Letter to the editor:

Voters responsible for energy crisis

John C. Lovelace, St. George, Utah

Wed, May 21, 2008 (2:03 a.m.)

Gasoline is approaching $4 per gallon. Who is to blame? As much as I hate to say it, folks, we, the voters, are! There is no shortage of energy sources in this country, there is a shortage of allowed types of energy development.

Thanks to our elected representatives, in both the House and the Senate, all types of energy exploration and power projects are at a standstill. The politicians wail, gnash their teeth and wring their hands about the price of energy when in fact their pandering to the environmental Luddite groups is the cause of the present situation.

While it is the politician who continually votes to restrict the energy sources in the United States and causes the increase in costs, it is the voters of the United States who send these representatives to Washington.

We the people caused this situation by casting our votes for representatives who care not one whit about how the energy situation affects the people. This situation can be changed through our vote; the next time let’s do it right!

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By mschaffer

5/21/08 at 6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Continued:
This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less.

I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate.

Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world.

Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University.
By mschaffer

5/21/08 at 6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

I know people in St. George aren't the brightest cookies in the universe but never realized just how obtuse they are. While the voters are to blame for high energy costs it has nothing to do with blocking the wreck of our natural environment and everything to do with our childish demand for unlimited consumption. Read this:
June 4, 2001
The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply
By EVAR D. NERING

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about resource use.

In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years.

Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work.

The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable.

Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.
By NVMakz

5/21/08 at 7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Your straw-man analysis would work if:

* The known, total resource was being used. Liberals are blood-dedicated to leaving oil-in-the-ground. Choking off supplies as if denying a baby its milk. That's "lib" for 'ya! There is NO other source available to take its place. Cruel and unconscionable on the part of the liberal....

* Liberals could answer the "oil is finite" question? How much is there?? Where does the start point begin for this calculation. After all, the "Peak Oil" arguments have been getting shredded since the early 20s, where they estimated there was 30-50 years maximum, (so why believe the automobile has a future, was the argument then).......

What has been the annual growth rate on the planet anyway. Let's just say 3-4% anyway, including the most backward. polluted places on Earth. That's close enough unless "you" have something better == and still, there is NO RELIABLE estimate as to how much oil is left. In FACT, more and more finds are being announced annually; as newer technologies for oil sand and oil shale are developed.

Conservation does nothing in this argument in this time, because it doesn't increase supplies, therefore price (which the liberal wants much higher anyway) rises exponentially.

America is one of the cleanest, or unpolluted places on the planet considering the size and scope of our society. We clean up because we're rich enough to do that.

With your straw-man, backdoor conservation argument, this simply leaves more oil-based fuels to send to China, India, Africa and Asia; among the very most polluted - negating conservation. Also, which global entities ARE responsible for "growth" as they pollute unabated = China, India, Africa and Asia.

So, you have no start-point for your equations as you can not define the total amount of oil on Earth; conservation will have little effect if America doesn't start adding supplies (to blunt the 5% effect, lol...) and you want the gas to go to the largest polluters on the planet.

It's been nice to refute this math prof from my alma mater. It's funny how this argument has not become a major part of liberal argument in this field. Maybe because it's full of irrelevancies and holes big enough to drive an oil rig through.........

I thought this forum was for readers to talk about issues from their own perspectives, not for liberals "google" straw-man arguments they are incapable of making themselves.
By mschaffer

5/21/08 at 10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz as usual wrote nothing of substance. It asserts without showing sources so readers may judge just what an idiot it is. Care to come to UNLV and meet in person, putz?
By NVMakz

5/21/08 at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Either pimp your own op-ed, or get lost. You "google guys" can't think for yourselves.

And, unhinging right away to calling me out?? Says simply too much. Shallow first-twitch!!

Thanks to you for your swift, unresponsive and impotent response to a response to what wasn't even yours in the first place that you were selling as what you may have been thinking........

Abuse of the board complaint = those who reprint copyrighted material in lieu of their own thought and argument. There you stand!
By mschaffer

5/21/08 at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

It has responded by ducking. Why not give your real name and occupation so readers can judge you for what you are. Quit hiding behind a fake moniker which shows deceit and dishonesty from the start.
By NVMakz

5/21/08 at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Check and Mate, I guess.

No substantive response noted.
By mschaffer

5/21/08 at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Try this for starters idiot:
http://rutledge.caltech.edu/