My Year With The Huffington Post
My very first posting, on May 29th 2008, was written during the heat of the Obama-Clinton race for the Democratic nomination, and was entitled "Well, Barack, We have a Problem." I suggested that he was the only individual capable of ameliorating the economic cataclysm to come. Well, two for two, as he did become President and seems to be making the right moves.
I further intimated that the best way to secure funds would be to reduce the defense budget. He did, sort of, but nothing close to the 10% cut I recommended, to be followed by 10% each year if all other countries did the same. Soon, then, his legacy would be: Peace on Earth forever. Ridiculous, perhaps, but something to consider.
The thought of posting an article a week for the entire year was way beyond my wildest dreams, but here I am, in mid-May, with this, my 52nd article. A couple got no comments, but one went beyond a hundred.
In general, as traditional columnists report on the obvious, I thought I would focus on the unobvious. Yes, except for the Farm Lobby, we all know that ethanol is bad, but my answer is the direct methanol fuel cell. There was very little support, especially none from the U.S. Department of Energy. I even went so far as to express caution regarding the plug-in electric car and the hydrogen economy. I got heartburn from the responses. Just wait, though, for I predict that the biomethanol economy will be just around the corner (okay, at least ten to twenty years away).
No one writes about ocean opportunities. Former President George W. Bush, for example, took pride in closing down portions to development, as historically has the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A former chief scientist waxed about her fishy friends and their only ocean technologist was fired more than decade ago. As NOAA reports to the Department of Commerce, you would think that at least one office would promote intelligent commercial development of the seas. Nope.
I cheer Patri Friedman and his Seasteading, Inc., and provide encouragement to Ted Johnson and his OTEC crew from Lockheed Martin and Makai Ocean Engineering, but there seems to be no real interest in something I have termed, the Blue Revolution, to develop the seas for humanity in harmony with the marine environment. There is almost a unanimity of world opinion that we screwed up our lands and atmosphere, so, let's not destroy our ocean. Nonsense, for sustainable resources, green materials, exciting new habitats and more can become our future if we do it right.
One of my recent tactics is the use of doomsday, for if sound logic does not work, maybe fear might. I have a few friends who are preparing for the end, and even an active internet forum on the general subject. My Daily Blog covers these activities, including serializing those two books on Simple Solutions I recently wrote shown in one of the boxes to the right. As of today, 73 countries have visited that site.
Anyway, one of those chapters is entitled The Venus Syndrome, hinting that the vast deposit (said to be twice as much more than the known amount of oil, coal and natural gas) of marine methane hydrates at the sea bottom could well reach the surface and turn Planet Earth into Planet Venus at 900 degrees F. Methane, as most don't know, compared to carbon dioxide, is more than 20 times worse for inducing global warming. A novel on the subject is in the works.
I carped on why we have no national energy policy (this most prosaic of postings drew more than 100 comments), why Republicans like fossil fuels and not care that much for the environment, the amount we spend on national security, and our more recent tendency to copy rather than build something better. On the more positive front, I explained why renewable electricity is our only viable option, identified the ideal biofuel for development and provided a solution for our domestic auto industry. You will be stunned about how Americans view "Evolution, Global Warming, Doomday and the Afterlife" and might still be confused about the ethnicity of Barack Obama.
As miserable as the world has been over the past year, we now have no Cold War and will soon exit Iraq, do not worry much about the population bomb and, by the way, what happened to acid rain? The economy is now rising, there is change in D.C. and the Sun will continue to shine. Thank you for a wonderful year with HuffPo.
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
Congratulations on 52 posts, and keep writing. This is one of the very few blogs I follow regularly. Your posts are nudging the world along, including with the necessary Blue Revolution.
I agree that a carbon tax would be better than cap and trade but probably isn't politically feasible. We must push on the details of any cap and trade program to make sure we don't make all the same mistakes the EU did when it started up the ETS, such as pricing allowances too low. Give-aways to industry won't accomplish anything. We need auctions.
Nudging is better than doing nothing at all, I guess. However, I need to figure out better how to be useful, for my harangues about ethanol only seem to strengthen the USDOE resolve about this biofuel and my critique about plug-in electric cars (with a suggestion that a direct methanol fuel cell had more to offer) only led to their zeroing out the fuel cell for transport program last week. Both the Farm Lobby and the Electric Industry have won the current battle, which will continue to lead the Nation and World in the wrong direction, unless something can be reversed to win the larger war.
