Skip to content

America’s Oil Boom Offers Incredible Opportunity

Sunday, October 16, 2011

by Ross Pomeroy

At the height of Manifest Destiny in the mid 1850s, hundreds of thousands of Americans courageously trekked across the country’s uncharted expanse of fertile plains and pristine forests en route to California. The Gold Rush was at its peak and the promise of a new life out West was too tempting for many to ignore.

“Westward, ho!” they said back then.

Now, the saying might be “North Dakota, ho!”

With the Bakken rock formation resting below its surface, North Dakota is sitting on a gold mine… of oil. Reports estimate that 11 to 18 billion barrels of oil could be extracted from the Bakken formation.

Just a few years ago this might not have been true, but recent innovation has brought forth techniques such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. The oil that was once out of man’s reach, locked in shale deposits buried deep underground, is now able to be harvested. According to National Public Radio:

Two years ago, America was importing about two thirds of its oil. Today, according to the Energy Information Administration, it imports less than half. And by 2017, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicts the US could be poised to pass Saudi Arabia and overtake Russia as the world’s largest oil producer.

America’s new oil boom has rapidly transformed small towns such as Williston, North Dakota. In Williston, unemployment is below 2% with as many as four thousand more jobs available. In addition, rent for small apartments is as high as $1,000 per month and wait lines at Walmart are as long as thirty minutes.

0701-fracking_full_600.jpg

Though this new oil rush is an undeniable boon for the economy, there are consequences that should be considered. Hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new beast and we have yet to fully understand the environmental ramifications of utilizing the technique. Groundwater contamination, excessive water use, and human-caused earthquakes are a few of the legitimate concerns about fracking.

But despite the aforementioned environmental worries, the American people should embrace the country’s oil boom and allow fracking to continue. However, we must accept that oil mining and production requires sensible regulations and oversight from a bolstered Environmental Protection Agency. In this “oil rush” endeavor – one that is so vital to our nation’s economy and energy security – the EPA and the oil companies can work as partners to the benefit of all.

In addition, steps must be taken to ensure that fracking is performed responsibly and efficiently in order to protect groundwater supplies. Surely we can all agree that the amount of water required to fracture a well – as much as seven million gallons – is a tad exorbitant. Well-drillers must find ways to recover and recycle this “fracking fluid” mixture. They also need to work in unison with the EPA and the scientific community to discover ways to safely frack without risking groundwater contamination.

Americans must also recognize that the current oil boom will not last forever and thus take steps to prepare for a future without oil. High fuel efficiency standards are an excellent start. This will ensure that America’s new found wealth of oil is not squandered due to wastefulness. In addition, Oil companies benefiting from the boom need to be taxed. These tax revenues should be re-invested not into subsides for clean energy technologies, but into research and development that will advance these technologies to a point where they don’t require subsidies. By pairing the oil boom with investments in research and development, we can ensure that the clean energy technologies of the future will be ready to take the mantle from the carbon-based energy technologies of today.

The United States cannot turn away from the tremendous opportunity offered by this new oil boom, but we cannot blindly “drill, baby, drill” either. Congress must put forth legislation that responsibly addresses America’s modern abundance of oil.

Share
Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Ford’s View on Transportation a Refreshing Look Forward

Sunday, August 7, 2011

by Ross Pomeroy

“Ive been involved with the auto industry my entire life… And for most of those years, I’ve worried about, how am I going to sell more cars and trucks? But today I worry about, what if all we do is sell more cars and trucks? What happens when the number of vehicles on the road doubles, triples, or even quadruples?”

Bill Ford, great-grandson of Henry Ford, tendered this thought-provoking notion at the beginning of his talk at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) 2011. After musing about his childhood, college life, and early experiences working at his great-grandfather’s company, Ford focused in on a very pressing matter.

“The freedom of mobility that my great-grandfather brought to people is now being threatened.”

With the human population expected to rise from 6.8 billion now to 9 billion by mid century, a 32% increase, a planet more crowded with people won’t be the only problem humans face. According to Ford, the number of cars on worldwide roadways is projected to rise from 800 million now to 2-4 billion by 2050, potentially a 400% increase.

