CON GAMES: Socket To Me
May 29th, 2008 at 06:55am Michael Conniff 2
In a land of plenty, the worst thing you can become is that guy—that nerdy guy who runs around turning off lights and (worse) telling everyone he knows to turn off the damn lights or the air conditioner or the sauna or whatever.
I’ve become that guy.
Pleased to meet you.
What does it mean to be that guy? One of the good things about being that guy is that we love questions like that because it gives us the chance to spout off about peak oil and electric cars and solar power. The bad thing is that everyone ends up hating you, because you have become that guy who rags on everybody who things energy is still el cheapo.
An example from work. I come in early every morning to the radio station to do my “Con Games” show and the first thing I do is to walk around shutting off lights. In the open room where I have my office, it’s not unusual for me to turn off three light switches that account for ten lights that burn for hours every day even though no one is there to see them.
Another example. Someone who works at the radio station has an office that boils in the summer, even when the rest of the office is perfectly comfortable. Her solution? To turn on the swamp cooler in the big open space where I sit—blasting the open room above when no one is in it. For her comfort in her office—and who but that guy can blame her?—she cools a space at least eight or nine times bigger.
I’m that guy who says: “It’s freezing out there. Can we turn it down?” And I’m told no by co-workers who don’t want to confront the woman in the office.
One more. We had a going-away party for someone off site. That guy got a ride with the honoree, but by my count eight people came in six cars.
See, this is really our energy policy in the United States of America. The only one who cares is that guy and thousands of annoying people just like him. Nobody cares because we still believe as a people in the land of the free that energy in general and electricity in particular is all but free.
I got to thinking about being that guy, and it struck me that all of us energy nerds need a new marketing plan. If you tell people to turn things off it’s a real turn-off because they think you’re a tree-hugging environmental whacko morphing into a true pain in the ass—not the most persuasive of positions to take.
But what if that guy were to convince his co-workers that being a pain in the ass is a matter of national security?
Here’s the way the argument goes. We have to keep drilling for oil and natural gas, but every time we do we are drilling ourselves into a deeper hole. Literally every time we go to the pump we are directly funding terrorists who are funded by oilish Islamic states who usually wish to carve us up or otherwise do us harm. Every time we burn energy needlessly we are putting money in the pockets of petrogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Pundit Thomas Friedman says “green is the new red, white, and blue”—and he’s right. To waste energy, to do anything less than conserve, is borderline treason.
Or so says that guy. You know the one. The guy who won’t shut up about what you don’t want to hear.
Entry Filed under: Environment, Colorado, Con Games, The West, United Post
17 Comments Add your own
1. reckless G | May 30th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Heh, Michael you're such an enviro-nerd. We need a lot more like you if we want to head this problem off at the pass.
Give 'em hell Con Man!
2. Mitch Mulhall | May 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
On May 27, 2008, Czechoslovakian President Václav Klaus introduced his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. A Google news query for "Václav Klaus"+"National Press Club" returns a few hits from some obscure news sources like All Headline News and the Hawaii Reporter. Conspicuously absent are NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, et. al.
Why?
Klaus would have us believe that the guy who runs around turning off the lights has succumbed to eco-Stalinism:
Cheers,
3. Michael Conniff | May 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Specifically, Sue, we need you!
The point I was making on-air at the end of Friday's show that every single person can have an impact on this every single day--all day long.
Is there any other issue like that? Where the individual can make choice after choice to make things better?
I think not. I agree the impact of each individual is tiny, but only only person at a time can go to "Indiana Jones," and that's on its way to a billion dollars at the box office.
Best, Michael!
4. alpha6 | May 30th, 2008 at 8:32 am
"Every time we burn energy needlessly we are putting money in the pockets of petrogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran."
With oil I would agree with you, however, switching off a light won't effect this in that around here our electric is "coal" generated, most of it mined right here in Colorado.
