-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
Special Report
Now Playing: The Sustainability Con
Endless streams of gibberish and pseudo-science from the well-established neo-Malthusian establishment.
Although the issue of “sustainability” has been around a while, recently it has grown in popularity and influence. The way it’s happening follows an all too familiar pattern.
There are several common ingredients in how the left enlarges its control over our lives. The first is the selection of some aspect of reality — global warming, carbon footprints, population growth, inequality, diversity, for example. The second element involves designating the selected aspect of reality as a crisis. The third step is to explain that the only way to avoid Armageddon is by reducing everyone’s freedom and by giving more centralized power and control to those who understand the magnitude of the crisis. The rest of us are told that our freedoms are a luxury we simply can no longer afford.
Another common element of the process is defining the crisis as ambiguously as possible. Ordinarily, a desirable characteristic of a definition is that it draws a bright line between what is included and what isn’t. Clarity, however, is contrary to the objectives of the crusaders — in regard to defining the problem, the slipperier the better. For example, climate change (or climate disruption) beats global warming. Global warming is too quantifiable in comparison to climate change. No one is quite sure what “climate change” is or isn’t or how it can be measured. Sustainability is even more ambiguous than climate change and thus has more sustainability as a ruse.
Ideally the designated crisis is as expansive and open-ended as possible. A vague, loosely defined crisis provides politicians and bureaucrats with what amounts to a blank check or a no-limit credit card, a credit card where someone else gets sent the bill. A problem having no clear definition is a problem without borders.
At Arizona State University you can get a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D. in sustainability. ASU has an entire “School of Sustainability.” The school’s website offers several answers to the question, “What is sustainability?” Here are four of the answers they offer:
“Sustainability is a concept with as much transformative potential as justice, liberty, and equality.”
Michael Crow
President
Arizona State University“Sustainability is larger than one person, one company, or one country. Its scope, scale and importance demand unprecedented and swift solutions to environmental protection and other complex problems.”
Julie Ann Wrigley
President
Julie Ann Wrigley Foundation“Sustainability is living in harmony with our social and natural environment, based on a sense of justice and equity.”
Sander van der Leeuw
Dean
School of Sustainability“Sustainability is a process that engages every discipline to provide dynamic solutions to complex problems.”
Brian McCollow
Student
School of Sustainability
Are you clear now on what sustainability means and why a “School of Sustainability” is of paramount importance?
Academic papers on the topic of sustainability often include such concepts as “intergenerational equity” and “inter-temporal welfare.” The left somehow manages to insert its obsession with inequality into every imaginable issue. Inequality is not only a problem at a point in time, but also between time periods.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently spent $700,000 on a study entitled Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The abstract of the report states:
Recognizing the importance of sustainability in its work, the U.S. EPA has been working to create programs and applications in a variety of areas to better incorporate sustainability into decision-making at the agency.… This framework provides recommendations for a sustainability approach that both incorporates and goes beyond an approach based on assessing and managing the risks posed by pollutants that have largely shaped environmental policy since the 1980s.… EPA should also articulate its vision for sustainability and develop a set of sustainability principles that would underlie all agency policies and programs.
Obviously the EPA sees sustainability as a golden opportunity in its quest for more power, control, and funding. The EPA’s new lease on life is going to diminish everyone else’s lives.
What is sustainability, really? It is actually an old concept that has once again been warmed over for the umpteenth time. Sustainability is simply the latest incarnation of Malthusianism. Writing in 1798, Thomas Malthus warned that England’s population growth was going to outstrip its available endowment of resources such as agricultural land and coal. The specter that Malthus described was summarized as population increases geometrically, food increases arithmetically. Based on that logic, starvation and suffering were seen as inevitable. Malthus, in other words, was saying that England’s economic growth was not sustainable. It was that profoundly pessimistic theory that resulted in economics being described as “the dismal science.” England, of course, has gone on to experience over 200 years of historically unprecedented economic growth.
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (73) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/18/now-playing-the-sustainability
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 1.18.12 @ 9:00AM
Sustainability + Renewable = Bullshit
Stan Redmond| 1.18.12 @ 10:05PM
That equation might be too complicated for a liberal.
Cynicon Implant| 1.18.12 @ 9:04AM
Thank you Mr. Ross for such an excellent and lucid explanation of why the sustainability crusade is a ruse. It will be fun using some of the same logic in discussions with my liberal friends. I can see their brains imploding now...
fckewe| 1.19.12 @ 1:05PM
Then I suppose worrying about the deficit being sustainable make GEO W, that much MORE a culprit of our circumstances.
Carl| 1.18.12 @ 9:06AM
Everything the Left does is just new ways to impliment Marxism (government central control of the economy and wealth redistribution). The Left is always looking for new ways to dress Marxism up in some other package to sell it to the people, and that's all they are doing with sustainabilty, etc. I am surprised the author who is an economist does not see this when he qoutes the Left as being woried about "social justice", "inequality", etc. It's all Marxism, plain and simple.
fckewe| 1.19.12 @ 1:11PM
Wealth was redistributed starting with REAGAN. Bush just engineered the last grift and left town with it. Think of repairing the damage by reversing the tax cuts as an interest free loan to the Romney's. in order to make up the deficit these people have pocketed, we need cap gains to be at 40% (restore the rate and make up the loss with an additional rate hike fo as long as the deficit rate was in effect) and top tier income taxes t be at 66% for a decade.
