Billions and Trillions
Carl Sagan wrote a book entitled Billions and Billions. While we tend to get wrapped up in our own infinitesimal problems, keep in mind that it takes light 100,000 years (travelling at 186,282 miles/second) just to get from one end of our Milky Way Galaxy to the other end. The closest spiral galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light years away. Yes, if we can ever design a spacecraft to travel at the speed of light, it would take two and a half million years to reach our closest true galaxy. And, there are more than 100 billion galaxies in our universe. But let's think small.
Modern man, homo sapiens sapiens, only arrived on the scene around 100,000 years ago. In a few years, the World population will approach 7 billion people. We first reached 1 billion just about 200 years ago, zooming to 6 billion in 1999.
Apparently, Everett Dirksen never did say "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Or, at least the Dirksen Center could not find anything in their files to verify that statement. Laid end to end, a billion one dollar bills would circle the globe at the equator four times. A trillion would take us from Earth to our Sun. One thousand billion dollars amount to a trillion dollars.
How far does a sum of one billion dollars go these days? We are paying $1billion/year to Pakistan for counterterrorism. There is a billion dollar large floating golf ball (really a radar station stationed in Alaska) that spends many holidays in Pearl Harbor. Each space shuttle shot is supposedly about a billion. The Lighthouse, a 984-foot skyscraper designed by American architect Thom Mayne, being erected in Paris, will cost a billion. The Freedom Tower (1,776 ft) has been financed for $3 billion. Each Nimitz class aircraft carrier carries a $4.5 billion tag.
What about rate of usage? For the past decade, the U.S. Department of Energy has annually spent less than a billion dollars for renewable energy research. The Bush budget for this coming year remains less than $1 billion. Farm subsidies will amount this year to $25 billion. And farmers are doing well because of the ethanol debacle. Our arms shipment to Middle East countries (not including Iraq and Afghanistan) will this year add up to $63 billion. We will spend around $600 billion this year in the U.S. on gasoline. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz (Harvard economist) estimates the cost of the Iraq War to be $3 trillion, that is 3,000 billion dollars.
A few months ago, President George Bush requested a $3 trillion Federal budget, predicting a budget shortfall of $407 billion. But, it was this week reported that this deficit will actually be closer to $500 billion. Our overall Federal liability is $57.3 trillion, or about $500,000/household. Our gross national product is about $13 trillion, while that of the world is $65.6 trillion (we are 20% of the world).
How are our companies doing? Just four oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips) last year earned $100 billion in profits. Quarterly reports show that record profits are continuing this year. In 2007, General Motors lost a record $39 billion, and Ford just posted a worst ever quarterly loss of $8.67 billion. Toyota seems poised to sell more cars than GM this year. Our airline companies are predicting a total industry loss of $13 billion this year. But we're talking paltry billions here.
Going back in time, the Manhattan Project (to build a couple of atomic bombs) cost $2 billion, or $21 billion in current dollars. The Marshall Plan for post-war Europe cost us $13 billion over four years, or $80 billion today. The Apollo mission cost about $23 billion spread over 13 years, or $140 billion today.
So if Peak Oil and Global Warming are so dreadful, why don't we just start a new Manhattan Project for a sustainable world? Well, the International Energy Agency last month reported that it will take $45 trillion to insure that our climate only rises about 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. The Manhattan, Marshall and Apollo efforts combined, in today's dollar, only amounted to $0.24 trillion.
Do we have a problem? Try dividing 0.24 into 45. You will obtain a figure of nearly 200, which means that for the world to take immediate action just to suffer an uncomfortable temperature rise would cost about 200 times more than Manhattan/Marshall/Apollo combined! Remember, the U.S. Congress this year killed the global warming mitigation bill and only included about a billion dollars for renewable energy research, while the G8 Nations in Japan weakened their resolve to tackle this problem. Oh, yes, our Congress, though, somehow, in no time at all, for them, actually found $300 billion to bail out our so-called housing crisis. What's going on? It really does not matter, for those were billions. The reality is that the $45 trillion IEA estimate could well be $450 trillion if you look closely at what actually has to be spent to control carbon dioxide by 2050.
Yes, the Pickens' $0.7 trillion wind farm initiative helps and so does the Gore $5 trillion renewable electricity for the U.S. proposal, which most pundits panned as impossible. Forget about billions and trillions. Don't waste time with more or less taxes. Why not just take that quantum leap to a free Green Energy Age, as explained in my HuffPo of July 17?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pat, for argument's sake, let's say that tomorrow our best scientists deduce with suitable certainty that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change from greenhouse gases is NOT in the cards, and that the only remaining real risk is Peak Oil (or let's say Peak Non-Renewables). Just for argument's sake. With that supposition, what - if anything - would you change regarding recommendations for the Free Green Energy Age?
The FREE Green Energy Strategy would only make sense if BOTH Peak Oil and Global Warming will hammer us. If carbon dioxide is not a problem, as quickly as possible liquify coal and shale oil. Industry can't take this pathway under current conditions for fear of a debilitating carbon tax. There is no need to make renewable energy free if Peak Oil is the only issue. After all, the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of shale oil, and we have a lot of coal. I worked for the Senate Energy Committee in the early 80's when we passed the Energy Mobilization Board and a bunch of other legislation to spur these government-company partnerships. These can be re-visited. They might stll make some sense, actually, even if greenhouse gases need to be controlled if the economics of geologically storing carbon dioxide are favorable and storage foolproof, awaiting the day when renewables become more competitive. Yet, I can't, in good conscience advocate this strategy, for there are too many possible flaws.