“This is going to create the kind of global gridlock that the world has never seen before,” Ford said.

And we’ve already witnessed gridlock. Last summer there was a seventy-four mile traffic jam in China that lasted for eleven days.

“It’s clear that the mobility model that we have today simply will not work tomorrow,” Ford contended.

So how do we prepare for this eventuality?

“The answer to more cars is simply not to have more roads,” Ford asserted.

Ford insisted that a blend of additional public transportation, better designed roadways, and a more integrated system (i.e. Hong Kong’s Octopus) are all good ways to start, but the real answer is to build a smart, interconnected transportation system where cars talk to each other.

Intelligent Transportation Systems have been in the works for years, and the possibilities are plentiful:

  • Cars could warn you about upcoming traffic, construction, or road conditions
  • Cars could use real-time data to guide you on the best route to your destination
  • Public transportation systems could be better synced
  • You could reserve a parking spot in advance instead of searching for one upon arrival
  • After an accident, your car could immediately notify emergency services

Weeks ago, we witnessed intelligent transportation at its most rudimentary level. The closing of Interstate 405 in Los Angeles was expected to bring about “Carmageddon.” But because drivers were informed about the situation in advance, the traffic apocalypse never materialized.

Bill Ford’s vision of a smart transportation system is a refreshing look forward. It is a project of grand-scale that is worthy of government and private investment. Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems will create jobs, decrease travel costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil, save lives, and allow us all to spend more time with our friends and family and less time stuck in traffic.

My only concern with this system is that the talking cars will probably not be as funny the ones that Pixar introduced us to…

This piece was originally posted to Real Clear Science.

Share
Filed in America, Science | | Comments (0)

End of Shuttle Program Only a Temporary Setback

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

By Ross Pomeroy

While space shuttle launches are often momentous occasions, my viewing of last Friday’s liftoff of Atlantis was a somewhat hollow experience because it heralded the end of an era of American spaceflight. Over forty years have passed since America won the race to space, and now it seems as though we are ceding that victory.

NASA is now focused on nurturing private companies as they construct their own space vehicles. It’s strange to see the agency that landed a man on the Moon take such a backstage role, but budgets are tight, and the current attention of Congress doesn’t seem to extend past partisan bickering.

Polls show that Americans are sad to see the end of the shuttle program. Despite the program’s estimated $200 billion cost since 1981, over 63% of Americans according to a CBS News survey say that the space shuttle program was worthwhile. In addition, 48% of those polled were “disappointed” by the end of the program versus 16% who were “pleased” (33% did not care).

For those of us who are “disappointed,” our reasons for that disappointment vary. To me, it seems that $200 billion since 1981 is a small price to pay for a program that dared us to dream and united us all. (Especially since we have spent over $1 trillion on war since 2001.)

The space shuttle program wasn’t perfect. There were mistakes and tragedies along the way. But there’s nothing easy or routine about breaking the bond of gravity and venturing boldly into the great beyond.

Thanks to the shuttle program, the private entities taking up NASA’s charge will begin with a plethora of lessons learned.  Now, it’s their time to shine – and they better… they have big shoes to fill.

It is my hope that one day, as we gaze in amazement as an American steps onto the red sands of Mars for the first time, we will look back on Friday’s final liftoff of Atlantis as only a minor setback.

This article was originally posted on Real Clear Science.

Share
Filed in America, Science, Values | | Comments (0)

GM Salmon Debate About More Than Just Fish

Sunday, July 3, 2011

By Ross Pomeroy

There has been a lot of talk about salmon recently. In case you haven’t heard, the conversation revolves around an amendment approved to the agricultural appropriations bill which prohibits funding for Food and Drug Administration approval of genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies, a private company based in Massachusetts.

The principal concern of activists who supported the amendment was that the genetically modified salmon would escape their holding pens and interbreed with wild populations. At first glance, this seems to be a valid argument. The genetically modified salmon grow much faster than natural breeds and could potentially overtake wild populations if they make it into the ecosystem. It was largely due to this argument and the small amount of facts available when the story first broke, that I reserved judgement on this matter.

