Gasman Blinded by Own Perspective, Grads & Speeches, "TraBolta", Obama to Ghana
Stafford Williamson
May 20, 2009
This has been a good week for a bumper crop of University Graduation speeches. And I'll talk a little about the ASU graduation speech later. For that matter, I am not going to dwell on the already well discuss (and disgusting) controversy over the invitation for President Obama to speak at Notre Dame University, although I thought that speech was another "out-of-the-park homerun" for the President as time and again the crowd gave him standing ovations, from his introduction to the end of his speech. Indeed the obviously warm welcome was one of the longest ovations I have heard in some time (not counting the overly elaborate and contrived curtain calls on certain stages from Rome to Jupiter).
But the speech that gives me pause and a platform from which to speak this week is actually a speech from last month given to the graduating class of Utah Valley University, by Chairman, President and CEO of Questar Corporation (one of the largest corporations in Utah, and a Fortune 500 company) Mr. Keith Rattie. The essence of what Mr. Rattie had to say seems rather concisely encapsulated in the following quote: "if we let markets work, markets on their own will continue to substitute low-carbon natural gas for coal and oil." The problem I find with that is not that it is itself, "a bad thing," but rather that Mr. Rattie thinks that statement is "the answer". It shows, unfortunately, how self-interest can create a blind spot in one's thinking. I hope I am not become a person who suffers from that problem myself.
Mr. Rattie's view is that we failed to wean ourselves from hydrocarbon fuels, historically, back in the time when he first joined Chevron in the 1970's and Chevron was spending money at a tremendous rate because "scientists" (mostly scientists on oil company payrolls) were telling us that based on the "proven oil reserves" at that time, we would run out of oil complete by .... well, just about now. Mr. Rattie correctly points out that we have been using oil at more than double the projected rate since that time and the net result is that proven reserves are about double what they were when those doom and gloom predictions were first pronounced. Mr. Rattie, in distant echo or hydrocarbon prognosticators of past eras, talks about ever growing demand, in a world of ever increasing population as he points to the Kyoto accords as "just a first step" (which is what they were called by those adopting them), and yet an impossible dream because no one WANTS to pay more for their electric bills and that cap and trade on carbon dioxide emissions will only aggravate the situation as the planet's population rises. Mr. Rattie also cites statistics that indicate (by his calculations anyway) that the average American accounts for approximately 20 Tons of CO˛ per year, but that to achieve cap and trade goal of an 80% reduction by 2050 ("80 by '50" is the slogan) (and remember we never did adopt the Kyoto treaty which would have imposed a goal of reducing to 7% below 1990 levels ) we would have to reduce carbon footprints of every American to no more than 2 Tons of carbon dioxide per person. Hungh?? Well, he's assuming a massive population explosion over the next 40 years I gather, since an 80% reduction of 20 Tons would be 4 Tons/person. Then he goes on to say that (by his estimates) the last time every American had a carbon footprint of only 2 Tons of CO˛ each year was about the time the Pilgrims landed.
Well, although I agree with Mr. Rattie on a lot of points, including that more natural gas instead of coal or oil in most places would be an improvement, but IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.! I also even agree with him the "man made" aspect of global warming is far from "settled science" either. But I do believe there are vastly better ways to manage our use of our planet's resources, and one of those is to NOT put more fossil carbon into the atmosphere. I tend to agree with him also that it does not seem credible that a mere 4 carbon dioxide molecules in 10,000 molecules in the air is likely to be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in global climate change. I know too, that atmosphere samples from ancient (100,000 year old glaciers) have shown that we have had periods on earth that had significantly more CO˛ than we have now, and that those periods do not closely correspond to any known mass extinctions of species, or even to known periods of unusually high volcanic activity. Stuff happens. But the heart of the problem is that the earth has no mechanism (natural or otherwise) to quickly convert CO˛ back into 'fossils' again. We need to avoid pumping those "fossilized" atoms of carbon into the air (especially in the form of carbon dioxide, but also in the form of "methane" which is, [did you guess it already?] the OTHER NAME for "natural gas" which may have some other constituent elements as well, including sulfur, but is considered approximately 32 times as "damaging" as CO˛ itself). In other words even just a tiny, slow leak of natural gas (methane) that is just 62 pounds would be equal to a Ton of CO˛. So, on the one hand, we are not doing ourselves any great favors letting it out of the ground in the first place, and on the other, even a pretty modest spill/leak is a potential disaster.