We still get massive mercury poisoning from burning coal and much worse fro shale. We still require mountain top removal and tragically poor "remediation" We still have fly ash waste. And it's still more expensive the wind. NanoSolar is also cheaper, and it's distributed eliminating grid overload.
You do realize, that you just did a petrochecmical PR guys work for him, right?
Professor, one has to wonder how (in this extraordinarily capitalistic, profit-
driven society of ours, with all that entails) you expect such radical ideas to
succeed. Energy is provided by hugely profitable corporations who are
most successful at dispensing vital, (arguably?) dwindling resources.
They (Big Energy) ain't going anywhere.
On the other hand, you may be right, but we just can't get there from here.
Ah, you got the point! Now, what can you do to make that crucial difference? We are in a No-No Catch 22 Alice in Wonderland with a solution, but no obvious way to get there. HuffPo readers: HELP!!!
Do you mean tax payer funded municipal electric companies?
Or do you mean that no matter how much electricity I use it cost the same or zero?
When you say "free".
If you have any time, you should read my Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the Huffington Post. Part 4 is curiously missing, but you can go to the July 17 version of my daily blog. The comment page does not allow me to insert this web page here, but you can go to my full bio, and, at the very end, you can click on the blue-colored blog.
Oh yes, free is NOT FREE. Your taxes will pay for it. But you will need to comprehend the full package to appreciate the sanity of this concept.
I just RE read your entire series. I get it. It not a good idea.
Energy should not be free.
People will waste it.
Free is the problem. Municipal power companies have existed forever. They charge per unit of energy used. Why introduce this free energy nonsense? Please don't let our criticisms discourage you, but please try a different approach.
Yep, and we will eventually tank. No doubt about it. But the survivors will have a choice: embrace common sense and continue as humans, or go extinct. Pat's point is pretty simple. Hydrogen is the most common chemical in the universe. Either use it for free, or keep paying more and more for fossil fuel until it is all gone.
.
I am skeptical of the National Debt number but your effective point is accurate.
.
Yes, I misquoted. I should have said Federal liability, and made that adjustment.
"U.S. Department of Energy has annually spent less than a billion dollars for renewable energy research"
Since when is it the presumed responsibility of the US Government to investigate alternative energy production methods for profit? This is the responsibility of private entyerprise.
"So if Peak Oil and Global Warming are so dreadful, why don't we just start a new Manhattan Project for a sustainable world"
Which of the enumerated powers of Congress does this project fall under?
"Our overall national debt is $57.3 trillion"
An outright falsehood. The gross national debt was approx $8,960,000,000,000 at the end of FY2007. How can you have an informed opinion when you are so misinformed?
"insure that our climate only rises about 5 degrees Fahrenheit "
Total absurdity. The natural range of climate variation over the last 800,000 years is +5/-10 degrees C relative to the present mean global temperature. Nothing man is doing now or will do in the foreseeable future is going to insure anything of the kind.
You're right, I used the wrong term. Specifically, the national debt is past nine and heading for 10 trillion dollars. I got the $57.3 trillion figure from a recent CNN article:
"Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household.
I should have said federal liabilities. In any case, this figure is more appropriate than only our national debt.
"federal liabilities"
What liabilities? Beyond actual issued US securities, the Congress has no debts it has to honor, and even these securities could be "suspended" or "deferred" in the event of a national emergency of sufficient severity, that is, defaulted. Who will force Congress to pay? The UN? The World Court? Hah!
For example: empty promises made to the victims of Social Security need not be honored. There were two court decisions rendered many years ago regarding Social Security, one in 1964 and one in 1972. I don't recall which was which, but the upshot of these decisions was this: (1) FICA taxes are just that, a payroll tax levied against wage earners. They are not a savings account. They are not a "trust" fund. The payer has no vested rights in these funds whatever. They are simply a tax Congress may appropriate as it wishes. (2) Social Security retirement benefits are not a pension fund. They are a government welfare program legislated by the Congress. As such, no citizen has any putative rights to benefits from it other than those legislated by Congress. Translation: Congress can reneg on any and all SS payments anytime it sees fit. Since it is a welfare program, Congress is free to set or change the benefit levels at its discretion.
You've got our attention. Where's Part 4?
If we're going to furiously rearrange the deck chairs, we need the FULL plan.
Part 1: http://www
Part 2: http://www
Part 3: http://www
Part 4: ??????????
Part 5: http://www
Yep, that was one nonsensical series of articles. And you are missing one of them. Geez...
I went to your profile and noted that you have posted more than 4,000 comments. More so, I saw that I am one of your 28 fans. Hmmm..... That you thought the five part series was nonsensical meant you actually read them. I guess that must be a compliment of sorts. I'm disappointed, maybe even sorry, though, that you missed the whole point.
For some reason, I guess personal blog addresses are not allowed in any comments. Anyway, e-mail me at hotmail.co
Do the Google on 'Simple Solutions: For Planet Earth'
and all the relevant items may found forthwith.
One has to wonder about what is so disturbing about
the mysteriously absent 'Part 4' that HuffPost must keep
it from us.
Actually Part 4 is rather tame and uneventful. Maybe that is why it was not published. However ,I have maintained this posting with HuffPo and could, yet, make it. By the way, I figured out how you can access this mysterious Part 4 without my herewith inserting my blog address. You can go to my full bio...and way at the end is a blue-colored term "blog." Just click on it to access my blog. The article was written on July 17.
You are amazing with numbers. I really enjoyed pondering this Rubric's Cube. Could you do me a favor my friend, and check this number: "Our overall national debt is $57.3 trillion, or about $500,000/h
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