But last week, in an article by Ron Bailey, Reason weighed in.

As it happens AquaBounty’s fish are not bigger; they just grow faster. In any case, recent research [PDF] has found that genetically modified fish are actually at a selective disadvantage to wild fish. Similarly, another recent study reported that genetically modified coho salmon fared badly against wild ones when it comes to reproduction.

 

To make the risk even lower, AquaBounty salmon are sterile triploids, that is, instead of having the usual two sets of chromosomes, their fish have three sets. In addition, the company has devised a process that make essentially all of their fish females, so there are no males available to supply sperm even if the fish were fertile. Finally, the company plans to raise their biotech salmon in freshwater tanks in Panama. Panama has no salmon, and if the fish escape into the tropical waters they will die from the heat.

OK, the second paragraph does sound a little like Jurassic Park (we all know what happened there), but genetically modified salmon are not dinosaurs; and this is real life, not a movie.

As Alex Berezow, editor of Real Clear Science, wrote earlier in the week, this debate truly comes down to “votes and money.” The elected officials who co-sponsored the amendment all come from states with huge stocks of wild salmon and large fishing industries. Ideology reigned supreme.

Now some of you may be thinking, “Why should I care? What’s the big deal about a fish?”

This isn’t just about fish. This is much bigger than fish.

Over the past few years, politics and science have become more and more entwined. The blame doesn’t belong to one side or the other; activists from both ends of the partisan spectrum have infused their dogmatic political beliefs into a realm where they truly do not belong. Look at what has happened to climate change. Once thought to be consensus, the issue has now become so divisive that it’s on the same level as moral issues such as gay marriage or abortion. Climate change, like those topics, is just one of those things that you don’t bring up, unless you’re ready for a fight.

The only remedy is a return to reason. When it comes to science, ideas should reign, NOT ideology.

This article was originally posted on RealClearScience.

Share
Filed in Science | | Comments (1)

Ideas, not ideology

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

By Mike Steffan

There is a cavalier attitude in the way politicos approach, critique and defend ideology.  It is at once a dead horse beaten beyond its life and yet it has also been jockeyed into its own derby of worn-out political buzz words.

We, too, have mistreated this skeletal thoroughbred—using it as the basis of this blog to justify the premises of our posts.  We do so without fully considering the depth at which ideology pervades society.  But we wish to make amends.

Ideology, at its most basic level, is an attempt to explain the world.  It desires to bring order, often violently, upon an existence so vast and complex that it can be known as nothing other than chaos.  Centuries’ worth of violent war over competing ideologies gives a historical clue as to the impacts of a nation-state driven by ideology.

On another level, however, ideology has become the newest and most insidious bogeyman haunting American politics.  Politicians are quick to denounce the “ideologues” in power without looking themselves in the mirror first.  This is not to say that ideology shouldn’t be carefully purged from American politics (it should be) but rather that simple criticism falls short of what is needed to let go of ideology and its temptations.

Therefore, if ideology is indeed the festering wound that has decomposed American politics from within and from without, how do we avoid succumbing to its temptation?  I believe by letting go of the desire for truth.

What then, if not ideology?

Here’s an idea humbly submitted for your judgment: the next time you come across an idea and would like to share your own, approach ti with a radical humility.  Approach it by sharing your thoughts as nothing more than mere possibilities—not as truths only daring to be challenged.

In other words, resist the temptation of ideological “truth”-claims.  Resist the urge to be a purveyor of “truth”, and give in to the hopeful idea that here is a limit to what we can know and understand as our “truthful” existence.  I am not attempting to be barking moral orders from my ivory tower.  Rather, I want to express just how important it is to maintain humility.  (But not necessarily self-doubt)

Ideology is the opposite of hope; it is resentment par excellence, the very antagonist and breakdown of effective politics.  Radical humility, on the other hand, allows for compromise.  Not of values or morals, but of ideas that will benefit the country.

If we are to reject the current state of an American politics hell-bent on ideology and the stalemate it produces, then we must too reject the same everyday causes of gridlock: a lack of inherent value bestowed upon oppositional viewpoints because of ideological conflict.