Somehow Mr. Rattie seems to see fossil carbon atoms from natural gas as "good" even though fossil atoms from oil or coal (which don't burn as cleanly) are "bad", which is a total misinterpretation of the science. Again, I agree that we need to conserve and manage our energy resources carefully. Reduce consumption and, if possible, slow the rate of growth in demand. But unlike Mr. Rattie, I can see how the NASA scientists who are growing algae in semi-permeable thin film bags of fresh water set afloat in the sea could readily produce enough algae to replace all the oil, coal and natural gas we need and use today. That is NOT to say I accept his premise that these can only be "supplemental" fuels. I clearly believe (and we're in the process of trying to show that we can) that GROWING your future fuels is the best alternative energy. And contrary to the "food fight" that has been trumped up against corn growers (who are NOT responsible for worldwide "depression", or inflating the costs of foods) some yet to be exploited future fuel crops can serve dual purposes of providing both fuel and food. (Moringa springs to mind, though it is not yet popular or well known.) I sincerely hope that Mr. Rattie's temporary blindness to the perfectly reasonable answer of "grow your fuel" is already at hand, and I sincerely hope we might have the opportunity to serve his company in the future.
It almost feels like cheating, but this week, someone else wrote another big piece of what I have to say in my column.
"Chairman Henry Waxman and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee brought together stakeholders from all corners of the country – and every sector of our economy – to reach an historic agreement on comprehensive energy legislation."
"For the first time, utility companies and corporate leaders are joining, not opposing, environmental advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy initiatives that will help unleash a new era of growth and prosperity."
"This we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal."
Who generously wrote all of that for me? Well, he may have had a little help, but those quotes are from President Barack Obama's Saturday morning video address to the nation.
I used to regret that current presidents didn't take the time, or at least didn't get much attention if they did, to address the nation in a warm, personal way on a regular basis. I used to feel sorry that I was not yet born so that I missed the era of Roosevelt's fireside chats on the radio. Now we get President Obama on http://www.whitehouse.gov every week, and I'm glad I'm not too old to be able to see such a thing. My mother-in-law is a big President Obama fan, too, and I just installed her brand new Panasonic 40" HDTV for her yesterday. She is thrilled to be able to watch Gwen Ifill in crisp , brilliant HD. Unfortunately, she'll still be a blur. My mother-in-law is legally blind (she'd probably be rated "legally deaf" too, if there is such a standard), with a debilitating condition of ever-declining vision, so the step up from the 26" standard definition (NTSC) is a help, and even the low res reading system I set up for her is much larger and crisper on the HDTV screen. All of which is just to say, that since she is 97 years old next month, and she heard Roosevelt on the radio, she'd probably choose an Obama speech any day, and therefore I am more than slightly consoled.
I spent another half hour this Sunday morning (in addition to the 6 minutes or so on the weekly Whitehouse address) listening to President Obama's speech to the graduating class of 2009 at Arizona State University (here in Phoenix) that is available on the Huffington Post website. Maybe it is a result of so long listening to President George W. Bush (after President Reagan, and President Geo. H.W. Bush, which makes the era seem almost interminable) and feeling so disappointed that the government of the country was so devoted to principles and ideals that were not consistent with mine, that cause me now to feel like it is a proud moment indeed to hear what President Obama expresses. I often swear as I listen to him that it seems to me that practically the whole of government policy is based on ideas that I eagerly expressed in emails and online forms to the transition team during those few months (long, long, agonizing months) waiting for the beginning of the promised "change" to begin to happen before our current President actually took office. Now it seems like every move the President and the Whitehouse make are as if they actually read my notes, formulated policies and did it all to please me. (HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, I DIDNOT SAY that I was delusional enough to actually "believe" that they are doing it just for me, but by George [or by Barry] they seem to have gotten is just right in almost every case.
President Obama is going to Africa. which is not all that surprising, but this is another case of amazing congruence between the administration and my company´s direction. We have been talking to, and working with some folks in Ghana for some considerable time now. And where in Africa is the President going to make his first stop in Sub-Saharan Africa? Ghana, of course. I say, "of course," because Whitehouse Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that part of the purpose of the visit was, "…highlighting the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development,"
That factor did not go un-noticed here, either. The project we have been designing is one that exemplifies our desire to bring small "islands" of independent green energy that will themselves be a key element of a more vibrant local economy, but also because of the availability of local green energy sources, will promote the development of local commerce and industry at a rate we expect will astound those who have not taken part in the planning. We hope we will be in a position to make an announcement about our project there by the time President Obama is visiting the country in July, but these things seem to have a knack of developing "wrinkles" along the way, so for the moment, we are just, again, enjoying the synchronicity of our minds with those in the Whitehouse.