If Aspen was really on the cutting edge they would have their own nuke power plant. We could get rid of the nuke waste in Leadville..they already glow at night. : )
5. reckless G | May 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
[every single person can have an impact on this]
And there is a lot more to it than taking the bus and turning out lights. I actually wrote a blog on this awhile back that I never posted. I was going to make it my first entry on Carbondale Post, but that never came about, so maybe I'll dust it off and put it on Aspen Post.
I agree that this is one of the few issues we as individuals can significantly impact. The actions we take now are important regardless of whether the answer to the question of man's impact on global warming is yes, no, or maybe.
I think Michael was right not to tie our conservation efforts to the global warming issue. It's just as much a fuel supply issue. Which leads to a security issue. It's also a pollution issue. There are enough reasons to conserve without even considering global warming.
Alpha, good idea about the nuke power plant in Aspen, but I think the nimbys would come roaring out of their egocentric ostrich holes on that one.
6. Mitch Mulhall | May 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Alpha's right, Colorado's electricity production comes from coal (84%), petroleum (13%), and hydroelectric (3%), with "other" sources amounting to less than 0.1%. You're not going to give pause to the petrogarchies by turning the lights off.
No form of energy production is free. A few years back, the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange) created a new futures contract: PJM Electricity Futures (ticker root: JM). The U.S. electrical grid is interconnected. The grid even connects to Canada. That means that a surplus of electricity in one area can be shifted to an area where there is an energy deficit. Remember the California brown outs? These could have been mitigated by "buying" surplus electricity from other parts of the grid.
Electrical energy producers use electricity futures to hedge production costs the same way an Iowa farmer uses corn futures to secure a fair market prices for his crop...
The point is, no form of energy is free. There is a difference between seeking cleaner forms of energy and seeking a more primitive existence. The former I find necessary, the latter I find backward. That said, I find that the impetus of the green movement primarily economic. Yes, there are those who would torch ski lodges in the name of Lynx habitat, but many of those doing the heavy lifting on behalf of the green movement stand to benefit economically from anything that displaces petrol-based energy. Check out Al Gore's stock portfolio.
I debated all these energy issues in high school back in the 70s. Nothing has changed. Now, I think the economic and geopolitical pressures necessary to displace petrol-based energy are developing, and doing so rapidly.
Where transportation is concerned, I think hydrogen-based fuel cells will displace gasoline in less than a decade.
Cheers,
7. reckless G | May 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[Where transportation is concerned, I think hydrogen-based fuel cells will displace gasoline in less than a decade.]
Nope. Maybe two or three decades. I have a friend who works at NREL and he says hydrogen is nowhere near viable and doesn't look to be so in the near future.
Of course the green movement is profit based. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does anything for any reason except for money.
But while the green techs promote their products to make money, the fossil fuel companies suppress technology and research in order to keep their products selling high. They both want to make a profit, but one camp's greed is benefitting humans and the planet and one is not.
Like the Con Man says; this is a no brainer!
8. Mitch Mulhall | May 30th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Doubt, meet Necessity, mother of Invention. GM already has a functional prototype.
Cheers,
9. reckless G | May 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Functional prototype does not mean a viable mainstream solution. The problem, according to my learned friend is not the vehicle itself, but the hydrogen storage and delivery system, ie fuel stations. Wanna know how much it's going to cost to convert every gas station to hydrogen? No, you don't.
FYI we had a perfectly viable alternative fuel vehicle, working, on the road, damn near perfect solution to our transportation energy problem. If you haven't seen "Who killed the electric car?" yet, rent it! Then the true nature of the dilemma will reveal itself to you.
Unfortunately the old adage no longer holds. Greed is now the mother of invention. The fossil fuel industry is currently number one in that department, and they intend to stay there as long as the decayed dinosaurs hold out.
10. Mitch Mulhall | May 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
[Functional prototype does not mean a viable mainstream solution.]
Of course it doesn't.
Am I mistaken that you have no experience bringing a product to market? Another question: Am I mistaken that you have no experience working for a government agency? You cite a friend who works for NREL as an authority that hydrogen-based energy is 30 years out.
If you're going to count on our Government to provide a solution, then by all means base your conclusions on the opinion of your friend who works for NREL.
The private sector will solve this problem. It always does.