But this time, we make offshore tax evasion, you know, the kind Bain Capital specializes in, more than a crime, we make it a voluntary revocation of citizenship. You wanna work here, play here, live here but DON'T wanna pay taxes. BYE!
I bet Saudi Princes pay more in American taxes then Mitt the Shit Romney.
Denver Todd| 1.18.12 @ 9:14AM
I think Dennis Prager once said that he thought that the constant supply of petroleum in the ground was a gift from God, far beyond actual supply. In other words, God was sustaining mankind by putting the oil there. I like to think that if God is the author of creation (and I do think that), then is he going to let the sun die or any other thing run out that keeps us alive? The flip side of this is that Malthusiansim is godless.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.18.12 @ 9:30AM
The Art of the Con.
P.T. Barnum. George Orwell. Karl Marx. Joseph Goebbels. Adolph Hitler. Mao Tse Dung. Barack Hussein Obama.
A Sucker's born every minute/Some Pigs are more Equal than others/The Communist Manifesto/Mien Kampf/The BIG LIE/The Little Red Book/Hope and Change.
What drives a man, to seek DOMINANCE, over other men? Why do Men want CONTROL, over their Fellow Mann? Why is the LEFT obsessed, with controlling every aspect, of everybody else' lives? Who, exactly, are these people?
Marx wanted to KILL 300 Million people. Just like that. For no reason. He felt that their deaths would make it "easier" to implement his Perfect Plan. He was gonna make everyones' lives better, even if he had to Kill everyone, in the process.
Robert Frost agreed. He thought that, maybe we needed some kind of GAS, to thin out the herd, so to speak. There were too many imperfect people in the Gene Pool. Their deaths would make it "easier" to create a Perfect World.
Adolph Hitler had his dreams of a Perfect World. He would make thing better. He, too, would Thin Out the Herd. The Jews, the Gypsies, Communists and Homosexuals. He would unleash his vision of an "Ordered World", made better, under the Control of his Aryan Super Race.
Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Castro/Chavez. They all promised EQUALLITY. "No man should have more than another."
Sound Familiar?
The Left uses The Big Lie, to push its' Vision of Utopia: Over Population. Lack of Resources. Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change. Income Inequality. The Jew. The Rich. Capitalism.
They tell their Lies, over and over and over, again. They're doing it, now. They tell it the "News". They tell it in their Movies, and in their Television Shoes. They TEACH their Lies to our Children, in their Schools.
And, then they wait.
Like a Spider, in its' Web, they wait for a Crisis, real or imagined. Real, or ginned up. Any Crisis. And, then they Strike. They really do: "Never let a Crisis go to waste".
They descend on the people, like a Virus. When they are at their lowest point. When they are at their weakest.
The Soviets, in 1917. The Nazis, in the 1930's. Mao, in the the late 1940's. Castro, in 1960. Pol Pot, in the 1970's. Chavez, in 1999. Barack Hussein Obama, in 2008.
They all came to Power amidst Crisis. They all came to Power amidst Turmoil. And, they all set about Creating a Better World, IN THEIR IMAGE.
The people believed that their lives would be better. They welcomed their new found Leaders, with open arms. With Parades. And, with Dancing in the streets. Not everyone, of course, but most did. Their lives would get better. Their problems were over. A New Beginning was upon them. "Free at last. Free at last. Thank God, almighty, we are Free at last."
A Hundred Million DEAD, under Nazi Rule. Killed with Bombs, and Bullets, and Gas, and Starvation. All in the name of Racial Superiority, the Fatherland, and the Betterment of Mankind.
Millions DEAD, under Soviet Rule. Murdered. Starved. Worked to Death in Frozen Gulags, for the Greater Good of the Masses.
Millions DEAD, in Mao's Great Awakening. Murdered by their Fellow Chinese, for the Benefit of a GREAT SOCIETY.
A Million DEAD, in Pol Pot's Cambodia. SHOT in the Head, for the Greater Good.
Thousands DEAD, in Cuba. Murdered, or left to Die, in Castro's dungeons, in the name of Equality for all.
The Jury is out, on Venezuela. It would seem that FATE, has stepped in, and put a halt to this Animal's reign. A Cancer, is killing a Cancer. Perhaps the patient (Venezuela) can still be saved?
Which leads us to the World's latest Incarnation of God on Earth. The Muslim Boy who would be King. The man who, like Napoleon, needs no Pope, to place the Crown on his head, needs no CONSTITUTION, for what he has in mind. No Separation Of Powers. No Orders from a Federal Court.
He is "The one we've been waiting for." He is the Light and the Way. "And if Congress won't Act? I will." I will do it for YOU. I will give you a Better Life, a Great Society, an Ordered life. "What I do, I do for Equality, and the Greater Good of all men."
We've seen it throughout History. It's like Haley's Comet, except that it comes around all to frequently, and it always leaves Death and Destruction, in it's wake.
This Newest DemiGod is no different. And, if he should be Re-elected? I predict that he will become the WORST one of them all.
