AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (10 comments)

  1. PeakTrader

    Obama has succeeded in reducing global warming by spending trillions of dollars to create a depression.

  2. Hurricane Sandy illustrates the importance of moving the world’s financial capital a bit further inland.

    1. Or doing things the Dutch or British way and building barriers to block storm surges. The Dutch did it to protect Rotterdam, the British did it to protect London, so can’t the US do it to protect NYC? The idea would be like the other barriers to raise the barriers when tides higher than some amount occured. Actually this would be more like the Dutch example as multiple barriers would be needed. So guesses of costs are in the 20 billion range which probably means 50 to 60 billion after the mandatory cost increases happen.

  3. Hurricane sandy illustres the reality of shit happens! the question is when shit happens do you look to your government to sort it out? or do you look to your “family” or do you look to yourself….and the real reality check is that now that we know shit happens, who will we look to, to sort it out, in the future, when the shit happens again, government?family? you?….. have a great day

  4. morganovich

    well, this isn’t going to help…

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling

    obama not wasting any time making it more difficult to drill post election.

    1. Actually given where the current hot plays are (hint not on federal lands) it won’t make much difference. In Tx because of the way it was admitted to the union there is not a signifianct amount of federal land, either in the Eagle Ford or Permian Basin. In ND 90% of the land in the state is private exceptions include TR national memorial park and the like. In Pa the land is private or state since the feds never owned the land there, in Oh the land was all sold off long ago (and some went to rev war veterans as pay). At this point there are not a lot of hot plays in the west, so its not where the excitement is. Yes there could be plays but they have not been found, so they are not likley to have as much effect as the Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, Baaken, and Marcellus and Utica plays. For example there is no oil in the Sierra Nevada since its all Granite, and little in Nv, again due to geology.

  5. I’ve read two of Robert Bryce’s (Power Hungry and Gusher of Lies). Highly recommended.

    Roger Pielke, Jr. had a perceptive post on politics post-Sandy. You didn’t hear Mayor Bloomberg talk about wind turbines or storm surge barriers (or why it is that the fed. government gives perverse incentives to build along the coast). Instead, he put the responsibility on to higher powers:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/11/mayor-bloombergs-deft-climate-politics.html

  6. Evan Thomas

    Dr Perry, I believe you should remember to leave your bias at the door when analyzing data. Logically, the conclusion from the circumstances you describe should be to increase emphasis renewables for baseline energy production and consumption so that fossil fuels are available for emergency power generation in times of crisis.

    1. Evan

      Dr. Perry is biased in favor of sound economics. Why do you object to that?

    2. Two graphs are missing from this post. The first would be to show the cost of each type of energy. This would make it clear how much we are spending on these very costly “green” energy options. The second would be to show how the total amount of energy produced is going up and up and up. In other words, it may be that the proportion of fossil fuels is projected to fall, but the absolute amount of fuel used is undoubtedly higher every year in the future.

      Of course, the one graph is only a projection, and we know that is unlikely to stand the test of time. The fracking and and horizontal drilling are dramatically increasing the production of oil and natural gas. In fact, the forecast is that we will be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia by 2020. Does it make sense that we fund wind farms and solar in the face of such abundance? Hardly. Give those technologies (or other, even better discoveries) another 10 or 15 years to mature, and we might actually have an economic alternative.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content