Close the Locks

Asian Carp have been found in Calumet Lake; within 6 miles of Lake Michigan, past the electric barriers in the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal that are supposed to keep them from getting to the lake.

A few months ago the President and the Interior Department, along with the courts; shot down a multi-state effort to get the locks on the Chicago Canal shut, to keep the carp out of the Great Lakes.

Now, considering the barrier isn't working; and using the President's own logic on the environment; it's time to shut the locks. You see earlier this week the Government cried in court that the BP disaster should require that all other deep water operations be stopped, just in case. So, shouldn't we also shut the locks? Shouldn't we protect the 7 billion dollar a year Great Lakes fishing industry from the Asian Carp? Just in case there are more of them this side of the barrier.

Here's the problem with doing the right thing, it would end up costing a folks in the shipping industry, who use the canal to get goods to and from the Gulf coast via the canal, Des Plaines River and the Mississippi river. There are other methods, such as rail, or other directions, like the St. Lawrence Seaway, but they are more expensive and take longer.

That would get pressure put on Chicago pols by folks who usually give them lots of money, the unions that work those shipping barges. Politicians hate to have their donors hold back money, so they will pressure the Interior Department to keep the locks open.

So, while the President tells us how much he wants to avoid an ecological and environmental disaster on the Gulf Coast, he will ignore an impending disaster in the Great Lakes area to avoid pissing off part of his money base.

Read The Full Post!

It Takes 10 Years

One of the reasons we keep hearing about not drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, from just about everyone opposed, is that it will take 10 years to actually get oil to the market.

Oddly, had we started drilling there in 1991, when George H.W. Bush proposed it, and Democrats filibustered the idea to death, or 1995, when Bill Clinton vetoed the budget because of an ANWR provision, we'd be seeing that oil on the market today. In fact, it would have been there for the last 3-6 years.

Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post points out the fantasy world of the folks opposed to exploration in the US in a column today, and says "Start Drilling". He not only suggests ANWR, but the coastal shelf and deep Gulf of Mexico areas.

He points out some inconvient truths for the folks stonealling drilling projects and exploration in the Gulf. Environmentalists complain about the possibility of huge oil spills caused by hurricanes. Yet we've been drilling in the gulf for decades, had dozens of hurricanes hit hundreds of rigs, and the "massive spill" there has yet to occur.

Ethanol has proven on the world food market that it's not the answer to energy independence. Higher fuel standards here will help, slightly. But they won't make up for the increased use of oil in China, Brazil, India and other emerging markets. Those markets have helped increase world demand by nearly 25% in the last 15 years. The only way back to reasonably priced fuel is increasing supply.

I pointed out a few days ago that even if we start pumping from ANWR that oil won't end up in US gas tanks, we've got no where to refine it on the west coast, and transporation to the gulf where there is some capacity is too expensive. However, if you put 5% of the US demand on the world oil market, it does help with price stability.

What should really bother environmentalists is that a China Cuba consortium is about to start exploration and drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. If their doomsday scenarios prove true, who would they rather have in charge, the US companies, where there might be some legal recourse, or China and Cuba, who don't really care what we think?

Energy independence isn't going to come quick, or easy, and as ethanol has proven, there are unintended consequences for the "no new oil" mantra of envirnomentalists. The real question is, do we look for independence with a common sense approach that includes more US oil, and alternative, or do we keep up this charade that we can ween ourselves off oil completely, with no pain?

Read The Full Post!

Greenpeace Gores Al

I was link hopping last night, and went from www.dhmo.org to Greenpeace USA's site, and found that the world's best known environmental group isn't too happy with Al Gore of all people.

It seems Al is on the board of directors of Apple Computers, and wouldn't support a Greenpeace endorsed e-waste and chemical directive to the company. Instead, along with the rest of the board, Al voted to recommend that shareholders vote against the idea of Apple not using PVC and other chemicals, and coming up with a recycling program for e-waste.

Now I'm not a "greenie", and disagree with a lot of Greenpeace's stances on things. However, the idea of finding a way to recycle e-waste isn't a bad idea considering how much of it is generated. Dell Computers now has a program to recycle and donate old computers to keep them out of landfills, having other computer companies follow their lead would be a good thing.

As far as not using PVC and some other chemicals, I'm not sure on that idea. I don't know the economic impact on Apple from trying to eliminate them. If it's something that would raise their (already high) prices enough to cut their fairly small market share, then it's probably not a great idea until it's more economical. However if it can be done at a reasonable cost, then they probably should look into it.

I just found it odd that Al, savior of the planet, didn't seem to like the Greenpeace idea.

Technorati Tags: Greenpeace, Al Gore, Apple Computers, Recycling, Environment

Read The Full Post!