His coming has been FORETOLD.
He truly is "The one we've been waiting for".
Except that, "WE" isn't us. It's Them.
WE (us) are Screwed.
You might wanna make sure you're ready.
I'm just saying.
KennesawJack| 1.18.12 @ 11:08AM
Tim, some days you're just too damn good at this. Thanks.
Skippy| 1.18.12 @ 4:19PM
Smokin', Tim.
You da man!
skip| 1.18.12 @ 10:52PM
A crisis of epic magnitude is occurring, in that there are no idiot liberal trolls on this thread that can sustain us, through justified ridicule of their emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience and thorough lack of intelligence, honesty, and integrity.
fckewe| 1.19.12 @ 1:12PM
WOW! Where did you read this? I wanna be able to chapter and verse it at the next KKK meeting.
fckewe| 1.19.12 @ 1:13PM
"Marx wanted to KILL 300 Million people. Just like that. For no reason. He felt that their deaths would make it "easier" to implement his Perfect Plan. He was gonna make everyones' lives better, even if he had to Kill everyone, in the process."
Forgot to paste your quote Tiny Tim.
Peppermint Tea| 1.18.12 @ 9:30AM
Back in the late 1980s, I was dragged to a Sustainability seminar during the American Society of Agronomy meetings where the scientists were wrestling over a definition for the new buzzword Agricultural Sustainability. I was bored and frustrated by such word games; the struggle to find a definition was, in my mind, getting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't a concept come first? The theory the scientists had was that agriculture could be sustainable on certain lands with certain inputs, with little attention given to the farmer-practitioner and his input. Thank you for the article because it identifies where "sustainability" went wrong then, and where it is going wrong today. It leaves the people and their imagination and innovation out and wants to lock the resources in perpetuity. Tyrants.
carnot| 1.18.12 @ 3:40PM
nice post.
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:20AM
I have been involved in sustainable agriculture long before the eighties and non of us are or were struggling with a definition of what it was we were doing. Now I can't speak for attendees at a seminar, but they may not have actually been involved in more than just talking about agriculture.
Al Adab| 1.18.12 @ 10:41AM
Sustainability is simply another manifestation fo the "Green" agenda which in turn is but a front for imposition of central planning and statism. It demands a control rconomy in which "experts" decide for the people what is in their best interest. This is the antithesis of free markets and individualism. It is also the agenda and ideology of this administration and of the DEM party as a whole. They are not in business to defend Liberty, but simply to better order the world.
carnot| 1.18.12 @ 3:47PM
you're getting close IMO....real close. my first thought was: sustainability toward what end(s)? one can assume that is at least some thread of systems engineering thinking in the sustainability boilerplate. but systems...gee whizz...they are bounded and have to be designed, implemented and operated toward some set of objectives. this article clarifies that is not what is in play. aside from the questionable issue of domains where anthropomorphic "sustainability" activities might even have any lasting impact......the idea comically assume what nature appears to belie: it doesn't exist in some state of perpetual equilibrium....and it isn't (stretching here) morally neutral. the stronger eat the weaker all the time....not what one imagines the sustainability sorts have in mind for social environments - literally or figuratively.
carnot| 1.18.12 @ 3:48PM
...one can assume that there is at least....
Al Adab| 1.18.12 @ 4:04PM
carnot:
Second law of thermodynamics as political allegory perhaps?
carnot| 1.18.12 @ 4:09PM
ha! absolutely: confusion and diffusion!!!! (to borrow from yet another discipline)
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:23AM
With all respect, that's delusional at best, and defamatory at worst. Our thinking has been totally decentralized, always has been.
carnot| 1.20.12 @ 3:41PM
what the F does that mean?
VonMisesJr| 1.18.12 @ 10:48AM
Socialist subvert knowledge for power. Pascal's (1623-1662) "Port Royal Logic" first two rules are:
1. To admit no terms in the least obscure or equivicol without defining them
2. To employ in the definitions only terms perfectly known and already explained
This brilliant child prodigy also gave us the machine that tracked integers that preceded the digital calculator.
For you liberals out there, equivicol means deliberately ambiguous, uncertain or dubious. In other words that liberal dupes may understand, it is like when Obama gives you a straw man argument where he does not pick the only two choices, or even the best two choices, but perhaps a choice between cutting off your head or driving a stake into your heart as remedies for insomnia.
So Prof. Ross is trying to tell you that you are being duped. The terms and ideas are intentionally ambiguous, and the choices do not include any good ones. You don't have to be Blaise Pascal to understand you are being played like a fool.
Thom| 1.18.12 @ 3:33PM
Another tact of the Marxist crew is to put forth false choices, like “death by firing squad, by hanging, by beheading, etc” Your choice according to their rules…. Of course there is no real choice under these false choices. Under sustainability there is only their choice of being diminished in order to serve the “state” and the herd’s collective interests.
Anthony| 1.18.12 @ 11:15AM
Thank you for a very enlightening article. Isn't it ironic that these intellectuals constantly fall prey to their own myopia?
So let's see do I have this right? Malthus thought mankind would not be able to sustain food production, yet centuries later, his followers want to convert Food to Fuel. Oh, and to power your electric car, you need to plug it into a power source not run by wind or sun!! Duh!!!!Sustainability is utopian idiocy.