Do you know who sounds like a kid? I mean the kind of voice you put behind the leading character in an animated feature where the character is supposed to be, literally, a "young pup"? Well, you could have knocked me over with a puppy dog´s tail when I learned that John Travolta, yes, him of Saturday Night Fever and Welcome Back, Kotter and Pulp Fiction and soon to be seen in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 was actually the voice of the animated title character of the charming movie, Bolt. The story has twists and turns enough to keep an adult´s attention, and the usual band of sundry, charming misfits to win your heart as they win the day as well. Watch it with your kids, or even if your kids are middle-aged, watch it yourself.
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
But the speech that gives me pause and a platform from which to speak this week is actually a speech from last month given to the graduating class of Utah Valley University, by Chairman, President and CEO of Questar Corporation (one of the largest corporations in Utah, and a Fortune 500 company) Mr. Keith Rattie. The essence of what Mr. Rattie had to say seems rather concisely encapsulated in the following quote: "if we let markets work, markets on their own will continue to substitute low-carbon natural gas for coal and oil." The problem I find with that is not that it is itself, "a bad thing," but rather that Mr. Rattie thinks that statement is "the answer". It shows, unfortunately, how self-interest can create a blind spot in one's thinking. I hope I am not become a person who suffers from that problem myself.
Mr. Rattie's view is that we failed to wean ourselves from hydrocarbon fuels, historically, back in the time when he first joined Chevron in the 1970's and Chevron was spending money at a tremendous rate because "scientists" (mostly scientists on oil company payrolls) were telling us that based on the "proven oil reserves" at that time, we would run out of oil complete by .... well, just about now. Mr. Rattie correctly points out that we have been using oil at more than double the projected rate since that time and the net result is that proven reserves are about double what they were when those doom and gloom predictions were first pronounced. Mr. Rattie, in distant echo or hydrocarbon prognosticators of past eras, talks about ever growing demand, in a world of ever increasing population as he points to the Kyoto accords as "just a first step" (which is what they were called by those adopting them), and yet an impossible dream because no one WANTS to pay more for their electric bills and that cap and trade on carbon dioxide emissions will only aggravate the situation as the planet's population rises. Mr. Rattie also cites statistics that indicate (by his calculations anyway) that the average American accounts for approximately 20 Tons of CO˛ per year, but that to achieve cap and trade goal of an 80% reduction by 2050 ("80 by '50" is the slogan) (and remember we never did adopt the Kyoto treaty which would have imposed a goal of reducing to 7% below 1990 levels ) we would have to reduce carbon footprints of every American to no more than 2 Tons of carbon dioxide per person. Hungh?? Well, he's assuming a massive population explosion over the next 40 years I gather, since an 80% reduction of 20 Tons would be 4 Tons/person. Then he goes on to say that (by his estimates) the last time every American had a carbon footprint of only 2 Tons of CO˛ each year was about the time the Pilgrims landed.
Well, although I agree with Mr. Rattie on a lot of points, including that more natural gas instead of coal or oil in most places would be an improvement, but IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.! I also even agree with him the "man made" aspect of global warming is far from "settled science" either. But I do believe there are vastly better ways to manage our use of our planet's resources, and one of those is to NOT put more fossil carbon into the atmosphere. I tend to agree with him also that it does not seem credible that a mere 4 carbon dioxide molecules in 10,000 molecules in the air is likely to be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in global climate change. I know too, that atmosphere samples from ancient (100,000 year old glaciers) have shown that we have had periods on earth that had significantly more CO˛ than we have now, and that those periods do not closely correspond to any known mass extinctions of species, or even to known periods of unusually high volcanic activity. Stuff happens. But the heart of the problem is that the earth has no mechanism (natural or otherwise) to quickly convert CO˛ back into 'fossils' again. We need to avoid pumping those "fossilized" atoms of carbon into the air (especially in the form of carbon dioxide, but also in the form of "methane" which is, [did you guess it already?] the OTHER NAME for "natural gas" which may have some other constituent elements as well, including sulfur, but is considered approximately 32 times as "damaging" as CO˛ itself). In other words even just a tiny, slow leak of natural gas (methane) that is just 62 pounds would be equal to a Ton of CO˛. So, on the one hand, we are not doing ourselves any great favors letting it out of the ground in the first place, and on the other, even a pretty modest spill/leak is a potential disaster.
Somehow Mr. Rattie seems to see fossil carbon atoms from natural gas as "good" even though fossil atoms from oil or coal (which don't burn as cleanly) are "bad", which is a total misinterpretation of the science. Again, I agree that we need to conserve and manage our energy resources carefully. Reduce consumption and, if possible, slow the rate of growth in demand. But unlike Mr. Rattie, I can see how the NASA scientists who are growing algae in semi-permeable thin film bags of fresh water set afloat in the sea could readily produce enough algae to replace all the oil, coal and natural gas we need and use today. That is NOT to say I accept his premise that these can only be "supplemental" fuels. I clearly believe (and we're in the process of trying to show that we can) that GROWING your future fuels is the best alternative energy. And contrary to the "food fight" that has been trumped up against corn growers (who are NOT responsible for worldwide "depression", or inflating the costs of foods) some yet to be exploited future fuel crops can serve dual purposes of providing both fuel and food. (Moringa springs to mind, though it is not yet popular or well known.) I sincerely hope that Mr. Rattie's temporary blindness to the perfectly reasonable answer of "grow your fuel" is already at hand, and I sincerely hope we might have the opportunity to serve his company in the future.
