The Transition to Hydrogen fuel – The window of opportunity for the Left
The purported motive for countries to sign on to the Kyoto Accords is to reduce greenhouse gases and thus theoretically slow down global warming. In fact it is a thinly disguised formula for wealth redistribution throughout the world – but I digress. One would think that the deployment of an alterative fuel that does not pollute and exists in inexhaustible abundance would be the prime directive of the Accords. The environmentalist elites are forever complaining about the “tons” of effluent that burning fossil fuels spews into the atmosphere. Yet why is there not a chorus of support from these elites for the transition to a hydrogen economy?
Most proponents of the environmentalist movement prefer restrictions on or scaling back consumption. More controls are necessary they say in order to protect the planet from humans. We should move away from private automobiles and use mass transit. We should not live in low-density suburbs, but rather in high-density urban condominiums. We should sort our garbage for free and then pay huge fees to dispose of it. Solutions for energy requirements should be in “harmony” with nature, expensive and in your face. A constant reminder of the guilt we should feel simply for existing.
Most of us don’t like scaling back on consumption – whether we can afford it or not. Most of us believe that the planet should exist for the benefit of mankind not in spite of him. We prefer the freedom of the private automobile to the inconvenience of mass transit and many would live in a low-density private home given the opportunity. This is the problem that confronts the social planners of the left as they try to mould society into dependent communities.
In a way Hydrogen is the worst nightmare for the left. It will allow the private automobile to dominate human transportation unfettered by the pollution argument. Personal freedom will be enhanced and commerce will flourish. How can a group of oligarchs’ control and mould society with all this freedom about? What’s more, because so many consumers desire all the things that the left wants to restrict, this new means of their attainment will become inevitable. The left knows this and can only use the interregnum period between the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen as a closing window of opportunity to put more controls in place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hi Fistis:
>
> Hydrogen fuel; a pipedream in our lifetime at least. There is still 100
> years of oil available and no one is going to take the plunge with billions
> of investment capital until a major league crisis forces it. There is still
> too much money to be made in fossil fuels. The Americans have really blown
> it. Pissing away millions per day to protect their oil and get their
> foothold in the middle east all the while standing by while the Chinese buy
> up the big oilpatch yet to come in the north. The pipeline will be up and
> running before the Yanks can say they're sorry for softwood lumber duties,
> wheatboard subsidies,and hiding their own mad cows. They had better get
> ready for Canadian style taxes in another 15 years when the world decides
> its time to start paying back that multi trillion dollar sink hole. And to
> think all they really needed to do was spend a few billion developing
> hydrogen fuel technology. Its ironic really given that they're more than
> willing to invest billions in goofball missile chasing schemes that every
> one with half a clue knows don't have a hope in hell of working. But you
> know... gotta protect that southern Jesus base.
>
> I agree that the environmentalists have it wrong. The earth is in no
> jeopardy what so ever. Only Humans are. Species have come and gone
> countless times over the past few billion years. After we self destruct the
> earth will keep on spinning and churning out new species to take advantage
> of our rearrangement of the available matter. A million years down the road
> humans will be but a speck on the geological time scale.
>
> By the way, where do you get the time to write so eloquently and
> abundantly?
>
> Hope you have a good week.
>
> Phil
Hi Phil,
>
> Good to hear your point of view. I think a large number of Canadians hold
> many of your ideas to be self-evident. Myself, to the post-modern belief
> that progress within the context of Western Civilization is not inevitable,
> I do not subscribe.
>
> I prefer to hold a Romantic view of man’s progress similar to the
> predominant mindset of the 19th Century.
> -The era that saw man pulled from agrarian subsistence into industrial
> production and wealth.
> -The era of great individuals that sought to civilize the world with a
> philosophy of reason, capitalism and glory.
>
> There are two types of people in the world; those that imagine a new and
> better world and those who say it can’t be done. Edison never doubted he
> could make the world a better place. Bell believed he could change the way
> we communicated with each other, yet many leading figures thought that there
> was no commercial value in his invention. Many said the Wright Brothers
> would never fly and when they did many doubted there was any point to their
> achievement. Lord Baden-Powell believed that young boys could grow into
> moral and strong young men given the disciplined structure and sense of
> adventure advocated by the scouts. These men all believed in the glory of
> mankind and that the primary tool of his survival is his mind.