Understanding the left is the greatest mystery of mankind.
Thom| 1.18.12 @ 3:34PM
If you every been around children long enough you understand "liberals".
Gary| 1.18.12 @ 11:16AM
A great article with excellent points which are self evident when one thinks about them but which are never articulated in the main stream media. I have always felt that leftist politics are the driver for most of these eco causes and movements. Paul Erlich was another prophet of doom whose theories have been proven wrong. Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for years. The schools are brain washing kids into this ideology of nature worship which is really a cover for a more powerful, ever encompassing government controlling more and more of our lives.
OregonBuzz| 1.18.12 @ 11:30AM
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L Mencken
And more succinctly; "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus
buckeyeman| 1.18.12 @ 11:42AM
This is a shallow argument, as hallucinatory as the "sustainability" of the Marxist's redistribution argument, which relies on ever increasing population growth to sustain the promises of the left without apparent pain (you don't have to save for the future, we'll tax future generations to pay for your retirement and it will never have to end!).
Anyone remember the name of Gottlieb Daimeler? You should. He pioneered the automobile as we now know it after inventing one of the first internal combustion engines. That is the same engine we use in our cars 129 years later. Years and years of trying to find a better engine have.... FAILED. The moral of the story is that we cannot always create better technology. Not even if we want to. Not even if leftist governments decree that we must (cellulosic biofuels, for example). Malthus' (and Paul Erlich, for that matter) were not wrong in principle, their timing was just wrong. World population has DOUBLED since 1980, from 4.5 billion to over 9 billion. Right wing (I guess) hallucinations about how God gives us cheap petroleum are as dangerous as left wing hallucinations about how mortgaging our future to buy votes or provide everything for everyone will work forever.
This must stop. We cannot grow the world's population forever, but even if we could, why would we want to? Farmland, wetland, forests, even deserts are being paved over, but to what end?
I graduated from high school in 1968 when the US population was 200 million. We've added 100 million people to the US population since then (a few of them are actually here legally) but is this a better, cleaner, more scenic country now? We didn't need 100 million more welfare recipients to invent laptops, cellphones, or the internet (algore did that by himself).
Petroleum is still plentiful, but getting harder and more expensive to extract. Does anyone think it will NEVER run out? This article is as hallucinatory as Obamanomics and the left's game of musical chairs.
Thom| 1.18.12 @ 3:42PM
"World population has DOUBLED since 1980, from 4.5 billion to over 9 billion" This is off by a rather large percentage. The population of the US was about 33 million at the time of the Civil War thus given the density you find in China and India we have hundreds of years to go before we even approach the population density of those two countries today. The rate of world population growth is declining if you bother to look that us.
Skippy| 1.18.12 @ 4:34PM
"Is this a better, cleaner, more scenic country now? "
Yes it is, because information unavailable then is common knowledge now.
For example, look at the air in L.A.; the greasy stripe in the middle of the lane that is no longer there; the decrease in infant mortality; etc.
150 years ago, petroleum bubbled up into Pennsylvania streams and was soaked up onto blankets, then squeezed out. Today we drill sideways and frack. That is progress.
We will never use it all up, as more information will allow us to use different forms of energy long before then.
Economic reality and expanded imagination have solved every problem in human history.
What makes you think that will grind to a screeching halt just because you happen to live today?
Self-importance and a myopia of scale have blinded you.
Get over yourself.
Mark in LA| 1.18.12 @ 7:05PM
Most economists are morons who actually think they know something about the real world - instead of the make believe world their thoeries inhabit. Everybody dealing with the physical world knows there are limits. Water is getting scarce in many parts of the world. What is the depth of a well now in Kansas versus in 1945? You cannot just desalinate, the energy cost is enormous. But lets take the advice of an economist - they never get anything wrong.
Bill| 1.20.12 @ 9:52AM
If the world keeps on using oil at the rate it is, eventually it will indeed run out. The question is, how soon? If it's going to run out in the next generation, that's something we need to address now; if it's going to run out 200 years from now, that's something we need to keep an eye on, so that future generations can be prepared.
Adjusting for inflation, the price of gas is not much greater than it was in 1970. This is strong evidence that supply is keeping pace with demand, and that there is no evident shortage of oil. Some geologists tell us that we know of more oil now than we did 40 years ago, suggesting that, despite possible and potential (not actual) problems with extraction and refining, there is no discernible shortage in the supply of oil at this time or in the near future.
Andy Anderson| 1.18.12 @ 11:49AM
I very much appreciate your article, though I have more respect for the technical definition of "sustainment", a measure of the durability of a given condition for a period of time. In the quasi-static world of the statists the use of innovation to boost durability and extend a time period is generally never considered or acknowledged in the quest to extend state power. I do believe that the state has an obligation and a right to use incentives to to encourage "sustainment", particularly where areas of national security are concerned. I consider energy policy a factor in national security. For this reason I have been supportive of incentives to exploit national energy sources, create reserves, and create new and more secure foreign sources. In that sense ethanol, windmills, and pipelines to Canada all have value and should be suppported, but should not be mandated. Frankly, I don't think mandates are sustainable.
