It’s interesting to me that he makes that comparison. Putting a man on the moon was a very expensive government boondoggle. The moon program was conceived primarily as a response to the Soviets having beaten us into space with the first orbiting satellite, Sputnik. After about ten years and billions of dollars, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon on 20 July 1969. The last astronauts to walk on the moon did so in 1972. They left a plaque with this message: “Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon, December 1972.” In over 36 years we haven’t been back.

In other words, there was no real point in putting a man on the moon; we just wanted to show that we could do it. 

Actually, I suspect that Obama’s comparison is more apt than he would like to admit. I have no doubt that given enough money and time we can develop a clean coal burning process. But once we’ve done it we will probably realize that it is too expensive to use for any practical purpose.

In my eyes oil is a cancer that has only grown larger and larger over the years. If we do not do something soon to treat the cancer, then it will devour us completely.

I suggested that our need for oil is more like an addiction to drugs, alcohol or tobacco than a cancer. Not many people feel that they need or want a cancer. It is common for people to consume narcotics until it kills them. And it is reasonable to assume that we might eventually work ourselves into a serious dilemma from our addiction to oil.

But after further thought I considered the possibility that the reader was thinking in terms of the much discussed undesirable environmental effects from the use of oil. That we humans and our machines are simply the host for the oil-cancer much like our body cells serve as hosts for cancer, and that the aim of the oil-cancer is to destroy the environment and us with it.

The problem here though is that it doesn’t matter as much what the source of energy is, but how much of it we use — or more accurately, the amount of motion or activity in the world. That is, the only real way to reduce the net impact of energy use on the environment is to slow the world down. I’m not advocating that we do that; I’m just saying that it may be the only way to reduce the negative effects of activity.

In physics there is a law called the conservation of energy. It states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. And that the sum of all the energies in a system is a constant. What this means is that the “consumption” of energy just converts the energy into a different form; it doesn’t use up the energy. But, in a real-world system a lot of the “consumed” energy is wasted in the form of friction, heat and emissions. That is, it is not captured but it is still out there.

I’m not a physicist but I think this law can be applied to the debate about clean versus dirty energy sources. I suspect that the net impact on the environment is about the same for a given unit of work done no matter the source of the energy.

Take nuclear powered versus coal powered electricity generation. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining coal and transporting it to the power plant. Energy is consumed and the environment is affected in mining, shipping and enriching uranium. Emissions from coal-fired power plants affect the environment. Handling and storage of radioactive waste from nuclear-powered plants affects the environment. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take wood versus oil as a direct heat source. The production of wood hugely benefits the environment, but the harvesting and transportation of the wood produces negative effects. The production and transportation of heating oil produces negative effects. Both produce undesirable emissions when they are consumed. I suspect that the net effects are about the same.

Take solar panels as a source of electricity. The impact on the environment appears to be about zero, until you account for the manufacture and transportation of the panels. Think about the magnitude of an operation to keep all the homes and businesses in the world supplied with enough solar panels to supply their total power needs. And what about the batteries and their disposal issues?

I think we had better just accept oil as one of our major sources of energy for at least the next couple of decades while we figure out a way to harness all the friction, heat and emissions from current and future sources of energy. But then we’ll probably learn that the harnessing has its own costs and negative effects.

Update: New wood powered electricity generating plants are being proposed in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Wood is the leading renewable energy source in the US.

Environmentalists, to their surprise, found that timber and mining were easier on the countryside.

“Now that Plum Creek is getting out of the timber business, we’re kind of missing the loggers,” said Ray Rasker, executive director of Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit that studies land management in the West. “A clear-cut will grow back, but a subdivision of trophy homes, that’s going to be that way forever.

“It’s kind of the ugly face of the new economy.”

Almost two years ago I wrote about a paper production company that was converting its tree-growing land into residential and commercial development. Development became more profitable for them than growing trees for paper. Perhaps that was partly due to environmentalist campaigns to reduce paper consumption.

My point was that quite often these feel-good activities end up producing the opposite of the desired results. Looks like they’re discovering this to be true in Montana.

Seriously, the Associated Press reports that “a five-acre glacial lake in Chile’s southern Andes has disappeared — and scientists want to know why.”

Why? What’s the big deal about a five-acre lake? That’s just twice the size of my yard. Here in Florida it’s relatively common for much larger lakes to drain into the ground. Most of them refill within months or a few years. One lake in northern Florida has gone through this cycle many times. I don’t remember any of these instances becoming international news.

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

So what? President Bush should simply ignore the “rebuke.” He should just announce after a few weeks that he has taken “a fresh look” and found no compelling reason to change his current policy.

Anyway, I don’t know how a 5-4 decision by the Court can be considered a rebuke. It would appear that the Court is divided almost down the middle on the issue.

I have said that no bill before Congress should become law without approval by a two-thirds majority. I also believe that all rulings by the courts (Supreme, District, and Appeals) should be unanimous. If a small number of justices can’t reach agreement on an issue, then it should be considered a ‘no decision’.