>
> The fact is hydrogen technology is here and ready to go. You can buy a Mazda
> today that burns hydrogen. I remember buses that were burning hydrogen back
> in the Seventies. The only issue left outstanding is supply and
> distribution. I predict that we will all be able to drive a hydrogen-fuelled
> car within ten years.
>
> The reason that I believe this will happen is twofold; a) The price of
> fossil fuel is increasing and because of increased world demand will keep on
> getting more expensive in spite of how much is left in the ground. It will
> become cheaper to produce hydrogen than fossil fuel in the very near future.
> b) The Americans view energy as a strategic resource that is essential to
> their way of life. They will look at this as a defence issue and will make
> it happen.
>
> In California there is work underway to build a hydrogen highway the full
> length of the State. Even British Columbia is building a hydrogen highway
> for the Olympics. Before long one will be able to drive coast to coast on
> hydrogen fuel.
>
> It is true that there is a great deal of money to be made with fossil fuels,
> but the writing is on the wall and the transition to hydrogen is underway.
> This is great news for Canada because we could become the OPEC of hydrogen
> in a very short time. We have many great rivers that flow into the James and
> Hudson Bays – all with tremendous potential for producing electricity. The
> main argument against projects like the James Bay power damn in Quebec was
> the wastage due to line loss over the great distances to market. Producing
> hydrogen on site would mean that the energy could be piped to market with
> out the waste of sending electricity.
>
> It is hard for Canadians who grew up in the last thirty years to understand
> the importance of strategic defence (Since we have not had anything to do
> with strategic defence since Trudeau). Do many Canadians realize that the
> Interstate highway system in the United States was built for military
> reasons not commercial ones? Do they know that the Americans went into space
> and to the moon primarily for strategic military reasons and not for the
> pure sport of it? My work brings me into close contact with many people in
> the defence establishment in the United States and there is no doubt that
> hydrogen is seen as a major tool in the war against Islamic terror. An
> alternative fuel will also help protect North America against an even
> greater looming threat – an aggressive and nationalistic China.
>
> I should mention that it was the investment in the Strategic Defence
> Initiative that finally caused the Soviets to throw in the towel. I see the
> spin offs from this incredible technology everyday in my business. A quick
> example would be the use of terrain contouring missile guidance software
> that was modified to read the contour of a fingerprint for biometric
> security systems that protect medical records.
>
> I believe that in the near future hydrogen distribution will become a
> strategic imperative for the Americans and it will happen.
>
> My main point in the piece I wrote about hydrogen was the puzzlement at the
> lack of enthusiasm from the so-called environmentalist movement. The left
> does not want easy solutions that would allow individuals to retain the
> flagrant freedom they have come to expect from the use of fossil fuels. This
> is the same mentality that refuses to see landfill as the best and most cost
> effective method of waste disposal. We have a million square kilometres of
> tundra in the NWT with the population of Milton Ontario. Why can’t we set
> aside twenty-five square kilometres for landfill to solve the garbage
> problem for the next five hundred years?
>
> You are right on with the anti free-trade activity that lobby groups have
> been able to put in place in the US. It is wrong for the Americans to
> subsidise farmers or protect lumber companies. I have seen evidence that
> they not only have mad cows, but mad deer and Democrats as well. This kind
> of activity will only backfire on the Americans with higher prices.
>
> That being said I think the rest of the world needs the US economy more that
> the US needs the rest of the world. If China for instance tries to get rid
> of a large part of its US dollar holdings it will only increase the cost of
> Chinese goods and depress their economy.
>
> I believe that it is incumbent on individuals to use their primary tool of
> survival – their mind. This leads to a solution-oriented frame of mind. The
> anti-mind philosophy of the left will only bring us dependence and
> disappointment. I believe that man will find a way to survive and I know
> that western civilization is the best way to achieve that end.