Too long, didn’t read?

Progress isn’t always painless, and until we humbly submit our ideological worldviews to the guillotine that is political cooperation, we will just have to settle for politics as usual.

 

Share
Filed in America, Values | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

A Diverse Exceptionalism for a Diverse America

Friday, May 27, 2011

By Ross Pomeroy

American Exceptionalism, the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations, seems to be the topic du jour.  This is likely because we now have a president who doesn’t take this concept for gospel.

In the past weeks and months, I have disregarded all but a select few of the articles written about American Exceptionalism.  This is partly because I believe that the subject is being overanalyzed, but the primary reason for my indifference is because the vast majority of these articles don’t say anything unique.  Most of them simply argue that one side believes in it and upholds it, and the other doesn’t.  This absolutism is wrong.  There is not a single brand or owner of American Exceptionalism.

This point is hammered home when one considers the concept’s unique history.  A Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, a noted writer and political thinker who famously penned Democracy in America, is widely thought to have first introduced the notion of American Exceptionalism.  (That’s right, a Frenchman thought up American Exceptionalism.)  The concept, however, was widely disregarded in American culture until the 1920s, when the American Communist Party began widely using it in their campaigns and literature.  American Exceptionalism certainly appears to have a diverse upbringing.

And if its upbringing is so diverse, why not its meaning?  Why can’t American Exceptionalism mean something slightly different to everyone, as long as we all can agree that at its core, it speaks to the greatness of our country?

I think we all can believe in that.

America is a bright shining light for the rest of the world; but we must remember that it is a light that must be cared for, and sometimes replaced.  I believe in American Exceptionalism, but the brand in which I believe is not absolute.  Our nation is the finest on the planet, but we can always do better.  It is this brand of Exceptionalism that led us to suffrage for women, to rights for all workers, and to a presidential election where we finally looked beyond race.

America is not complete; it is a work in progress; there are things that we can still learn.  We must always remember that, as Americans, our most exceptional qualities are our open minds and our kind hearts.

Share
Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Star Power is Coming Down to Earth

Sunday, May 15, 2011

by Ross Pomeroy

I like thinking about the future – perhaps it’s the “Trekkie” in me.  I like to believe that new, revolutionary technologies are on the horizon and that I will live to see them. I’m not merely talking about the next iteration of the iPhone.  I’m talking about technologies that will take humanity to a higher plane.  Technologies that won’t simply help some of us live altered, more advanced lives, but those that will help all of us live healthy and happy lives.  All of us.

One such technology that peaks my interest and stokes my optimism is nuclear fusion – literally, the power of the stars.  It has the potential to be the ultimate energy source – estimates show that there exists about 30 million years of fusion fuel on Earth.  One gram of this fuel, a mix of two isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) and lithium (to create the tritium), produces as much electricity as ten tons of coal and creates no pollution (the byproduct is helium).  We all know what a controlled fusion reaction can do; we can see the greatest example of it in our bright blue sky.  The Sun perpetuates all life on Earth.

We also all know what an uncontrolled fusion reaction can do.  The first hydrogen bomb, named “Ivy Mike,” was detonated by the United States in 1952, creating a mushroom cloud over 100 miles in diameter, and a blast 6,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.   Needless to say, the unrivaled ability of fusion to both perpetuate and extinguish life is one of the greatest paradoxes that mankind had ever confronted.

For over fifty years, scientists have striven to control a fusion reaction with limited success.  (The most noteworthy achievement occurred in 1997, when the Joint European Torus (JET) created 16 megawatts of fusion energy in a reaction that lasted for less than a second.)  However, within the next decade, controlled fusion may be within mankind’s grasp.

A tokamak fusion reactor.

Fusion vs. Fission

Nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more atomic nuclei join together to form a larger nucleus.  Our current nuclear power plants use fission, the breaking apart of nuclei.

Unfortunately, nuclear fission creates toxic waste throughout the mining, refining, converting, enriching, and powering processes.  In addition, the uranium and plutonium used for fission are very limited resources and are highly sought after by terror groups who seek to use them to create weapons of mass destruction.