Paul McGrath| 1.18.12 @ 12:21PM
In grade school it was pollution, in high school it was the population explosion, in college it was the ozone layer, then it was acid rain, various other things I can't remember, and now global warming. At some point it occurred to me that the solutions proposed to each and every one of these problems were identical.
Then of course, I walked outside and saw that the sky was blue, the grass was green, and the air was fresh, even though I could get in my car at any given moment and drive it wherever I wanted.
The best way to combat the global warming argument is this way: concede the argument. Tell them that you personally don't think that there is such a thing as global warming, but that you have an open mind and are willing to consider anything.
But then ask them how much it will cost to defeat it. IN other words, ask them to discuss the problem from a cost/benefit analysis. For example, if global warming could be reduced by 88% over five years and would cost the average AMerican family about $10.00 a month, most Americans would probably agree with this. But if global warming would only be reduced by 10% over five years, and would cost the American family $10,000.00 a year, then most Americans will not go along with this.
The point of the article is that our leaders never discuss the problem in these terms. They simply assert that there is a problem, then pass laws that supposedly help to solve it; laws that in every case accrue more power to themselves.
We must meet them on the battlefield on this one. I wish the Republican candidates would take it up. Again, by agreeing to have an open mind, you're not opening yourself up to charges of being a denier or some kind of Neanderthal.
Thom| 1.18.12 @ 3:46PM
The purveyors of these arguments aren’t interested in solutions and as demonstrated all their solutions are as nebulous as their problems with the exception that it provides them more control of the population and wealth from that that.
Bill| 1.18.12 @ 12:52PM
Funny, ever since I first learned about Malthus in my youth, I have thought the sustainability he was talking about was the rate of increase in the English population (which he termed geometric) as opposed to the rate of increase in growing crops (which he termed arithmetic), and the difficulty of sustaining geometrically growing population in the face of an arithmetically growing food supply.
I didn't think Malthus' thinking impacted directly on national economics.
Sustainability strikes me as a term that applies to whatever you want to designate as "it." In the ordinary run of things, "it" may or may not be sustainable. Speculating that things will not change allows people to consider whether nor not "it" can be sustained under the present circumstances.
Of course, circumstances change fairly rapidly.
Oldefarte| 1.18.12 @ 1:06PM
Sustainability? Consider this...if this nation does not sustain and fully develop its oil/energy from any/all domestic sources, it and its people will no longer be sustainable: '... We need an American energy plan -- 'strait' away..by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)..Posted 01/18/2012 ET...One-fifth of the world’s oil trade passes through a six-mile wide sea traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz, bounded on one side by the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the other by the Arabian Peninsula.An average of 14 oil tankers travel through the strait each day on their way to deliver fuel to Europe, Asia, and the United States.Cutting off this supply line would propel soaring energy prices and cripple economies around the world. That is exactly why Iran’s regime has threatened to close the Strait in retaliation if the United States or Europe takes serious steps to punish its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
It’s not exactly an idle threat. Such a narrow chokepoint, the U.S. military has acknowledged Iran could likely close the Strait for a period using mines and conventional naval forces or even with more crude tactics like sinking barges in the shipping lanes. Iran recently spent 10 days conducting naval exercises in the area to prove it could close the Strait, and earlier this month armed Iranian speedboats harassed two U.S. Navy vessels in separate incidents. Even if Iran is unlikely to prevail in a naval conflict with the United States, the regime is so unpredictable that such a conflict could be dangerous and disruptive.With Europe confronting recession and the United States coping with slow growth and high unemployment, the spike in gas prices that would result could not come at worse time. The Iranian regime wants to force America and Europe to choose between higher energy prices and deterring its nuclear development.Either outcome—an Iranian nuclear weapon or economic disaster from an oil shock—should be unacceptable to Americans. After all of Iran’s threats surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, how big a warning do we need to have an American energy policy that makes us independent from such conflicts?Our energy supply should not be hostage to the whims of a dangerous and erratic regime when we have enormous untapped resources right here in the United States. A real American energy policy would employ offshore oil and natural gas development, domestic oil shale, wind, biofuels, clean coal and nuclear energy to eliminate our dependence on oil from an unstable and unfriendly region of the world. America should never be faced with a choice either to appease regimes like Iran’s or to hinder our economy.The obstacles to an American energy policy are political, bureaucratic, and ideological. For instance, we have an estimated three times more oil than Saudi Arabia locked up in oil shale in western states, much of which is banned from development. That’s just the beginning. Oil and natural gas worth hundreds of billions of dollars is sitting just off our coasts in land the American people own but which the Obama administration refuses to allow to be developed. Since the President reneged in 2010 on a promise to allow oil and natural gas exploration on the federal lands of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, states along the East Coast have been denied what could become an important source of revenue, tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, and most of all a new source of American energy.