>
> The Americans have accepted the mantle of Britannia and assume the
> responsibility of protecting the west. I cannot think of another country
> that I would rather live next to, nor can I find any other competing system
> that I would ally with against the Americans. (In spite of the Jesus base
> and the equally irritating Massachusetts liberal base)
>
> Any way that’s where I am coming from.
>
> Peace and Love
>
> CJB
Interesting view point. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of the book
"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It is a pro-environment piece of fiction, but
brilliant written. His premise is that unless humankind figures out how to
live and develop obyeing the laws of nature, humans along with a many other
species, will become extinct. That's it in a nutshell, but he touches on many
other issues as well.
I think you will enjoy the book even if you don't agree with everything in it.
I know I did.
Thea
Hi Chris
Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell. His "glorious" victory at Mafeking during the Boer War made for a hero's welcome back home, but the papers only included the good stuff. What was left out tells much more about the man. The brunt of the Mafeking's defence was borne by blacks, despite the fact that this was a "white man's war". Baden-Powell admitted to recruiting less than half of the actual numbers of blacks drafted. He excluded them from the protective trenches and shelters in the white part of town. He also continually reduced their rations to feed the white minority and the number of blacks who died of starvation was twice the number of reported civilian casualties. One might argue that he was a "man of his time" but was Robert E. Lee a man of his time when he freed all of his (actually his wife's) slaves long before the start of the civil war? Courage and honour are timeless.
As for the scouting movement, Baden Powell probably had more than the "moral fitness" of the boys in mind. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that he was gay. He liked "to watch boys swimming naked" and he had his own collection of nude boy pictures. Yes, he was married (getting around to it when he was 55) and had 3 children, but that alone is not evidence of heterosexuality. Oscar Wilde, after all, was married with two children. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but in his position of authority over all those boys, the potential for abuse was extreme. And that was at a time when such things went unchecked.
I understand many of your points, but certainly not the inclusion of this man among them. If you are looking for great Britons, Winston Churchill would have been my choice. Yes he was flawed ( I wince when I read his Gandhi racial slurs) and he made mistakes (the Dardanelles) but he was a great man and without his leadership, Germany would have won the second world war. I vote for Winston.
Love,
the other Chris Burton
B-P was truly a great man and a hero. His skilful defence of Mafeking is legend. I don’t know what your sources are but this is pure revisionism. B-P had only 700 poorly equipped troops at his command and was prevented from preparing defensive works for fear of tipping off the Boers. Three days after the war started Mafeking was surrounded and under attack by 6000 Boer troops. B-P was able to add 300 white volunteers to his force and make partial use of 700 Blacks. The orders from British command prevented B-P from using Blacks to defend the white part of town. The Blacks were only allowed to protect their own area. These rules of engagement were put in place to prevent the use of Blacks on both sides. Untold black lives were saved by this policy, which both sides observed. B-P made brilliant use of bluffs, which dissuaded the Boers from making a frontal attack that would overwhelm his small force. His organizational skills were unsurpassed keeping Mafeking from starving and at the same time maintaining local services for the townsfolk. He even issued new stamps to keep the post office functioning.
It is stretching credibility to accuse a commander of reducing rations unevenly when he is surrounded and fighting for his life. In any case whites were much wealthier then blacks due to superior education, investment capital, adherence to the ‘rule of law’ and generally coming from a far more advanced civilization. It should be instructive however that B-P held the loyalty of his black troops and was revered by them.
I personally do not think that B-P would have launched such a reckless attack as Pickett’s Charge had he been in command at Gettysburg. Lee has never born the criticism he is due for that blunder.
I have tried in vain to find any proof that B-P was a homosexual – in fact there is a great deal of evidence that he was asexual in everyway. One of the reasons he promoted scouting was to keep young boys busy enough to prevent them from practicing “self-abuse”. Only in the late twentieth century would the admiration of youthful bodies be construed with immorality and suspect intensions. B-P truly loved being among his scouts and put his heart and soul into the movement.
In the end he had produced a worldwide movement as his legacy.
P.S. I don’t know what your politics are but why is it that the left claims that they are so in favour of homosexual rights and are the first ones to accuse someone of being gay if they are a political enemy. Just a thought.