On the other hand, nuclear fusion uses two isotopes of hydrogen and fuses them together, creating helium, a free neutron, and tons of energy (much more than fission).  Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Milky Way Galaxy and helium is a harmless byproduct.

The Future

Currently, there exist two main roadblocks to creating and maintaining the fusion reaction: First, it requires immense heat (150 million degrees Celsius, to be exact), and, second, it demands a massive magnetic force, like the one found in the center of a star.

Despite these tremendous requirements, work towards fusion energy continues.  The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is currently being built in southern France.  On target for completion in 2018, the giant plasma reactor, or “tokamak,” is intended to show the feasibility of fusion power, paving the way for fusion power plants.  The estimated $16.5 billion dollar cost of the facility is being split by the European Union, India, Japan, People’s Republic of China, Russia, South Korea and the United States.  The level of cooperation between member nations is truly inspiring.

Even more promising work is occurring in the United States.  In 2009, after twelve years of construction, the National Ignition Facility was completed in California at a cost of $3.5 billion dollars. Scientists have plans to test Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) by the end of 2012.  The NIF believes that a successful test will pave the way for fusion power plants by 2020.

Fusion, the energy of the stars, has long resided solely in the heavens above.  But within the next twenty years, it may finally be within the grasp of mankind.

Inside the LIFE chamber.

Learn More

http://www.iter.org/

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6BLFdBfgfU

Share
Filed in Science | | Comments (0)

Welcome to Acirema

Sunday, May 8, 2011

By Will Handke

Welcome to the nation of Acirema, the land of the free and the home of the brave – at least, that’s what the Aciremans tell themselves.

The Aciremans, for the most part, are homely individuals – people who pride themselves upon being distinctly plain and for always being able to act prudently without having to care or think too much. Nowhere do the Aciremans display this latter trait more than in the realm of Acireman politics, where they recently elected a new President and Congress.

“There are few things in life that tarnish the human spirit more than a government handout,” the newly elected President said in his campaign. And so, after being elected, he did away with all of them in his first 100 days in office. Most Aciremans believe their President when he says that the only way to treat someone who has been debilitated by government assistance is to give them no assistance at all.

The Aciremans, excited to see that their government had actually done something, cheered the President’s bold act. “There’s nothing that motivates a man more than the prospect of starvation!” said a popular Acireman radio talk-show host. “Take away the free lunch he’s been getting at the taxpayer’s expense and he’ll quickly learn the meaning of hard work!”

It’s commonly known, of course, that this particular host well knows the meaning of hard work, having been born, as he has often said, “with a knack for it.” And it’s true, he has worked hard throughout his entire life: at the private schools to which his parents sent him, at the well-paying job that he landed through a family connection, and now at the radio program he inherited from the former host – who is now the newly-elected President of Acirema. “All a man has to do is lift himself up by his own bootstraps! I did it! And if I can do it, anyone can,” he has frequently opined on his show. His listeners – mostly uneducated, low-income Aciremans – have always agreed.

Those Aciremans who object to the President’s recent actions have grown disheartened. “Acirema is now a backward country!” they cry. One of the thought leaders of the new-President’s opposition, a thirty-four year old mother, author and small business owner, voices her opposition this way:

“When are we going to stop thinking and speaking about the government as if it’s a foreign entity? Have we all forgotten that the first sentence of this nation’s founding document begins ‘We, The People?’ The undeniable truth behind Acirema’s unparalleled success is not that each individual Acireman is so exceptional, it’s that we realized long ago that community is, and shall always be, the quiet, yet compelling force behind all human greatness – that, together, we can easily accomplish things that strain the dreams of one.”

While opposition to the President has been vocal, they remain few. Next on the agenda for the new Acireman President: closing the massive budget deficit through a new wave of targeted tax cuts for the wealthiest Aciremans. More on this in future dispatches.

