Energy Idiocy

What is it almost liberate energy that post all sides of the political spectrum into spasms of babbling idiocy? Here are ii items heard on my jog yesterday, courtesy of NPR, 1 from the right, 1 from the left, alongside the NPR interviewers mindlessly accepting idiocy inward the middle.

Start alongside NPR's coverage of Gina McCarthy's Senate confirmation hearings. The number is the EPAs efforts to closed downwards coal-fired powerfulness plants to cut back carbon emissions

ELIZABETH SHOGREN, BYLINE: For iv years, Gina McCarthy has been heading upward the EPA's component subdivision inward accuse of air quality. She's crafted rules that are cleaning upward exhausts from one-time coal-fired powerfulness plants. Some of those plants are opting to closed downwards instead of installing expensive pollution controls. Republican Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming says those rules take away keep cost jobs.

SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO: Since you've taken office, 10 pct of coal-fired generated powerfulness inward the United States of America has been taken offline. Do you lot encounter the EPA having whatever responsibleness for the thousands of folks who are out of operate for these constitute closures?

GINA MCCARTHY: Senator, I convey my undertaking seriously when I'm developing standards for protecting populace wellness to convey a facial expression at the economical consequences of those as well as practise my best to supply flexibility inward the rules.

SHOGREN: Senator Barrasso continues his barrage, naming coal miners he's met who are out of operate for the showtime fourth dimension inward their lives.

BARRASSO: How many to a greater extent than times, if confirmed, volition this EPA manager line the regulatory lever as well as allow some other mining theatre unit of measurement to autumn through the EPA's trapdoor to joblessness, to poverty as well as to pitiful health?

So, quick question: What is the ideal number of jobs inward the electricity production industry? Answer: zero.

Really. If you lot desire "jobs," the correct reply is to closed downwards all the coal-fired plants, as well as allow all those workers deed to installing really inefficient windmills. No, better, claw them all upward to stationary bicycles, producing l watts each; as well as thus hire a bunch to a greater extent than people to grow nutrient for them on locally-sourced sustainable organic farms. And, equally Milton Friedman famously quipped, take away keep them plough the fields alongside spoons thus to a greater extent than people yet tin take away keep jobs. (Coal mining itself has lost almost all of its "jobs" due to mechanization. Perhaps the senator would similar to contrary that.)

Ms. McCarthy could easily take away keep answered: "No, Senator. Industries volition yet demand electricity, as well as that demand volition deed to renewables. Look at all the light-green jobs nosotros volition create."  Having started downwards the coal miner undertaking route, the senator would for certain non take away keep had the wit to indicate out that the existent "jobs" cost is inward downstream industries that take away keep to pay to a greater extent than for electricity.

Now from the left. The cost-benefit calculation prize of the twelvemonth goes to NPRs adjacent story, roofing a scientific newspaper that predicts that climate alter volition crusade to a greater extent than clear-air turbulence for flights close the jet current over the North Atlantic.

BLOCK: Your written report finds that yesteryear 2050, nosotros powerfulness encounter the frequency of turbulence on flights across the Atlantic doubling as well as also getting stronger. This has to practise alongside the jet stream. Can you lot explicate why?

WILLIAMS: Well, climate alter is accelerating the jet stream, making the current of air speeds faster. And this is making the atmosphere to a greater extent than susceptible to the item instability that causes clear air turbulence to suspension out. ... The weather seem to endure smoothen as well as all of a sudden, you lot tin striking turbulence unexpectedly ...

BLOCK: Well, practise you lot figure that airlines volition take away keep to reconfigure their flying patterns, volition take away keep to alter how they fly, where they fly?

WILLIAMS: Well, a airplane pilot taking off from mayhap New York inward the nitty-gritty of this century to come upward across the Atlantic to somewhere inward Europe volition endure looking at twice equally much airspace containing turbulence. Now, they're going to human face upward a pick that they could simply grit their teeth as well as determine to wing correct through those extra patches of turbulence or if the turbulence is especially strong, they powerfulness instead determine to attempt out to wing around it or to a higher house it or below it.

All of this, of course, agency that journeying times could lengthen if flying paths take away keep to cash inward one's chips to a greater extent than wiggly as well as less of a direct line. This is an increment inward journeying times, maybe to a greater extent than delays at airports as well as also, mayhap to a greater extent than importantly, an increment inward fuel consumption. And I should refer that fuel is the number 1 cost to airlines. So whatever increment inward fuel consumption will, of course, imply increased costs to the airlines.

And ultimately, of course, it could endure passengers who encounter the ticket prices going upward to pay for that.

BLOCK: Well, the irony there, too, I suppose would endure that if you're increasing fuel consumption, you're also increasing the contribution to global warming which volition endure causing the turbulence inward the showtime place, right?

WILLIAMS: Right. There's a variety of feedback in that location as well as it's a flake similar poetic judge that maybe the atmosphere is somehow seeking its revenge on planes for causing this occupation inward the showtime place.

So much low-hanging fruit here. There take away keep been a lot of attempts to add together upward the economical costs of global warming. Just how big is this effect? Should Gina McCarthy take away keep answered Senator Barrasso with, "Yes, some miners volition lose their jobs. But recall how much cheaper airline tickets to Paris volition endure inward 2050 because pilots won't take away keep to wing longer routes to avoid clear-air turbulence?"

Savor the irony. One of the highest items on the global warming agenda is to deliberately enhance ticket prices yesteryear carbon taxes.

"Feedback." About 2% of carbon emissions are from all aircraft. So how much practise carbon emissions ascent from slightly longer jet routes? Are nosotros out of the 5th decimal point?

This is all thus sad. I don't hear liberals who don't profess to believe inward costless markets getting it all wrong. But "free market" conservatives shouldn't rapidly revert to Keynesian heart priming as well as populace works arguments.  I don't hear conservative bible-thumpers who larn scientific discipline wrong. But bien-pensant "scientific" global warming nannies shouldn't endure off by, oh, let's order 10^6 or to a greater extent than on cost-benefit analyses as well as feedback effects. Each makes their causes ludicrous. And simply how incredulous should journalists endure non to grab whatever of this?