Many Africans today would gladly trade homicidal maniacs like Robert Mugabe for one tenth the man that was B-P.
CJB
My sources are excellent. Revisionism is always cried when one doesn't like the message. I never denied that Baden-Powell's defence of Mafeking was brilliant. I simply included historical facts that never make it into his laundered biography. His treatment and exploitation of blacks was unconscionable and is well documented.
Yes, Robert Mugabe is a monster. We have 24 hour news to pass on that information. I wonder if Baden-Powell was subjected to the same media scrutiny would he come out smelling any better? And the less of two evils is still evil.
You accuse me of a double standard on homosexual rights. Cleary, my comments on Baden-Powell's homosexuality were in the context of the scouting movement and his erotic fascination with BOYS, of which there is lots of credible evidence. It is ironic that by today's standards he wouldn't even be allowed in the boys scouts. None of this changes the fact that the scouting movement has had a positive and lasting impact on young people and their countries.
To compare a military decision by Robert E. Lee to Baden-Powell's treatment of an entire race of people is like apples and oranges, but there is no doubt that Lee was the more decent human being.
Conservatives always claim to be the staunchest defenders of individual rights, but when two consenting adults of the same sex want to get married, that door is shut. To say that marriage is an old and honoured institution is not a good enough reason. Slavery, denying women the vote (among countless other rights), residential schools, and the tolerance of domestic violence were all institutions of one kind or another that were used to deny people personal freedom. To defend individual rights is to defend any two consenting adults the right to marry. It is as simple as that. I also believe that religions should have the right not to perform gay marriages.
We will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing you could write that would change my understanding and clearly there is nothing I could say that would diminish Baden-Powell in your eyes. Healthy and civil debate is always a good thing. I think Sir Winston Churchill is our only collective hope.
Chris
I would love to check out your sources – maybe it would change my mind.
But I can’t find any credible evidence that B-P was homosexual.
I can’t find any evidence that Blacks living in his time or under his command thought he was a racist.
In any of B-P’s writing that I have read I cannot find the slightest hint of eroticism whether for boys or girls. Boys always swam in the buff back then – the pictures would have been labelled boys swimming, not naked pictures of boys.
How you can compare B-P to a mass-murdering racist like Mugabe I don’t know. In fact it would appear that the majority of Black leaders in Africa are either Totalitarian dictators that practice hostile racism or in the case of South Africa deluded racists bent on denying the cultural reasons for the spread of AIDs. The major difference between the former white racist countries in Africa and the black racist countries is that Blacks were trying to get into the former and are now fleeing for their lives from the savagery that has taken over their homelands.
You should know that troops under Lee’s command were ordered to execute any Union officers that commanded Black troops. Doesn’t sound very decent to me.
I have no problem with homosexual unions as I stated in my piece on that subject. I do have a problem with changing the legal definition of marriage because it will have grave financial consequences. My other point was who is to say that two people of the same sex have to be homosexual to benefit from marriage. Why would they even have to know each other or live together? Who is going to check? Marriage would become a financial contract and quickly loose any relevance or meaning. (With the divorce rate we have today it is in big trouble anyway) The logical conclusion is Huxley’s brave new world where marriage contracts last for one night for sex. The state takes over the role of the family and exerts social control from Alpha elites.
Don’t give up your argument. You may be right. I am an unapologetic imperialist and I am always looking for a good argument not to be. The problem is I haven’t found one yet.
CJB
Actually, you brought up the Mugabe comparison. I just commented on it and hey, I said Baden-Powell was the lesser of two evils. You accurately called Mugabe a mass-murdering racist. I have also heard Baden-Powell referred to as murdering racist and a war criminal. And I read that he was an idiot whose incompetence prolonged the Mafeking siege. I think both of these statements are over the top but clearly, Baden-Powell remains a controversial figure. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, between the war criminal and the military hero.
I have read different accounts of Lee's orders with regard to captured black soldiers. If the worst is true (and it would be an atrocity), Lee ordered the execution of enemy soldiers, while Baden-Powell's cruelty was directed towards his own men.
And those are my last comments on this subject. Let the political games begin.
Chris
Post a Comment