It almost feels like cheating, but this week, someone else wrote another big piece of what I have to say in my column.
"Chairman Henry Waxman and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee brought together stakeholders from all corners of the country – and every sector of our economy – to reach an historic agreement on comprehensive energy legislation."
"For the first time, utility companies and corporate leaders are joining, not opposing, environmental advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy initiatives that will help unleash a new era of growth and prosperity."
"This we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal."
Who generously wrote all of that for me? Well, he may have had a little help, but those quotes are from President Barack Obama's Saturday morning video address to the nation.
I used to regret that current presidents didn't take the time, or at least didn't get much attention if they did, to address the nation in a warm, personal way on a regular basis. I used to feel sorry that I was not yet born so that I missed the era of Roosevelt's fireside chats on the radio. Now we get President Obama on http://www.whitehouse.gov every week, and I'm glad I'm not too old to be able to see such a thing. My mother-in-law is a big President Obama fan, too, and I just installed her brand new Panasonic 40" HDTV for her yesterday. She is thrilled to be able to watch Gwen Ifill in crisp , brilliant HD. Unfortunately, she'll still be a blur. My mother-in-law is legally blind (she'd probably be rated "legally deaf" too, if there is such a standard), with a debilitating condition of ever-declining vision, so the step up from the 26" standard definition (NTSC) is a help, and even the low res reading system I set up for her is much larger and crisper on the HDTV screen. All of which is just to say, that since she is 97 years old next month, and she heard Roosevelt on the radio, she'd probably choose an Obama speech any day, and therefore I am more than slightly consoled.
I spent another half hour this Sunday morning (in addition to the 6 minutes or so on the weekly Whitehouse address) listening to President Obama's speech to the graduating class of 2009 at Arizona State University (here in Phoenix) that is available on the Huffington Post website. Maybe it is a result of so long listening to President George W. Bush (after President Reagan, and President Geo. H.W. Bush, which makes the era seem almost interminable) and feeling so disappointed that the government of the country was so devoted to principles and ideals that were not consistent with mine, that cause me now to feel like it is a proud moment indeed to hear what President Obama expresses. I often swear as I listen to him that it seems to me that practically the whole of government policy is based on ideas that I eagerly expressed in emails and online forms to the transition team during those few months (long, long, agonizing months) waiting for the beginning of the promised "change" to begin to happen before our current President actually took office. Now it seems like every move the President and the Whitehouse make are as if they actually read my notes, formulated policies and did it all to please me. (HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, I DIDNOT SAY that I was delusional enough to actually "believe" that they are doing it just for me, but by George [or by Barry] they seem to have gotten is just right in almost every case.
President Obama is going to Africa. which is not all that surprising, but this is another case of amazing congruence between the administration and my company´s direction. We have been talking to, and working with some folks in Ghana for some considerable time now. And where in Africa is the President going to make his first stop in Sub-Saharan Africa? Ghana, of course. I say, "of course," because Whitehouse Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that part of the purpose of the visit was, "…highlighting the critical role that sound governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development,"
That factor did not go un-noticed here, either. The project we have been designing is one that exemplifies our desire to bring small "islands" of independent green energy that will themselves be a key element of a more vibrant local economy, but also because of the availability of local green energy sources, will promote the development of local commerce and industry at a rate we expect will astound those who have not taken part in the planning. We hope we will be in a position to make an announcement about our project there by the time President Obama is visiting the country in July, but these things seem to have a knack of developing "wrinkles" along the way, so for the moment, we are just, again, enjoying the synchronicity of our minds with those in the Whitehouse.
Do you know who sounds like a kid? I mean the kind of voice you put behind the leading character in an animated feature where the character is supposed to be, literally, a "young pup"? Well, you could have knocked me over with a puppy dog´s tail when I learned that John Travolta, yes, him of Saturday Night Fever and Welcome Back, Kotter and Pulp Fiction and soon to be seen in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 was actually the voice of the animated title character of the charming movie, Bolt. The story has twists and turns enough to keep an adult´s attention, and the usual band of sundry, charming misfits to win your heart as they win the day as well. Watch it with your kids, or even if your kids are middle-aged, watch it yourself.
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
Print
Email