About cap and trade or the carbon tax, the real problem, as feared, are key democratic senators from coal states. They don't want anything to hurt their already crippled economy, so anything to be legislated will only be weak and useless. It's almost better to wait until there is a sufficiently crisis mentality to pass something meaningful.
Thanks, though, for your thoughts.
Pat: I appreciate your blogs/postings and apologize for not participating more during your year however, I hope you continue.
I think your most important article was last year concerning our lack of a national energy policy. Despite an election and a new administration, your article could be reprinted today and be applicable! The lack of a coherant energy vision and policy continues to cause infighting and politicizing of energy related social and technical issues.
For starters, how can we expect a government agency with a budget well over 50% dedicated to nuclear defense, security and clean up issues to bother with an overall policy development?
With a perpetual lack of leadership, our Government coninues to cater to pressure groups and is making policy decisions without regard to scientific or technical understanding. I point out the recent abandonment of the vehicle fuel cell efforts in favor of batteries and plug in hybrids as such a short sighted example. And while I have some problems with your methanol approach, the DOE doesn't address it at all!
Where is the leadership we were supposed to get?
I hope this comment renews a discussion about an energy policy.
Yes, that posting of June 2 last year, unfortunately, is more than ever topical today. How the USDOE can summarily deprioritize fuel cell transport is beyond even my vivid imagination. As you know, I published a HuffPo promoting the direct methanol fuel cell over plug-in electric cars in December. Just shows how much influence I have. In a nice sort of way, a friend in the Department told me to just go away. Well, I hope your comment can galvanize the virtual world to do something about our lack of a national energy policy, for we seem to careen from wall to wall with each new administration, heading in the wrong direction every time.
On global warming? Well, there is some lukewarm cap and trade legislation having difficulty in it's currently useless form. We need to add a severe carbon tax, now. Ah, but that was my posting of June 24 before oil hit $147/barrel, and, again, nothing happened. Surely, there is someone out there capable of helping us make a difference.
Hi Pat. I'd like to congratulate the HP for running your articles. In this highly charged political environment, it is increasingly difficult to absorb good scientific thinking. At least science is not automatically discounted by the Obama Admin. But the ultimate crafter will be congress and congress, like the rest of the world, has lost its ability to use logic and science, and to tell what is authoritative. The Internet is the source of all information and our citizenry is not being trained in filtering out the bogus. Recently there was a story of a guy who posted a plausable quote in the obituary of a famous musician. This quote was incorporated in article after article throughout the world, even tho it came from Wikipedia.
The only push back is to encourage more responsible news operations to also carry a scientitic running commentary on public policy issues.
Again, I am appreciative that science and logic are given a place at the table.
Hopefully, Pat will be invited to continue posting on HP on a regular basis, and other science people will be added as regular running commentary on policy proposals.
Mahalo Pat
Pat, I have your 2nd book in my car, and your first in the house - so, I can read (and reread) a bit now and again. When I head to lunch, I grab Book 2 off the seat and take it in for a quick read. Your writing has passion and selflessness in it. And I enjoy it, even when I don't agree. For anyone to keep a blog going for a year is testimony to the energy one has for the causes one believes in. I applaud you on that, as well. I don't comment here much, however. Sorry about that.
But on the subject of our leadership or lack thereof, I am saddened deeply by the politicization of science, regardless of which side is politicizing. It is nearly impossible for the layman to identify the facts and our level of surety in them. I am highly trained and read the technical literature vigorously and still find it hard to come to a sound conclusion on the exact nature of the problems we face and the best ways to proceed. Our leaders have little background and unfortunately depend almost entirely on partisan persuasion to establish views and register their votes. No wonder we wander aimlessly at times.
Still, I admire men of determination like yourself. Whether I agree with you on the issues or not, you are the greater of the two of us because of your action and determination.
Keep up your heroic work, Pat.
Your comment just made my 52 posts and two books worth my while. Thanks.
About the politicization of science, I've wrestled with this for some time. I've noticed that Democratic presidents tend to trust and seek input from the scientific community, while Republican presidents generally pick and choose what they want, even using suppression when necessary. Interestingly, though, basic science budgets fare better in Congress from Republican leadership.
So what is the solution? I don't have a simple one. Anyone out there reading this with a good idea?
Hey, I noticed I'm one of your fans. I must like your comments. You need to do more of this. I noticed you're not up to 4000 yet. Thanks for your input.
I never miss you posts Patrick; and I read one of your books (so far). I'm looking forward to many more posts. Thanks for the great work.
Oh, that comment just above your photo was meant for you. I must have clicked on the wrong reply. Anyway, mahalo (that's thank you in Hawaiian).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