Cheers,
11. reckless G | May 31st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Only if the private sector is allowed to solve the problem, which would have been solved already except it's been inexplicably hindered for the last twenty years.
Remember, this isn't just about fuel efficient vehicles. There are other factors that must be addressed. Oil makes up many of our daily products. The medical and ag industries as well as most manufacturing depend on oil to lube their machinery and as a base for pesticides, herbicides, and medicines.
The widespread use of petroleum fueling our economy means you can't just smugly announce the advent of hydrogen powered vehicles, wipe your hands together and walk away. It's going to take a helluva lot of innovation to replace petrol.
You're right not to look to government for the solution, but we must also watch that they don't impede the progress of the private sector.
Probably why it's a good idea NOT to elect oilmen and women to the White House.
12. Mitch Mulhall | May 31st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
G,
Your tactics are so transparent. And played.
I did not say, "where the ag industries are concerned," or "where pesticides, herbicides, and medicines are concerned." You think that if we solve the central problem of petrol-dependence--transportation--the use of petroleum will cease? Don't be obtuse. It will be years, nay decades, before the Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine will be displaced by xeriscaping.
The upshot of your comment is that government, which is to say the Bush Administration, is all in for the oil industry. Given Bush's Texas roots, something I know a bit about, you could be right, but you aren't. If our continued petrol-dependence is as central a concern to Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton, how do you explain why in 2003 the President committed 1.2 billion to a Hyrdrogen Fuel Initiative? Let me save you the trouble of typing, "Because Hydrogen is not likely to displace petroleum." Hardly an effective attitude. Eschew a probable technology for political purposes. You're clearly part of the problem.
[it's a good idea NOT to elect oilmen and women to the White House.]
Who is the oil woman in this scenario? Let me guess: Condi Rice?
Cheers,
13. reckless G | June 1st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Well come on, they didn't name an oil tanker after her for nothing! It’s no secret that she once worked for an oil company and may well do so again.
You can bet that in January ’09 many of the current top government officials will go straight to work for the very corporations that benefited from the Bush administration’s policies.
You can’t be so naïve as to believe otherwise.
First you write:
"If you're going to count on our Government to provide a solution, then by all means base your conclusions on the opinion of your friend who works for NREL.
The private sector will solve this problem. It always does."
Then you poo poo my suspicions of the administration's ulterior motives by saying;
"If our continued petrol-dependence is as central a concern to Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton, how do you explain why in 2003 the President committed 1.2 billion to a Hyrdrogen Fuel Initiative?"
Which is it? Is government going to save us or not? Am I to understand that you have faith in the current administration’s altruism, and that you believe government dollars are at work at this very moment finding a solution to our transportation energy needs? Or that you believe private sector companies without aid of government funding are the answer to our problem? Or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
The fact is, whether it’s the oil industry, the hydrogen fuel industry or the electric car battery industry; the bottom line is money. When petroleum fuel becomes less profitable to the big energy corporations than the alternatives we are developing now, then the switch will be made…and not one moment sooner, no matter how much the American public whines or the European fishermen protest.
You’ve got to know that they are going to squeeze every last petrodollar out of us, even if it bankrupts the entire world. And when it’s all gone or we’re all too broke to afford it anymore, then magically an alternative technology will be produced; probably the exact same technology that has been offered and rejected already, because it wasn’t as profitable as oil. And guess who will own the patents on those new technologies?
Ahh it’s too nice of a day for all of this cynicism! I’m going for a bike ride.
14. Mitch Mulhall | June 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
G,
[Is government going to save us or not?]
This Hydrogen Fuel Initiative speaks to motive, not to efficiency. I worked for NOAA. I know how government bureaucracy works.
You're awfully harsh on corporate America. The U.S. automotive industry is making money in foreign markets and losing money in the U.S. When the U.S. consumer demands a vehicle that runs on an energy source that costs less than petrol, the industry will supply. Look at the success Toyota has had with the Prius. There was a time when you had to wait six months to get one. Now they're everywhere. I'm not suggesting that Hybrids will solve the problem--they will not. But Hybrids demonstrate the extent of government efficacy in bringing about change: you get a tax break if you buy one of these roller skates.