 

Share
Filed in America, Values | | Comments (0)

Absolutes & Extremes

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

By Ross Pomeroy

America stands in a dark alley, cornered by three sinister thugs armed to the teeth with machine guns and razor blades – their bodies shielded by spiked body armor.  How will our country get out of this mess?  Republicans might suggest that we take out our TEC-9 semi automatic pistols and blast our way out.  Of course, this would probably get our country killed faster than going elephant hunting with bazookas, accompanied by a coked-out Charlie Sheen.  On the other hand, Democrats might take us to another extreme by offering to surrender and buy off the three thugs with billions of dollars.  This choice is clearly flawed, as well. Who would want to put their country’s future in the hands of three homicidal maniacs wearing spiked body armor?  And so, with no practical plan being offered by those in charge, America remains in a fix.

The two choices offered in this scenario are extreme, and they are similar (vaguely) to the kind of solutions being offered in Washington that will supposedly dig our country out of its financial hole.  Accompanying these extreme solutions are politicians who speak in absolutes.  According to Paul Ryan, “Rather than building bridges, [Obama] is poisoning wells.”  (What does that even mean?)  Ryan and other Republicans also relentlessly tout that almost any Democratic initiative “will kill jobs.”  (Simply by virtue of it being a Democratic plan, I suppose.)

And then let’s look at the other end of the spectrum: Barack Obama says that “Ryan’s plan will end Medicare as we know it” and will “cripple seniors” (or, at least, those that aren’t already). Other Democrats have insisted that the Republicans’ plan won’t just cripple seniors; it will kill them.  (Oh me, oh my.  The Magic 8-Ball is quite dreary today.)

The only thing that these absolute statements accomplish is to paint complex, multi-faceted issues in black and white, thus preventing pivotal discussions from taking place and guaranteeing that key compromises are never considered.  (Let us not forget the wise words of Master Yoda, “Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.”)

Going back to our original scenario: both of our parties were too busy shouting out absolutes and looking to extremes to notice the open manhole right at America’s feet.  The sewer to which it leads doesn’t exactly smell like roses to everyone, but it certainly provides a path that will solve our country’s dire predicament.

Is this scenario far fetched?  Yes.

You know what isn’t?  Compromise.

Share
Filed in America, Values | | Comments (0)

In Defense of Teachers

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

by Ross Pomeroy

Let’s reflect for a moment: No matter what political beliefs you hold, you have to agree that the level of activism which the citizens of Wisconsin displayed two months ago was inspiring – a true testament to the greatness of our political system.  The collective action that we witnessed cannot take place in the vast majority of the world – that is, unless it’s accompanied by rampant violence, hatred, and death.  Yet, in America, we not only have the ability to engage in this kind of activity, we have the unrivaled luxury to be able to take it for granted.

Unfortunately, another issue arose in Wisconsin that was not so inspiring. Teachers were criticized as parasitic, lazy, and greedy – as drains on our state budgets and on our society as a whole. Wait a minute… we’re talking about teachers? We’re talking about a profession for which the median yearly salary is $46,000?  We’re talking about a profession which countless numbers of brilliant individuals disregard because it “just doesn’t pay enough?”

I never thought that I would ever see teachers condemned as “greedy.” Where has this latent contempt been hiding in our society?  Has America turned upside-down? Since when has it been logical to believe that Americans are being leeched dry by as teacher’s mediocre pay?

It defies logic. Most teachers are singularly talented individuals. Teachers are not drains on our society; they are the cornerstones of our society.  Without them, we would be illiterate, closed minded, and unable to grapple with the pressing matters of the modern world.  Take one step into the preschool teacher’s classroom and you will realize within minutes that you could not step into his or her shoes.

You may take issue, as I do, with other facets of the teaching profession.  For example, the job security of teachers can be simply ridiculous; despite the stagnating test scores of our students, it is often extremely difficult to fire poor teachers.  In addition, teacher’s unions are often closed-minded to even the most common-sense reforms.

The fact is that some of our teachers are not good teachers and these underperformers should not be insulated from accountability.  It should be much easier to fire them.  Tenure should not simply be given after a brief trial period.  It should be earned after years of hard work and proven results.

But the vast majority of teachers do put in tremendous amounts of time and effort, and their livelihoods should not be demeaned. Teachers serve in the most arduous and most vital role in our society.  They deserve better than to be slandered as “greedy.”  They deserve our respect.

Share
Filed in Education | | Comments (0)