There are an estimated $28 billion worth of oil and natural gas off South Carolina and almost $64 billion off Virginia. Oil and gas resources worth hundreds of billions are likely available off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts of the United States.Even these estimates might be lower than the true American energy potential. Predictions for the East Coast, for instance, are based on decades-old seismic research done with obsolete technology. Such outdated assessments have often dramatically underestimated the potential of American energy. The estimate of the Bakken formation in North Dakota has jumped 25-fold, 2,500 percent, since 1995 due to new technology. The amount of natural gas in shale has increased our estimated supply of natural gas by more than 15-fold, 1,500 percent, in the last decade.The administration’s regulatory barriers to American energy development—and for that matter, its indecision on the Keystone XL pipeline—are needlessly crippling our economy, thwarting thousands of good jobs, and keeping our energy supply vulnerable to Iranian aggression.Undoubtedly, the United States should do anything required to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But when President Obama is faced with the prospect of using military action to preserve oil routes a few miles from Iran’s shore at the same time as he denies so much energy potential here at home, his priorities are profoundly wrong....'
Oldefarte| 1.18.12 @ 2:11PM
PS: And in consideration of the following [in addition to the above]......IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
'.... Obama to Reject Keystone Pipeline Deal Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:56 AM...The Obama administration is expected to reject the massive application by a Canadian firm to build an oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, The Washington Post reports.The administration will announce this afternoon the rejection of the application for a permit to build and operate the Keystone pipeline, the Post said, quoting "sources who've been briefed on the matter."TransCanada will be able to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills.Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement.....'
KennesawJack| 1.18.12 @ 3:26PM
And now the Canadiens will, justifiably, build it westward to Vancouver and sell the oil to China. Is there no end to what this Muslim anti-American bastard will do to hurt this economy and weaken the country?
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:43AM
Hawaii is a foreign country, right Kenn?
Oldefarte| 1.19.12 @ 4:00PM
PSII: Even some of the Democrats aren't STUPIDS: '.....Democrats Rip Obama for Blocking Pipeline Thursday, January 19, 2012 02:29 PMBy: Henry J. Reske.....Democrats in the House and Senate are wasting no time in putting some distance between themselves and President Barack Obama’s decision not to allow construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast.Among those opposed to the president’s decision is Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska. The “Obama administration’s decision to deny or delay the Keystone Pipeline project from moving forward is disappointing and frustrating,” Begich said. “I’ll continue to push the administration to approve this jobs-creating project.”Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., lamented Obama’s decision as a “major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence.”“As our country has a continued need for oil, it only makes sense to me that we would buy it from our friends in Canada, rather than continuing to buy it from countries around the world that seek to do us harm,” Manchin said. “Why make a decision that could push Canada to build a pipeline to the West Coast of North America that would benefit countries such as China, not the United States? I truly believe any issues surrounding the pipeline could have been resolved if we had chosen to work together, but instead, the Administration has taken a different path.”The president initially had put off the decision until after the November elections, but congressional Republicans forced his hand when they put a provision in December’s payroll tax bill that required a decision by Feb. 21.
However, the issue is not yet dead. The company that would build the pipeline, TransCanada Corp., has promised to reapply.Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., also disagreed with the president’s decision and dismissed environmental concerns.“I strongly disagree with President Obama’s decision to postpone the Keystone pipeline project,” he said. “This project will sustain and create jobs in the United States. I also believe that in this day and age it can be done in a way that protects the environment.”House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said the “unrest in the oil-rich Middle East and in places like Libya is proof that we have got to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It’s a threat to our economy, national security and way of life.”
“This Canada-to-Gulf pipeline will carry almost one million barrels of oil a day from our North American neighbor and ally in Canada, to refineries on the Gulf, creating jobs here at home and making our nation more energy independent, which is why I’m disappointed the president rejected the project,” Ross added. “The pipeline has so far met all of the environmental standards required for its construction and I strongly urge the president to reconsider his decision. If not, I urge the White House to work with all parties involved to find common ground, such as an alternative route, to build this pipeline as safely and as soon as possible.”.......'
Thom| 1.18.12 @ 3:53PM
Let no crisis, real or imagined, go to waste.....
This is particularly true when you can create the crisis and use it for your benefit. What's not to like about creating an oil shortage for political gain?
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:37AM
Do you seriously believe the Iranian government is more unstable and unpredictable than the U.S. government? The U.S. became a net oil importer in 1947 when our consumption was a fraction of what it is now. If it takes more energy to produce and transport one barrel of oil than is contained in that barrel of oil it is not worth recovering it, is it? It's about net energy, net energy, net energy. you can't ignore physical reality when constructing your verbal house of cards.
Dale left coast| 1.19.12 @ 2:08PM
Jim . . . in 1947 a barrel of oil may have been about $3 . . . today, oil is over $100.
Recovering oil from say the Colorado oil shale could cost $30 to $40 a barrel today . . . well worth doing at today's prices. The US has enough know oil reserves to last over 100 years . . . drilling costs much less than shale and sand recovery . . . I would suggest its time to start.
