The Upside of Rising Fuel Prices

To paraphrase an old quote about the weather, everyone complains about gasoline prices, but no one does anything about it. Which is exactly how it ought to be. As painful as filling up might be today, it is nothing compared to the pain we’ll feel when the pump runs dry.

Granted, that won’t happen for decades or longer, but rising demand in the developing world will certainly put further pressure on worldwide oil supplies. As any Economics 101 student can tell you, when demand rises faster than supply, higher prices always follow. Since we are dealing with a finite resource, today’s higher prices are like the proverbial canary in a coal mine. Eventually demand will outstrip supply and when there’s no longer enough oil to go around – unless we’ve come up with alternative energy sources – the price countries are willing to pay to fuel their economies will likely be measured not in dollars, but blood.

But therein lies the solution because there is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear, as well as biofuels, can provide all the energy we’ll ever need. The problem is that these are neither user-friendly nor cost-efficient on the scale needed to replace oil. Getting them up to speed will require vast investments in time, technology and infrastructure – investments no one will make if they have to compete against lower cost petroleum.

Which is why we should not tamper with escalating prices at the pump. They are the single best way to spur the investment that will bring new, more environmentally-friendly energy sources to market, while encouraging the conservation that will bridge the gap until they arrive. By paying the price today, we can start developing those alternatives now and avoid a steeper and far more traumatic price tomorrow.

Who's Really in Charge of Climate

Bloggers and talk radio have had a field day with recent reports that Earth’s average temperature has fallen to its lowest level in twenty years, representing perhaps the biggest decline in nearly a century.  But don’t pull out the thermal underwear just yet.

This report should be viewed the way we look at the daily weather this time of year - we know in March that it's going to be warmer next month than it was last month.  But we also understand that tomorrow may be far colder than yesterday, so we know better than to take one day's worth of data and proclaim that summer will not arrive.  Variations occur, and a single data point does not a trend make.  We might still be cooking our own goose.

On the other hand, assumptions that the recent cooling is due to reduced solar activity should serve as a reminder that we have a 27 million degree furnace burning at our sun's core.  It doesn't take much of a change in the sun's thermostat to have potentially profound effects on Earth's climate.  We can pump all the CO2 insulation into the atmosphere we want and it will be of little consequence if the sun decides to turn down the heat.

But perhaps there’s a larger force behind all of this.  It wasn’t that long ago that we ascribed all manner of natural disaster - flood, drought, hurricanes - to the power of God.  Today we ascribe them to the power of man.  I don't know if that says more about changes in how we view God’s power or how we view our own..  Either way, the change in solar activity could just be the man upstairs' way of having a little fun and reminding us all who’s really in charge.

Mythbusters - The Most Important Show on TV

It’s been nearly three years since I graced these pages on a regular basis (some may question whether “grace” is the appropriate word).  But now I’m back and here’s what I’ve decided in the time I’ve been away:  Mythbusters may be the most important show on television.

Before I explain, let’s look at how things were when my last column appeared in June of 2005.  Back then, the general consensus was that the $2 we were paying for a gallon of gas was outrageous, the surest way to financial security was to invest in Florida real estate and that Katrina was the name of someone who sang of walking on sunshine.

Political pundits were certain the Democrats were toast after falling further into minority status following Congressional losses the previous November and Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in to become their next presidential nominee.

Banks were convinced that interest-only and adjustable rate mortgages were a way to make homes affordable to people of modest means, McMansions affordable to almost everyone else and profits a certainty for themselves.

And who among us would have predicted an Oscar was in Al Gore’s future.

Which brings us back to Mythbusters.  There’s a tendency to make blanket statements – the Democrats are dead, you can’t go wrong investing in real estate – which often turn out to be misguided.  Such statements may be based upon something we’ve read or heard.  They might be part of the conventional wisdom, where an opinion is repeated so often that it crosses the chasm from mere opinion to accepted fact.  Or they might just be things we think to be common sense.  In any case, they tend to be ideas we accept at face value without question and without considering alternate possibilities.

But that doesn’t fly on Mythbusters.  We should be forever grateful that they have reintroduced the scientific method to an over-opinionated society.  Rather than accept conventional wisdom or what appears to be common sense – i.e., a truck filled with birds weighs less if those birds are in flight than if they’re standing on the truck’s floor – they will test it.  And testing those myths – those opinions – requires an open mind and the ability to think outside the box.  Moreover, it requires an emotional detachment from the outcome.  They don’t care what the answer is, just that they get it right.

Contrast that with the way so many issues are discussed today.  Rather than asking what’s the best way to achieve an objective, we ask how we can best prove ours is the only way.  Too often, that requires us to disregard any argument or evidence that might prove us wrong.  It’s the equivalent of sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting, “I can’t hear you.”

We’ll never solve the issues facing us, from healthcare to Social Security, from school funding to soaring energy costs, if we don’t listen to each other and openly consider viewpoints contrary to our own.  My objective with this column will be to encourage an open dialog.  I’ll offer opinions, but I’ll consider them also.  And if I leave you wondering on which side of the political fence I stand, so much the better.  I look forward to the discussion.

Oh, and if you were wondering, the Mythbusters say the truck weighs the same whether the birds are flying or not.  Of course, they could be wrong.

Count All the Votes (Except in Florida & Michigan)

It seems irony is not limited to one side of the political ledger. Last week saw conservative national talk show hosts doing their best Al Sharpton impersonations, using principle as pretense while defending one of their own in a flap with Senator John McCain, when in fact, they were concerned only with proving their own relevance.

This week finds the Democratic party performing principle-challenged gymnastics, as they struggle over what do about the Michigan and Florida non-primaries now that this past Tuesday’s results have left them without a clear nomination frontrunner. This wouldn’t be an issue if the Michigan and Florida votes counted, but alas, the party has determined the voters there have no right to choose their party’s nominee.

Let’s get this straight. Aren’t these the same people who argued so vociferously that every vote must be counted during the 2000 presidential election? The same party that claims to be for the working man and woman? Yet they’ve decided to punish rank-and-file voters in two of the most important swing states simply because each state’s party elders decided to hold their primaries earlier than the national leadership desired.

Hillary Clinton now wants those votes to count. Not surprising, given that she won both states. Never mind that both she and Barack Obama agreed not to campaign in either (Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot). Wanting to claim the delegates now is akin to accepting your playing partner’s wager after you’ve already made the 40 foot putt.

Whatever the party decides, it should be noted that Democrats hold no moral advantage when it comes to enfranchising voters. It’s clear they want all votes to count, so long as they are the votes they want to count. Not unlike in 2000. Maybe it’s not so ironic after all.