely affect our pocketbooks, then the potential for real change is upon us. Hopefully with more investors in the energy sector emulating the Pickens Plan that change will come soon.
Sources:
Drilling’s Lure
NYT Editorial Board
The New York Times – July 15th, 2008
Democrats Dig in as G.O.P. Presses for Oil Exploration in Protected Areas
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times – July 11th, 2008
Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By David Stout
The New York Times – July 18th, 2008
The Oil Man Cometh
By Timothy Egan
The New York Times: Op-Ed – July 24th, 2008
From Garbage to Gas Tank: Trash as Biofuel
By Jessica Marshall
Discovery News – July 23rd, 2008
Unfortunately the topic of energy reform has become so politicized that it is difficult for most citizens too see through the political posturing, the partisan blame game, and the half-truths created by the energy industry. There are a variety of alternative energy sources that, used in conjunction, can greatly reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, and petroleum in general.
While there are certainly untapped oil reserves in the U.S., as well as abroad, it is a fact that the vast majority of the largest oil fields have already been discovered and are currently being utilized. Only smaller and smaller oil fields are left to be found and exploited, with the cost of building the infrastructure to pump the oil from these fields rising as the reserves become smaller and smaller. Barring a monumental global investment in building more pumps and refineries, it is likely that 2005 was the year of peak global oil production - output has fallen every year since, as a result of the aforementioned factors.
Several politicians, Bush and McCain being the most prominent, have advocated lifting the Federal ban on offshore oil drilling, as well as the restrictions on speculation in Alaska’s ANWR. In an election year, such a proposal must be met with skepticism. While many politicians would like to make Americans believe that oil is sitting on our doorstep, just waiting to be pumped from the Earth, the matter is far more complex.
There are two Federal moratoriums on offshore drilling that currently prevent oil companies from accessing what the Department of the Interior estimates to be roughly 19 billion barrels off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. The first moratorium was enacted by Congress in 1981 and must be renewed every year as part of the Interior Department spending bill to stay in effect. The second moratorium was imposed by George H.W. Bush in 1991 after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. This executive moratorium was recently lifted by George W. Bush through a presidential order.
Many Republicans are pushing for a vote to lift the Congressional moratorium as well, while Democrats are advocating a plan that would push oil companies to explore much of the land (and sea) that they are already leasing from the government, but have yet to tap into. Even if a Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted, any new exploration must be approved by the States whose territory exploration might take place in. With many State-level officials, most notably Arnold Schwarzenegger (otherwise a McCain supporter), Governor of California, opposed to such plans, the prospect of offshore drilling seems unlikely. Opponents on the state level cite a range of environmental concerns, and perhaps even moreso, concerns over how such exploration could affect tourism to costal areas, a valuable component of many states’ economies.
Even if new exploration were to take place, it would be several years before any such exploration would translate into true production and potentially lower prices at the pump. Even T. Boone Pickens, the 80-year old Texas billionaire oilman, dubbed the recent Republican attempts to convince the American public that more drilling would reduce gas prices as, ‘totally misleading’. Remember that this is the same man who helped Republicans in the 2004 election by giving nearly $3 million to finance the infamous ‘Swift Boat’ attack ads against John Kerry.
At the other end of the spectrum from the drilling advocates sits global warming’s greatest nemesis, former Vice President, Al Gore. Last week Gore, in a speech delivered in Washington, called on the United States to forsake oil consumption and make a concerted, national effort to achieve carbon-free energy production within the next decade. In addition to averting further contributions towards global warming, which Gore claims has the potential to produce millions of ‘climate refugees’ and cause serious political and economic instability worldwide, he cites the nation’s tangled foreign policy as requiring urgent revision. “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has got to change.”
For all of his lofty goals, Gore fails to bring the discussion down to the level of specific planning and initiatives. Over the past 25 years he has done perhaps more than anyone to bring the world’s attention to the problem of climate change and the burning of fossil fuels, but much of Gore’s effectiveness stops there. He no longer holds public office, and while he certainly earns a comfortable living, he does not possess the financial capital to make the type of investments in alternative energy that he is advocating. Gore is a mouthpiece to push those who have the means to actually make such investments towards action. And while climate change is still debated by some, Gore’s campaign can do nothing but benefit from high gasoline prices, which may draw the attention of far more of the American public than his warnings of environmental catastrophe ever did.