Another argument for unanimous decisions is that the makeup of some courts — like the present Supreme Court — essentially gives one justice the power to make most rulings. The Supreme Court often decides along ideological lines. The Court is now made up of four liberals, four conservatives and one moderate. The vote of the moderate ’swing voter’, Anthony Kennedy, often determines the decision on major cases before the Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Again, so what? Police have the authority to shoot criminals when threatened by them but they don’t always do so. (Yeah, I know. They do sometimes shoot innocent citizens when they aren’t threatened by them.) ‘Authority’ doesn’t mean ‘obligation.’ If the Supreme Court thinks it does, does that mean that the Court will rule in my favor if I sue the federal government to get them to enforce immigration laws? That may turn out to be the best thing about this ruling: It establishes a precedent that can be used to force the government to shut down the flow of illegals into this country.

I don’t know how hogs cause cancer. Perhaps there is some way that people cause cancer by eating pork. Does Deirdre think that hogs are on some kind of jihad? That by being composed of very tasty meat they can do their part to annihilate humans?

Hogs may create some pollution in their immediate area but there is one thing for certain: No hog has ever created more than a small fraction of the pollution that Deirdre Imus has created — or will create in the remainder of her life. The average lifespan of a hog is about two years. Deirdre could easily live well past 80 years. Few, if any, hogs jet frequently between their homes in New York and New Mexico. Deirdre could do more to reduce pollution by taking her own life than by trying to prevent hogs from having a life.

All the preachers of radical environmentalism could do more for the environment by ending their lives — or by just staying home — than they do by jetting around the country and world.

In the annals of vice presidential history, tonight will be something different. In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as “The Goracle” will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio, will stroll down the red carpet at the Academy Awards to answer the immortal question: “Al, who are you wearing?”

It would be bad enough to learn that a son is interested in what Gore is wearing, but who!? Perhaps Booth is poking fun at Gore or the Oscars, but I don’t think so. Anyway, I’m embarrassed at what a sissy nation we’ve become. There was a time when men had better things to do than talk about clothes — especially what some other man is wearing.

No matter what he’s wearing I think that Al Gore strongly believes in what he’s doing. In fact, I think that is why he was chosen for the role. He is the global warming alarmists’ suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are chosen because they can be convinced that their mission is worth more than their life. Fortunately for Gore he only has to sacrifice his credibility for his mission. After a few years people will become bored with global warming, the climate will swing in another direction or another ‘crisis’ will take its place, and Gore will again be regarded as a dunce. There is the possibility that Gore is just doing it for the money. In that case he’s not dumb, just devious.

Booth mentions that Gore “is on first-name basis, for real, with Ludacris.” On first-name basis with a man with only one name? Perhaps he is poking fun at Gore.

Booth says that Gore is “totally carbon neutral.” How does that square with this?:

Gore worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo. In France, he not only attended the film opening, but presented his 90-minute Apple Keynote lecture to the National Assembly. He did the slide show at the United Nations, the American Geophysical Union, and before conservative activist Grover Norquist’s regular Wednesday meeting.

Does his airplane produce no carbon? No, what they probably mean by ‘carbon neutral’ is that Gore is buying ‘carbon offsets’ to compensate for the carbon his transportation (and several large houses) are producing. To offset carbon one has to consume carbon equal to that produced. An example of a carbon offset is planting trees. It seems that a global warming prophet like Gore would want to do better than just carbon neutral. He could plant all those trees and still not burn all that jet fuel in the atmosphere. (Would that be carbon positive or carbon negative?)

Gore needs to plant a lot more trees than those needed to offset his carbon production because he wants to produce ethanol from wood chips instead of corn. Plant trees for one purpose, cut them down for another and make both seem like saving the planet. That Gore is a clever guy — at least he thinks he is.

We found several boat launch ramps in locations that show promise. At one of these we encountered two men in canoes. They looked like hunters in that they were decked out in camouflage clothing. We learned though that they are bird watchers looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I was not aware that the Ivory Bills are thought to inhabit the Choctawhatchee. I have heard that a sighting has been claimed in Arkansas. In searching the internet I found that the Choctawhatchee team has a web site that describes their activities. They maintain a camp in the swamp.

I don’t have a problem with people trying to ascertain if particular animal or plant species still exist. But I do have a problem with what some of them want to do when they find a specimen that was thought to be extinct. One of the birders that we encountered said “if we find an Ivory Bill in here they will lock this whole area down.” By ‘they’ he meant the state and federal government. I mentioned to him that the Water Management District already has it pretty much locked down. He said that their restrictions on public use of the area aren’t sufficient to protect endangered species. But he added that the public would still be allowed to hunt and fish in the area as long as the pressure was not excessive. Well, who defines excessive pressure? Most likely not the hunter or fisherman.

If the restrictions they want only apply to existing public lands the impact probably won’t be that great. But if they want them extended to private property, and they probably will, then I have a big problem with that.  Restricting the use of private property devalues the land and, therefore, constitutes theft of that value.  The use of private property should not be restricted just to save a bird that most of us have never seen. If it can’t survive on its own we should just bid it adieu.