Energy Rationing is Coming

What would you say to rationing cards, like were used in WWII to control consumption of gas, rubber, sugar, milk, etc.? How would you feel if you went to the grocery store, and could only get a certain number of loaves of bread, based on a government policy, and what if that that policy was based on assumptions made by the government that were fed to it by a group of rice industrialists? Sound far fetched? That is exactly what so-called carbon emission controls are.

The title of this post will link to an article about just such a scheme, being considered in the UK. A Google search on the topic will turn up dozens of references. And if you think "It can't happen here.", go to this story about, where else, the state that precedes the nation, California. This is a first step to regulation, as is the "Cap and Trade" initiatives supported by both presidential candidates. Personal energy rationing is going to become a reality within 10 years. It has already started, and the government mandate that made-in-China fluorescent light bulbs must be used in all home lights by 2013 (yes- did you miss that one?) is just the start.

Carbon emission, in certain circles including most western governments, is the equivalent of energy. (no, the breath you exhale, loaded with CO2 as it is, is not yet regulated- wait for it...) It is hardly debatable that energy is the second most important commodity in modern life- food/water being the first. Beyond that, there is a lot of debate that is just not as resolved as you may think if you get your information from traditional media, or school.

Allowing the government to ration to you one of the most important commodities of living is more dangerous than we can imagine. Think of the power that cedes. Think of the inevitable unintended consequences that allows accompany any government action. And wonder if it is even necessary to achieve the stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

I have two issues with all the environmental zealots regarding the issue of emissions ( I have others regarding other points they preach). First, the entire premise of man caused climate change is due to so-called Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and that CO2 is one of them. The fires that burn each year in the west, one volcano- these natural events dwarf man's puny ability to spew CO2 into the air. We are amazing in our hubris. Why does the theory of man-caused climate change ignore the fact that other planets in the solar system are warming, with no discenrable population of people, let alone western civilization? Why does it ignore historical climate events that indicate changing climate is a normal state of affairs? Second, why is it taboo in the real sense of the word, to doubt the idea of man-caused climate change? Is this a new Inquisition? What happened to open scientific debate?

But on to the the reality in which we must live. The Kyoto treaty. Fortunately, in a rare act of good judgement, our Senators refused to ratify this treaty. Make no mistake, the President is not able to make a treaty without Senate ratification, as part of our system of checks an balances. This sometimes results in delays that allow good thinking to prevail. So we are not signatories of Kyoto. And yet, the USA has led the world in reduction of GHG since Kyoto, outperforming those who did sign, and is the only significant industrialized country to reduce GHG emissions in 2006.

Why should we be against this treaty? For many reasons. Let me cite one that should make your head spin off your neck. According to Kyoto, the USA should reduce GHG emissions by 2050 by 80%. This means that the per capita emission level will need to be the same as in 1875. It means our per capita emissions will need to be what desperately poor countries like Haiti and Somalia are today. It means households will not be able to use enough energy to run a hot water heater. It means we have to reduce gasoline consumption by 80%. All this seems to be unrealistic, and none of it is reported in the media. Try to find out about this sort of thing with a Google search. Eventually if you persist, you will get this report that I have cited in this post. It is very informative and well researched.

Now lets be clear, reduction of pollution, and conservation of energy is important, and within the framework of economics will occur. It is occurring. In fact, The USA is leading the world in this area. Admittedly it can afford to, since these issues have not been of national importance till now.

In this important area, the USA is actually leading the world. This is a point to be understood, a point to be proud of, a point to give an optimistic view to the future. Here are some basic results in graphic format. This is the measure of GHG emissions from 1997 to 2004, since Kyoto until the last time the results are available.



Thanks to Willisms.com for this chart. To help with reading it: the red bar is the USA, up 6.6% , next is the non-Kyoto signing countries in brown, up 10%, then the rest of the world, in blue, up 18%. But the Kyoto countries, in green, are up 21.1%. Remember when reading this that all economies during this time have grown at a rate of at least 3% per year compounded, or 23%. It portrays very succinctly yet another reason we have to be proud of our country and economy. The USA does work better than anything else. Oh, and why do we have to doubt that unless we institute draconian, ill conceived and dangerous government regulation like carbon rationing, that we will not continue to improve the environment based on economic self interest?