This is where individuals such as T. Boone Pickens enter the fray. At 80 years old, the geologist who built his wealth by pumping oil out of the ground seems like an unlikely champion of alternative energy; however, patronage of his sort is exactly what the drive towards energy independence needs. Pickens has recently spent $58 million on a media blitz to promote his energy plan for the United States – a plan that includes a $1 trillion proposal to build wind farms across the American Midwest, from North Dakota to the Texas panhandle, one of the most wind-rich areas of the world. And Pickens’ plan is not just talk… he has recently invested nearly $10 billion in the construction of what will be the nation’s largest wind farm, north of Sweetwater, in the Texas panhandle.
Wind farm construction is part of his larger strategy to reduce America’s dependence of foreign oil (roughly 70% of our country’s supply), and free up natural gas reserves to be used as transportation fuel. Indeed, there are a good deal of natural-gas powered vehicles produced by major automobile manufacturers, but few are purchased within the confines of the United States. This writer recalls driving a natural gas powered Ford F-150 in the summer of 2004 during a stint as a Park Ranger in Bristol, RI. There was little, if any, noticeable difference in the function of the vehicle, the only downside being the 15+ mile drive to refuel at one of Rhode Island’s only 3 natural gas refueling stations. This highlights the necessary change in infrastructure that would have to accompany a shift from oil and this change will certainly come at a cost. But as Pickens likes to point out, the $1 trillion investment in wind farms is a one-time investment, whereas our $700 billion addiction to foreign oil is an annual cost.
At the moment natural gas is significantly cheaper than oil, with natural gas selling in Rhode Island at $2.57 per gallon, compared with prices of gasoline hovering around $4.00 per gallon. In other parts of the country natural gas is even cheaper. Natural Gas can provide an easy alternative transportation fuel, especially in the realm of commercial vehicles, where other technologies (such as electric) have not evolved to the point where they can power large machinery.
But the solutions to the nation’s energy problems do not end with the Picken’s Plan. Americans must realize that it is an imperfect plan, as most are bound to be, and it is merely one man’s effort to create a stronger, more stable America. Other alternatives that can help reduce our dependence on petroleum include the prospect of biofuels, such as ethanol. And while there has been much debate about ethanol’s role in rising food prices worldwide, as essential food crops are turned into fuel instead, there are two companies, INEOs Bio of the U.K., and Coskata of Warrenville, Illinois, who both claim to be on the verge of producing ethanol on a commercial scale without the use of food crops.
Instead of crops such as corn, both companies are pioneering techniques to transform municipal waste into ethanol by heating the waste with a limited amount of oxygen in order to create a carbon monoxide/hydrogen gas. This mixture is then fed to certain bacteria capable of transforming it into ethanol. On top of that, the process uses as little as 1/4th the amount of water needed to grow ethanol crops. Coskata is hopeful that they will achieve a $1 per gallon production cost.
When you consider all this in conjunction with the constant push for more hybrid and electric personal vehicles (Toyota is on pace to sell 200,000 of their Prius models in the U.S. this year), the enormous potential of the American southwest in terms of solar power, potential that rivals the Great Plains states’ potential for wind power, the continuing increase and developments in recycling, and the dizzying array of everyday ‘green’ items like compact fluorescent light bulbs, there seem to be few limits to the alternative energy resources that we can harness.
America can, and will, solve its energy crisis, it is only a matter of time. With $4.00 per gallon gas perhaps being the tipping point for American society, more and more people will turn to alternatives such as hybrid cars and public transportation. As always with our capitalist society, once conditions begin to adversely affect our pocketbooks, then the potential for real change is upon us. Hopefully with more investors in the energy sector emulating the Pickens Plan that change will come soon.
Sources:
Drilling’s Lure
NYT Editorial Board
The New York Times – July 15th, 2008
Democrats Dig in as G.O.P. Presses for Oil Exploration in Protected Areas
By Carl Hulse
The New York Times – July 11th, 2008
Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By David Stout
The New York Times – July 18th, 2008
The Oil Man Cometh
By Timothy Egan
The New York Times: Op-Ed – July 24th, 2008
From Garbage to Gas Tank: Trash as Biofuel
By Jessica Marshall
Discovery News – July 23rd, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Green Monster: An Experiment
For years, the likes of Al Gore and other 'tree-hugging, dirt worshipers', as the popular bumper-sticker so aptly phrases it, have been extolling to us the virtues of 'going green', that is, living in a more environmentally conscious manner. The word 'green' itself has long since been hijacked and raped of its once simple, yet far-reaching, significance. We now see the phrase employed more often in General Electric and Walmart commercials than anywhere else. Like many other issues in our society, the true facts have been muddled by corporate greed, eager to profit from a formerly burgeoning social consciousness.