Jim, do you live like Pa Engles in Little House on the Prairie? Or do you drive and fly like the rest of us?
wolflen| 1.18.12 @ 2:42PM
to many that read this..it is a conflict that may or may not happen in the future...but...here in beautifully clean, sustainable and soon..car free santa monica CA...the future is now..
as the city did with cigarettes it is now doing with cars(even hybrids) ..yes..slowly but surely it is taking them away and replacing them with..bikes...and of course trains!..
now you may think..no you must be mistaken..if they tried to do something like that..people would rebel..march in the streets..perhaps even euro style riots..but you would be wrong..in fact..there are cheers to be heard..and many of them..
many streets there were two lanes have be narrowed down to one..and a concept called "sharrows" (a bike is equal to a vehicle-you can’t pass the bike you have to stay behind it) is being seen now on several major streets..many intersections have "bike lights" a camera detects if a bike is waiting for a traffic signal..and adjusts the timing to allow the bike to cross the intersection..new development in the downtown area commercial and residential are giving "considerations" for employees/tenants that bike to/from work...and of course parking rates in all areas are going up..after hour empty parking lots that would allow public access are now metered ($5-10 flat rate) and maintained by traffic services 24/7...and of course the ultimate is new housing in downtown--no parking provided..and if don’t have a car..you may get a rent reduction..
and in 2015 a light rail system is coming...and along with it more "bike action plans" and .. less access to private vehicles along the train route..
i remember well how the city council banned smoking - step by step..and people would say.."yeah but they will never ban it in bars"..wish i had los vegas odds on that one..now they are planning how to ban it in private homes..they succeded in banning it in hotels, joined apartments and condos..as well as the beach, parks and public areas .. the promenade and mall..
so my thought-they will never be able to do this..take our cars away..never…los vegas odds anyone
Skippy| 1.18.12 @ 4:51PM
In Santa Monica last June, I made it a point to smoke everywhere I went.
On the beach; walking down the street; outside the restaurants front door; etc.
None of the Eloi even looked sideways at me.
Pussies.
Bill| 1.18.12 @ 5:41PM
None of them could actually convince him- or herself that you had the nerve, and some of them avoided you because they were afraid of you, while the others avoided you because they expected you to be taken into police custody at any moment.
Bill| 1.18.12 @ 5:46PM
You've undoubtedly heard of the so-called scientific study of the effects of marijuana smoke on people, eh? Pot smoke sitting in your lungs is OK and causes no damage; furthermore, inhaling pot smoke is done deeply, and therefore smoking pot exercises your lungs. Therefore, pot smoke is actually GOOD for you.
While on the other hand, that hated tobacco smoke is not only doing to YOUR lungs when you smoke cigarettes/pipes/cigars, it's also causing second-hand smoke injury to those around you.
Right, the results of the pot smoke could have been predicted when the study first began. Of course pot would be good for you; they like that stuff. Only tobacco, which they hate, produces smoke that is harmful to you (and those in the same house as you).
PattyMor| 1.18.12 @ 2:50PM
Al Adab, you are spot on : a front for imposition of central planning and statism. More of the same old, same old. They dream up some "crisis" and then they try to stampede everyone into giving up their freedom so they can solve the made up crisises.
Al Adab| 1.18.12 @ 4:07PM
Patty:
It is the old Hegelian approach. As you note, create a "crisis" and promise solutions if only everyone will do as they are told. Liberty is not a priority for them. Sell our birthright for a bowl of pottage indeed.
carnot| 1.18.12 @ 4:10PM
damn...you're good at this!
obadiah| 1.18.12 @ 2:51PM
"Sustainability" is a left-wing hoax.
There cannot be any such thing as "overpopulation." 100 million people can occupy the Earth in complete comfort, if they follow conservative principles.
No lack of resources can slow us down. There are a lot more resources if we have the gumption to locate them.
Like "global warming," "pollution" is a hoax. Just dump it in the ocean and it will dissolve. The winds will blow it away.
The future has no limit except for stupid limits imposed by socialist fools.
Drunken Sailor| 1.18.12 @ 3:25PM
Sustainability = 20 Century Snake Oil. Al Gore is just another Snake Oil salesman in a updated seersucker suit.
tsd| 1.18.12 @ 4:32PM
Nice, to the point article. Generated many very good posts and talking points....too bad all the people who need to read and understand this never will!! The true believers will never stray from the delusion.
cicero| 1.18.12 @ 4:37PM
They sold the "sustainability" song to the best and brightest, and convincedd them not to have any, or more than one, children. So, now we have to import the least and most gullible to fill the land. So, who is going to come up with the next great idea in the coming years? I agree that the whole "sky is falling" thing has been a ruse all along. The problem is that it has been preached in our schools of higher learning for so long, that we have a whole generation, or two, of people who have been schooled on it, and believe it.
Hopefully, this too will pass, and we can proceed with the job of making the world better and better for ourselves, and those who come after. My only misgiving is that, demographically, we seem to be leaving this wonderful world to the few who think they will lead, and the many who haven't got a clue. In a relatively short time, it may come to pass that they will have to start all over.
Skippy| 1.18.12 @ 4:57PM
I sold a car to a 28 year old last month.
He had a degree in Sustainability.
He was employed by a startup that sells web domains that end in .green.
They carefully screen their clients to uphold the integrity of their vision and mission statement.
He was an elite but fairly polite kid.
No doubt he will soon be unemployed.
Bill| 1.20.12 @ 9:42AM
What kind of a deal did he agree to on the car?
Anthony| 1.18.12 @ 5:06PM
Dear President Crow and Dean van der leeuw; You can't imagine my suprise knowing that for 60 years I have been " living in harmony with our social and natural enviornment based on a sense of justice and equity".