The central problem of hydrogen-based energy is storage: it requires a bigger tank, if you will, at least as compared to pertrol. Someone will solve this storage problem, and it may not be a large corporation. There are many small, publicly-traded companies committed to solving the storage problem and making hydrogen-based energy more attractive to the consumer than $4.33 gasoline.
Cheers,
15. Star Eagle | June 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Lets see.
{"If our continued petrol-dependence is as central a concern to Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton, how do you explain why in 2003 the President committed 1.2 billion to a Hyrdrogen Fuel Initiative?"}
Wow, 1.2 billion five years ago. I wonder how much Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton and lets say...
"The three giant US-based energy conglomerates—ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhilips—posted record profits for 2006, according to reports issued by the companies at the end of the week.
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded company, raked in $39.5 billon last year—the largest annual profit recorded in US corporate history. The oil giant generated a staggering average of $108 million in profits a day, or $4.5 million an hour. The total topped the previous record for corporate profit, also set by Exxon Mobil in 2005, of $36.13 billion.
Exxon’s total annual profits amounted to more than the federal government spends on public K-12 education per year and were roughly equivalent to the amount that Congress appropriated to provide health care for some 6 million low-income children over a span of 10 years.
Total revenues for the biggest oil company topped $377 billion last year, an amount greater than the gross national product of countries that include Belgium, Sweden, Turkey and Austria.
The big oil companies have profited mainly off of the volatility and chaos on the crude oil markets, resulting in large part from the war for oil in Iraq and the threat of even widening the war to include military aggression against Iran.
The vast annual profits for ExxonMobil came despite a 4 percent decline in profits for the last quarter of 2006, largely the result of the driving down of gasoline prices in the immediate run-up to the 2006 elections. It is widely suspected that the energy monopolies deliberately cut gas prices in the vain hopes of bolstering the political fortunes of their allies in the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress.
Conscious of public outrage over the profiteering by big oil, ExxonMobil ran full-page ads in national newspapers Thursday claiming that its 2006 profits were not excessive and that much of them are reinvested in the discovery and exploitation of new energy sources to meet growing global demand.
“Our revenues are large and they need to be large to support the huge investments we make to produce the energy our country and the world needs,” company spokesman Kevin Cohen said defending ExxonMobil’s profits Thursday.
In reality, however, in 2006 Exxon spent considerably more of its profits to buy back its own shares on the stock market than it did on new capital investments.
The company laid out fully $25 billion on repurchasing its own shares in a scheme to drive up stock prices. During the same year, it spent $19.9 billion for capital investment. Exxon shares rose by approximately 20 percent in 2006, posting another dollar increase on annual profit news Thursday to reach $75.08 on Wall Street.
The big three US oil companies, as well as their smaller competitors, owe their record profits to the gouging at the gas pumps, which saw consumers paying an average of $3 a gallon last spring and summer. This fleecing of average working people on gasoline sales is supplemented by an array of corporate welfare measures, tax breaks and royalty relief worth tens of billions of dollars.
High fuel prices continue to exact their toll on working class Americans, with the poorest section of society unable to afford heating their homes through the winter. While continuing to underwrite the staggering profits of the big energy conglomerates, the federal government slashed funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by one third last year, from $3.2 billion to $2.1 billion. Barely 17 percent of low-income households eligible for assistance are presently benefiting from the program.
ExxonMobil’s Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson took home a total compensation package of at least $18.5 million in 2006—making considerably more in one hour than someone working for the federal minimum wage earns in an entire year. This massive sum is by no means exorbitant by the standards of the oil industry, and pales by comparison to the $400 million retirement deal awarded to his predecessor, Lee Raymond.
There is also the strong evidence that Exxon Mobil and other US energy monopolies played a significant role in the preparations for the war to conquer Iraq and open up its oil reserves to direct exploitation. Executives for the companies met behind closed doors with Vice President Richard Cheney and his Energy Task Force in 2001, reviewing maps of Iraq’s oilfields and lists of companies seeking contracts with Baghdad.