Out of frustration and a propensity for passive-aggressive behavior, I've so far abstained from jumping head-first into the 'green revolution', fearing (1) the social ostracism that might occur from delving too deeply into an alternative lifestyle, (2) that such an effort might be a wasted exercise in the face of ever-evolving debate over what exactly is good for our environment, and (3) a general lack of education concerning what changes I might make to my lifestyle.
But from here on out, I'm resolving to undertake the experiment, and am making an attempt to document my efforts, so that I might better understand my failures once they inevitably occur, due to lack of will, excess substance abuse (the former being a frequent result of the later), or a lack of money to pull off certain endeavors. My true goal, however, is to separate the neat, packaged 'green' lifestyle currently being sold by corporations, from the natural, logical manner in which one can live more consciously, without necessarily buying those new expensive light bulbs, or the organic meat at Whole Foods that costs twice as much as the meat on sale at Shaw's or Stop & Shop.
Undoubtedly the truths and myths about a 'green' lifestyle will not be easy to separate, as I imagine the situation as more of a Venn diagram, with certain overlaps, rather than a boxing ring with Corporate Greed in one corner and 'True' Environmentalism in another. I do not doubt that many working at GE truly care that their products become environmentally friendly, just as I am confident of the fact that many 'Green' institutions have bills to pay and money to be made. My hope is simply to find the middle ground where their good intentions overlap.
My 'experiment' will begin on June 1st, 2008 - the day I move into my new house in the Bonnet Shores district of Narragansett, RI. This fresh start will hopefully be conducive to establishing new habits more in line with an ecologically-conscious lifestyle. I suppose a brief synopsis of the living situation is in order, so all my imaginary readers will know what I'm up against...
The 5-bedroom, 2-story (plus an unfinished basement) house that we (who 'we' is will be discussed later) are moving into has been described as a 'modern cape', whatever that's supposed to mean. Its got 2 bedrooms and a 3/4 bath upstairs, 2 bedrooms and a full bath on the main floor, and then a new 5th bedroom that's being finished in the basement. It's got a sizable kitchen, living room, and deck, as well as ample room in the basement for all kinds of shenanigans. It has oil-based heat and an electric water heater.
Out of frustration and a propensity for passive-aggressive behavior, I've so far abstained from jumping head-first into the 'green revolution', fearing (1) the social ostracism that might occur from delving too deeply into an alternative lifestyle, (2) that such an effort might be a wasted exercise in the face of ever-evolving debate over what exactly is good for our environment, and (3) a general lack of education concerning what changes I might make to my lifestyle.
But from here on out, I'm resolving to undertake the experiment, and am making an attempt to document my efforts, so that I might better understand my failures once they inevitably occur, due to lack of will, excess substance abuse (the former being a frequent result of the later), or a lack of money to pull off certain endeavors. My true goal, however, is to separate the neat, packaged 'green' lifestyle currently being sold by corporations, from the natural, logical manner in which one can live more consciously, without necessarily buying those new expensive light bulbs, or the organic meat at Whole Foods that costs twice as much as the meat on sale at Shaw's or Stop & Shop.
Undoubtedly the truths and myths about a 'green' lifestyle will not be easy to separate, as I imagine the situation as more of a Venn diagram, with certain overlaps, rather than a boxing ring with Corporate Greed in one corner and 'True' Environmentalism in another. I do not doubt that many working at GE truly care that their products become environmentally friendly, just as I am confident of the fact that many 'Green' institutions have bills to pay and money to be made. My hope is simply to find the middle ground where their good intentions overlap.
My 'experiment' will begin on June 1st, 2008 - the day I move into my new house in the Bonnet Shores district of Narragansett, RI. This fresh start will hopefully be conducive to establishing new habits more in line with an ecologically-conscious lifestyle. I suppose a brief synopsis of the living situation is in order, so all my imaginary readers will know what I'm up against...
The 5-bedroom, 2-story (plus an unfinished basement) house that we (who 'we' is will be discussed later) are moving into has been described as a 'modern cape', whatever that's supposed to mean. Its got 2 bedrooms and a 3/4 bath upstairs, 2 bedrooms and a full bath on the main floor, and then a new 5th bedroom that's being finished in the basement. It's got a sizable kitchen, living room, and deck, as well as ample room in the basement for all kinds of shenanigans. It has oil-based heat and an electric water heater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)