I obviously have acquired sufficient credits for both the Masters and Ph.D. programs. Kindly consider this post my Ph.D. thesis. It makes more sense than the ones you have received to date.
Therefore, kindly forward to me my diplomas from ASU, both from the Masters and Ph.D programs in Sustainability. The will go well with my other degrees.
Also, please note that I graduated Magna cum laude from both.
In addition, now that I am an alum of ASU, please send me information as to how I might obtain tickets for the upcoming football season.
Go Sun Devils!!!
I must admit to a bit of sadness over my new school allegiance, as I have been a huge supporter of the Duke Lacrosse team for years.
Oh well, thanks to my degrees, I'll be able to harmonize this conundrum.
Indy| 1.18.12 @ 6:26PM
Interesting to see an article on sustainability with no mention of Agenda 21?
http://biggovernment.com/jmsim.....he-making/
http://biggovernment.com/jmsim.....ermission/
Indy| 1.18.12 @ 6:28PM
Here's part 3 of the series
http://biggovernment.com/jmsim.....your-turn/
POST American| 1.19.12 @ 1:01AM
------CUT TO THE CHASE!
AGAIN, all eyes on the over-arching
themes of our time ---or the century
---centuries ------of ALLL TIME.
----------psychopathic USURY and
its 'fave' instrument' and sole cultural
contribution -----bottomless EUGENICS.
SO-------
Immediate siezure of the ultra rich, TAX FREE
foundations, NGOs et al.
Thorough, unflinching and sustained
auditing and examination of their
activities and archives.
Capital crimes prosecution for
Rockefeller/ROT-child et al for
systematic cultural subversion,
incremental, many decades
underway conspiracy against
the republic and further capital
crimes of stealth and open
EUGENICS against the American
people and mankind worldwide.
A 'SSSSS-US--stain--Abel' solution
to the unspeakable if you will.
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:13AM
I'm seeing several metric tons of self- deception in the comments, along with a failure to see that the author in order to prove his point cherry picked the most obscure sentences he could find with the words sustainability in them to hoodwink his willing readers into believing that the writers of those cherry picked phrases meant them as an inclusive definition of sustainability, which they most certainly did not. He has proved nothing except his grasp of the principles of propaganda
skip| 1.19.12 @ 10:17AM
Metric tons of self-deception? whoa.
~
The president of Arizona State University has provided a definition of 'sustainability' on Arizona State University's website:
"Sustainability is a concept with as much transformative potential as justice, liberty, and equality."
Is this an example of 'cherry picking the most obscure sentences' the author could find?
~
Thomas Jefferson, on justice, liberty, and equality:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring each other, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
"Agriculture, manufacturers, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are then most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thomas Jefferson, on sustainability:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
~
Since it is demonstratively proven liberals are tyrants who seek to usurp liberty by unjust means that results in inequality, in order to sustain liberty, justice, and equality, all liberals must be eradicated, regardless of whatever trimester they are in, whether the third or the two hundred and third trimester.
After all, sustainability is a concept of value on a par with liberty, justice, and equality, as no less than Thomas Jefferson has stated.
Sustainability, whoa.
The Bruce| 1.19.12 @ 1:15AM
Letter to the editor:
It's bad enough that I have to live among these Leftists here in Tucson (yes, Tucson is a left-wing town), but you're really pouring salt into the wound when you recite what these imbeciles can get "Degrees" in nowadays.
My only saving grace is that these pigskin holders can't, for the life of them, figure out why they can't get jobs in the real world.
1 in 100 might get University jobs, while the rest camp out in disease-infested tents on public property, complaining about the "one percent."
Maybe God and the Darwinists can exist in harmony. On the one hand, Jesus proclaims that "those that don't work won't eat." And Darwin proclaims that only "the fittest will survive."
That's good news. Maybe if we just sit back, the welfare class and the liberals that support them will simply annihilate themselves axiomatically.
I'm patient enough. You?
jim olson| 1.19.12 @ 1:45AM
Disease infested tents? whoa.
ella8| 1.19.12 @ 11:53AM
Sometimes I wonder if they are unintentionally making Malthusian theories come true because they have to prove their know it allness. If they manage to screw up our economy enough and discourage the use of vital resources, their dark and cynical dreams of population control may just come true. At the least they have the power to reduce our standard of living at the most some people really could starve. When we run out of other people's money, their won't be anymore foodstamps or heating subsidies; and when the sustainability crowd's dreams come true there won't be enough food or energy to go around. They don't want innovation, thet want population control even if it means shoving it down our throats.
fckewe| 1.19.12 @ 1:16PM
If you have ever planted a garden and saved the seeds for the next season, you understand sustainability. if you have ever fixed a child's broken toy, you nderstand sustainability. If you dispose of more packing material than use the contents... you never will get it.
Tony in Central PA| 1.19.12 @ 8:16PM
Sustainability is more of a result of good ideas than something to be pursued for its own sake.
Richard Baker| 1.20.12 @ 7:11PM
This foolishness is right down Orwell's alley regarding "intellectuals". "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” What next, the honey bee is a metaphor for social justice?
don bumpass| 1.29.12 @ 10:26AM
check this related story:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/20.....nable.html