The unmistakable implication is that, as in the case of Iraq, “nations that don’t want to let in Western oil companies” can become the targets of US military aggression".
Granted, I selectively edited this article, for full article see:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/oil-f03.shtml
So in the "divide and conquer" world where it is so easy to pick off the bottom feeders, lets say, like all those poor people bankrupting the Government with all these "Programs" that are spending us ("slashed funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by one third last year, from $3.2 billion to $2.1 billion") into this huge deficit.
Yeah.., right. Maybe we should look a little higher up the food chain.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
It's a bleak picture. The total loss from this economic downturn -- measured by the disparity between the economy's actual output and its potential output -- is likely to be the greatest since the Great Depression. That total, itself well in excess of $1 trillion, is not included in our estimated $3 trillion cost of the war.
Others will have to work out the geopolitics, but the economics here are clear. Ending the war, or at least moving rapidly to wind it down, would yield major economic dividends.
As we head toward November, opinion polls say that voters' main worry is now the economy, not the war. But there's no way to disentangle the two. The United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come. The price tag will be all the greater because we tried to ignore the laws of economics -- and the cost will grow the longer we remain".
Again for full article see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_2.html
And if you think this stinks, wait till you realize it was all a scam from the get-go.
Welcome to Geo-Economics 101.
Hopefully this helps to {"explain why in 2003 the President committed 1.2 billion to a Hyrdrogen Fuel Initiative?"} Beyond of course.. "Because Hydrogen is not likely to displace petroleum." Hardly an effective attitude. Eschew a probable technology for political purposes. You're clearly part of the problem".
Maybe it even helps to explain why, if only "that guy were to convince his co-workers that being a pain in the ass is a matter of national security. You know the one. The guy who won’t shut up about what you don’t want to hear.
One last thing, Google: United States government expenditures on hydrogen fuel initiatives: See where that takes you.
16. Hugh520 | June 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
So this is where the conversation has been. And I was the lonely blogger last night.
Anyone see the documentary, "Who killed the Electric Car?"
Hydrogen fuel cells? Let's find place where this money went. You know the 1.2 Billion? This "initiative" was a governmental red herring. See the movie. I'm too tired to explain.
17. Star Eagle | June 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Reading what I posted above Hugh I can tell you were they may have picked up 1.1 of the 1.2 billion. That is how much they (we) saved when they slashed the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Brilliant!
And this may explain where some of that 1.2 billion ended up.
"Camp Pendleton is on board with the state's plans for developing a network of hydrogen fueling stations that will support energy-efficient autos by 2010.
A $1.4 million hydrogen fueling station and maintenance facility is scheduled to open this fall at the sprawling Marine Corps base in North County. Construction is scheduled to start in mid-June and be completed by late summer.
General Motors Corp. spokesman Dave Barthmuss said the military has a keen interest in developing alternative fuel technology as a way to save money associated with transferring fuel, as well as consuming fuel in heavy equipment and while transporting personnel and goods.
"One of the major expenditures is getting fuel to the battlefield," Barthmuss said. "They're paying $400 a gallon from a military perspective. This will be a tremendous benefit for them."
Another benefit, he said, is that the hydrogen fuel doesn't produce as much heat as a gas-powered engine.
"So the military can operate more stealthily in the field," he said".
See for full article: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5492423_ITM
The good news for us civilians is we are only paying $4.00+ right now at the pump. The bad news is OUR military is paying $400.00 a gallon.
Oh, and did I mention this whole 9/11-Afgan-Iraq war is just a scam for Mid-East Oil.
Bush-Cheney come into office and oil is trading under $25.00 a barrel and prices at the pump are around $2.50 a gallon.
Now.. oil around $130.00 a barrel and pump price $4.00+ and projected to go... higher!
Remember these were oil-men (+ at least one oil-woman-see above for who that might be) who somehow were elected, or appointed (does anyone really seriously question these elections?-more on that later) to represent WHO.
Something to think about anyway. Goood...day!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed