Ladies' Night

The 2012 Oscars took place last week on Sunday Feb 26^th. After a furious round of movie watching, I once again saw everything nominated for a major category as well as all the short films. For the second year in a row I think the best picture category is very lacking. I think this may be the worst best picture field ever. No doubt there were some nice movies this year. I think The Artist was very well done. I really liked Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, and Midnight in Paris. I enjoyed Warhorse and Hugo but the idea that ran through my head was “I can’t believe this is one of the best movies made this year”. I would characterize most of the movies nominated for best picture as good not great. The academy recently expanded the best picture nomination field from 5 movies to 10. The thinking was having more nominees would allow for more diverse representation. This year there were 9. That says to me they had trouble coming up with even 9 good movies. Personally, I was more excited seeing 5 outstanding movies even if they weren’t popular and were less inclusive.

I could write about the effects of sacrificing quality for quantity in an effort to expand the field. I could write about the acceptance of mediocrity and the lowering of standards to make everyone feel better. I could write about the lack of originality in Hollywood and how the American movie industry is being surpassed by other industries around the world. These scenarios may not be accurate but they would make for good discussion. Instead, I am going to focus on the positives.

In my opinion, the strongest category this year, by far, is the best Actress category. There were five outstanding performances in five good movies. Usually, I am complaining about the Best Actress category. In past years there have not been a lot of roles where the female lead is the focus of the movie. When this occurs, the Oscar people do one of two things. They either nominate a role that is too small for best actress or they nominate a performance that really isn’t worthy of the category. This creates a dilemma in picking a winner because you are forced to choose a role based on its sheer size vs. a quality performance. In the last few years I think this is changing. This year, there were five nominations where the size of the role was not an issue. In all of these movies the woman’s point of view is what is driving the movie. I didn’t measure how much screen time was given, but in all of them it is very clear that the female role is integral to the movie.

Rooney Mara

I loved the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. One of the things I like seeing is the vision the movie makers present as compared to the original material. I realize that there are some things that work in print that do not work in movies. It is often times not possible to incorporate all aspects of a book in a movie simply because of time constraints. This movie was pretty good even though I hated the way the ending was done. Rooney Mara on the other hand, for me, was perfect. Her portrayal of Lisbeth Salandar was exactly how I imagined. Not only did she get the look, but the demeanor and the speech. Salandar is already a pretty complex character (I won’t wreck it if you haven’t read the book or seen the movie) but I think Rooney Mara was up to the task.

Viola Davis

My book club read The Help a few years ago. The criticism that a few of the members had was “How could some white lady tell a story of how black people feel?” Some thought that the whole concept of this book was at best presumptuous and at worst even exploitative. I thought the book was very good. I had less of a problem with this book because I acknowledge that this is a work of fiction. I am not naïve as to think that one well baked pie can correct years of systemic oppression. I do have to admit my bias with the traditional southern position. The idea that one group of people could be inferior to others may seem unreasonable today, but in the south not only was it perfectly acceptable - it was the law. To go against that norm was in many cases to break the law. Yet, when people talk about the south it isn’t long before someone mentions how polite people are or how it’s a nice, relaxing, slow lifestyle. The amount of hypocrisy needed to reconcile these two images fascinates me. It makes my head hurt. The situation to me is unimaginable. Maybe I am just heartless, but I cannot get on board with the “Gone with the Wind” Southern romanticism. The character played by Viola Davis makes the audience ask these questions. History does not always tell the story of those socially progressive white people who did what they could to change the situation. This movie does a good job sharing diverse viewpoints in pre-civil rights Mississippi. It is funny without trivializing the seriousness of the situation. On the surface this may seem like just another group of black house keepers and mean southern rich white people. After about 10 minutes of watching this movie I think you will find it is much more. The whole idea of the maids being the main characters is what makes this movie worth seeing. Viola Davis’ performance is compelling.

Meryl Streep

The Iron Lady is a movie about Margaret Thatcher who was the prime minister of England during the 1980s. I found this movie fascinating on many levels. In the 80s I was a kid. I remember seeing Margaret Thatcher on TV. I remember her being a big deal and I remember some of the events on TV. Putting an adult context on these events was, for me, a worthwhile experience. Meryl Streep added to this movie by making the audience aware of the challenges that Margaret Thatcher had in navigating the very “male” British political scene at this time. Streep's performance really captures how groundbreaking women in politics were in 1960s Britain. The most ground breaking achievement was being the longest serving prime minister of the 20^th century and the only female prime minister ever. This performance also highlights the dynamics of the Thatcher family. It was also very well written and the stream of consciousness story telling keeps the audience guessing.

Glenn Close

Albert Nobbs is the story of a woman who has to pretend to be a man in 19^th century Ireland so that she can keep her job as butler. Perhaps no movie this year highlights the issue of social inequality more than this one. The main character in this story has to pretend to be something that she is not just to earn an honest, decent wage. This movie underscores the unfair compromises that people all over the world must make when they are in desperate situations. Glenn Close’s performance most notably points out that, in the end, we all want the same things. We all want to live our lives with dignity, to be treated equally and fairly, and to find love and happiness.

Michelle Williams

I have to admit I am not a fan of Marilyn Monroe. I have always thought that she used sexuality in place of substance. The idea and persona of Marilyn was more relevant than her acting. Michelle Williams’s performance has made me reevaluate this idea. The great point that this movie makes was that Marilyn’s skill set was perfect for the movies. The reason why she was so successful was that stage actors were unwilling or unable to take the skills that they acquired in the theater and apply them to the silver screen. Many actors in this day were so biased or so unwilling to change that they let some actress with no classical training and a little hard work beat them at the movie business. I don’t know if this conclusion is accurate but it cannot be dismissed. Michelle Williams was very good in this movie. She was so good that I am adding a Marilyn Monroe movie to my film fest and reevaluating my opinion of Marilyn Monroe.

The point of this blog is not to say that all of these performances were excellent. Women have always had great performances. The point is that these performances were crucial to each of the films. They don’t just add to the movie, they ARE the movie. Try telling the story of the Iron Lady without Margaret Thatcher. Try making a movie about Marilyn Monroe with out a strong performance from the actress. The success of the movie rests on the shoulders of the actress. That is how I envision the Best Actress Category. The leading actress’ performance makes the movie and doesn’t simply serve as a compliment to the dominant male role. Of course teamwork is important, but these are individual awards. I still think that there are many more of these leading opportunities for male actors than female actresses. I don’t want to see the role of the traditional male actor diminish. I want to see quality roles for everyone. Hollywood is making enough money that there can be good roles for both men and women. I enjoyed watching all five of these performances this year and I think any of them would be a great winner.

Perhaps it says something that these movies got made because the marketplace is more accepting of females in this capacity. Perhaps the Hollywood trend is a reflection of the American workplace as women advance in society. Maybe these are just five good movies that all got nominated this year. Maybe the stars just aligned and these five women got these five scripts and got to make these five movies. Whatever the case, I hope this trend continues.

Here are my picks for this year. As always, this is not a prediction of what I think will win, this is what I feel should win. I must state that this article was written prior to the Oscars show even though this is being posted after the Oscars took place. Last year, the academy agreed with a lot of my picks.

Best Picture – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Best Actor – Demián Bichir- A Better Life

Best Actress – ANYONE, but I hope it is Rooney Mara

Best Supporting Actor – Kenneth Branagh – My Week with Marilyn

Best Supporting Actress – Octavia Spencer – The Help

Best Director – Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist

Best Original Screen Play – Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris

Best Adapted Screen Play – John Logan - Hugo

Best Live Action Short – The Shore

Best Animated Shorts - The Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

Additional Note

The second strongest category this year was the live action short films. All five of them were very good. Try to see them if you can. Also, I loved the trailers for all five of the foreign films. I only got to see one of them (probably because my artsy Ritz Theater sold out so now they have 3 screens playin’ BEEBER-3D).

The Roof is on FI-YA!!!!!!!!

Over the last months, the topic that has dominated the political debate is the debt crisis. There are 2 ways to go about fixing the debt. The president’s plan consists of raising revenue mostly in the form of tax increases. People who agree with this position state that tax rates are the lowest they have been in decades and in the wake of this financial crisis more revenue is needed. The position of the Republican Party is to cut spending. They site the years of waste and irresponsible spending as the cause of this problem and the cutting of spending as a remedy.

Many politicians use the example of American home owners as a way to describe the economy. While I think this is not always an accurate picture I think the idea of a house and managing a household can point out some things in the current economic arguments. In this article I will use three practical house hold examples to try to explain my feelings on this topic.

Before I go any further let me state that I have viewed our national debt as a HUGE problem for quite a while. I was one of the people in my college years screaming about the national debt clock. I was the crazy liberal blowing a stack when George Bush was spending this country into oblivion. I have written several times on this blog about the unfunded liabilities that the government has obligated itself to pay. I have stated many times that the current trend is unsustainable.

I. TERMITES

Imagine this scenario. You are a single person and you live alone. You are driving home at night after having dinner with a friend. While you are driving you remember that you once again have forgotten to call TERMINIX because you have a very severe infestation of termites. You have been putting it off for ages but you resolve that this time you are going to get to it. You make up in your mind that the first thing you are going to do when you get to the door is you are going to call TERMINIX and leave a message on the machine. As you turn the corner and enter your development, you get the sense that something as not quite right. As you turn down your street you notice a glow in the darkness. You then notice something smells like smoke. To your horror you realize that it is your house that is on FIRE!!!!

At this point there are many things you could do. Your first instinct may be to run into the house and try to save your cat or dog. You may have the urge to try to retrieve important documents like your passport or your birth certificate. You may think of your prized possession that you do not wish to be destroyed. After about 20 seconds you realize that the most practical thing you can do is to call the fire department.

You may be wondering what your house burning down has to do with the economic picture I painted in the introduction. I would equate the house with the national economy. The fire is the problem of unemployment. I believe the fire is also the result of several systemic (not cyclical) problems in the economy. The termite infestation in this analogy is the national debt. The point of this analogy is that if your house is on fire your first priority is to put out the fire and not to worry about the termites.

The GOP position is to stand outside watching their house burn to the ground and they are on the phone making an appointment with Terminix instead of CALLING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PUTTING OUT THE FIRE. That is how silly this debt debate is when the economy is ON FIRE!!!! In this analogy the water that will be used to put out the fire is going to be the money that we have to spend to fix the systemic unemployment in this economy. In this context the whole debt argument is silly.

Make no mistake, THE TERMITES WILL EAT OUR HOSUE VERY SOON. Our termite problem is magnified because for the past 30 years we have completely ignored our termite problem. Since the mid-1980s the termite problem has grown unchecked due to the irresponsibility of BOTH political parties. For 30 years we have said “we will deal with the termites next year”. In this context you may be asking “How much longer can we wait before we deal with the termites?” I submit we have to put it off one more time because the HOUSE IS ON FIRE!!!! The solution therefore has to have a short term and a long term component.

We are going to have to spend money this year. PERIOD. We are probably going to have to spend money next year. We have to fix the unemployment problem. I believe that this problem is systemic and not cyclical. This unemployment is not due to the normal cycle of the economy but is rather systemic because of a whole list of factors. I will explore these forces in a later article. The trick is since we have to spend this money we need to spend it on things that will have gigantic long term impact. We have to get a huge long-term “Bang” for our “bucks (that we don’t have). I suggest education and infrastructure spending. When (or IF) our economy recovers these things will add to the value of this country and make the individuals in this country more prosperous. This approach fixes the short term and helps us in the long term. But we are going to have to spend. We also have to spend this money with the idea that we are very soon going to have to deal with the debt. We have to put out the fire in a way that in a way that will allow us to come back and fix the termites.

II. NO MONEY, NO MORTGAGE – The difference between debt and deficit

The housing market is another thing that is often in the news. Many politicians compare how people run household budgets to the government. The argument is “if a family doesn’t have money they have to go without and the government should do the same”. I think this is a very flawed analogy for several reasons.

In order we to more clearly define this analogy it is necessary to first define the difference between debt and deficit. The national debt is the total amount of money that we owe. This number is cumulative. This is a long term measurement. Every year the country either takes in more money then it spends or it spends more money than it collects. This results in an annual deficit or surplus. This annual deficit or surplus is added or subtracted from the total debt. The important distinction for this analogy is that there is long term debt and there are short term deficits and surpluses. I like to relate this issue to the idea of buying a house.

When most people buy a house they usually don’t walk into the realtor’s office, put $300,000 on the desk and walk out with a house. Most people get a house via a mortgage. You put some money down and then over the course of 30 years you pay off the house plus interest. You have a 30 year long term debt. When running a house hold you also have monthly short term surpluses and deficits. Hopefully your household has more short term surpluses than deficits. In reality, this may not always be the case. Sometimes someone gets sick. Sometimes you crash the car or you have to buy a new car. Sometimes you send your kids to college and the tuition goes up 300% in 4 years. Sometimes you splurge at Christmas because your kid wants a power ranger. When these things happen you have 2 options. You either have surpluses from past months saved up or you will acquire some short term debt (usually credit) to pay for these things you need or want. The point is you still have 30 year long term debt and your debts are surpluses are added to the debt.

The GOP position is as it relates to the deficit is like saying” I have a mortgage so I am NOT GOING TO BUY ANYTHING ELSE FOR 30 YEARS!!! No Christmas presents. I am going to drive the same car for 30 years. The house burns down. Too bad, we have debt we have to be homeless. Car breaks down too bad. We aren’t spending any more money till we pay off our mortgage. The roof is leaking. Too bad we aren’t spending any more money. Because we have long term debt we can’t have anything else. The problem with the economy is there is no demand. The buying power of the middle class has been weakened so companies are selling less. That is why unemployment is persistent. So guess what. In the near term we are going to have long term debt and we are probably going to have short term deficits. Who wants to go back to the Clinton days where we had an annual SURPLUS???

Another thing that came up in the debt talks was a balanced budget amendment. This is the idea that we amend the constitution to require a balanced budget. The question I ask is “Why didn’t the framers of the constitution make balancing the budget as a requirement?” I think it is because the founding fathers realize that STUFF HAPPENS, and when stuff happens you need to run a deficit. There is a reason that the constitution doesn’t say anything about balancing the budget because the founding fathers were some pretty smart people.

GET A FREAKIN' JOB - spending vs. revenue

Sometimes house holds get into financial trouble. Households may be in a position where they don’t have enough money. When this happens there are TWO courses of actions that people can do. The first is to cut spending. You go without. You buy what you need and not what you want. You cut back. After you cut back and you still are not making it the next thing you do is you get a second job. You work nights or weekends. You work overtime at the job you have. In other words you RAISE REVENUE!!!!!!!

The GOP position is to not raise taxes for any reason. In fact their approach has been to cut taxes while at the same time complaining about our short term deficits and our long term debts. This course of action is akin to taking half of your paycheck THROWING IT OUT THE WINDOW and then complaining to your neighbors how much you have to cut back just to survive.

--

The bottom line is this. Revenue makes up 15% of GDP. Spending makes up 25% of GDP. If we are going to balance the budget in the short term these 2 numbers have to be equal. To get rid of the long term debt, the revenue number has to be higher than the spending number. But just like the second household analogy we can’t just stop spending money. Closing this 10 percentage point gap at first glance may not seem that drastic until you consider that 10 percentage points is almost half of the total amount we spend. Think if you had to over night cut your expenses in half. Think of what it would be like if you could only by half of what you are buying now. For those of you who think the government does nothing for you I would like to ask you a series of questions. Did you built the road that you drove to work on or did the state build it? When you cooked your eggs this morning did you by a salmonella kit and test your eggs or did you assume that the FDA tested the eggs and they are safe? If someone breaks into your house, do you hire your own team of vigilantes or do you call the police that the state pays for? If someone owes you money, do you hire a muscleman to break the person's leg or do you use the court system which the state runs? Do you have a power generator in the back yard or do you use the power plants that our collective efforts help to build? Contrary to popular belief the government actually does stuff and to cut spending in half overnight is not reasonable. The only way to close this gap is with a balanced approach. The truth is we have to spend less but we also have to raise more money. A balanced approach is needed but WHEN we spend or save is equally important as WHAT we save.

A balanced approach is what is needed to get out of this problem. Are there wasteful parts of government that need to be curtailed? Of course they are. I am not advocating big government for the sake of big government. I am saying that government has a responsible role to play in our lives. To start an argument with the premise that all government spending is wasteful is not realistic. At the same time we have to raise revenue. Any attempt to raise revenue is not necessarily a communist Marxist plot that will destroy America. Sometimes it is just simple math. I think the solution lies in the middle. Put out the fire, get a second job, and don’t be afraid to spurge a little at Christmas!

Past is Prologue

In 1993, the Star of Indiana Drum and Bugle Corps performed a show entitled “Medea.” This show was based on the musical composition of the same name by Samuel Barber, and a piece by Bela Bartok. As a young band geek, I have to say I LOVED watching this Star of Indiana performance – I watched the video frequently. Soon, my mild obsession changed to curiosity as I began to listen to the original compositions of Barber and Bartok. Then, I read the original mythological story of Medea, which is, in my opinion, too similar to the current political debate on the USA’s debt ceiling.

Medea was the daughter of King Aeëtes and the niece of Circe (granddaughter of the sun god Helios). Medea married Jason (yes, the Jason and the Argonauts /Golden Fleece guy). Jason and Medea had 2 children. Some time goes by and then Jason dumps Medea to marry Glauce, the daughter of the king of Corinth. This leaves Medea a devastated mother with 2 children. Medea gets revenge for Jason’s unfaithfulness by killing the two children. She kills her own kids just to make Jason miserable. The statement she makes is “I hate Jason more than I love my own children.” Imagine a mother who kills her own children just to get back at her ex-husband.

You may be asking why I think about Jason and Medea when I watch the news about the debates going on in Congress about the debt ceiling. I think there are some people in the political arena that “HATE OBAMA MORE THAN THEY LOVE AMERICA.” Rush Limbaugh has already said he hopes Obama fails. When asked to clarify this point he then will give you some long, drawn out explanation about how Obama’s policies are anti-American and Limbaugh hopes those policies fail. Mitch McConnell says his primary goal is to make Obama a one-term president. He didn’t say he wants to improve the lives of the hard working people in his state, or that his state has greater economic prosperity or that the country that he grew up in is a better place for all of her citizens. His primary reason for his political life is to screw Obama.

Most economists agree with Obama that not raising the debt ceiling will be catastrophic to the economies of both the United States and the world. Some members of Congress on the right (mostly the Tea Party) have stated that they want the country to hit the debt limit even though many of them acknowledge that there will be consequences. For everyone who thinks that my “Medea” diagnosis of the GOP is incorrect, ask yourselves a series of questions: How does this make America better? How is America better if its credit rating is downgraded to that of a second class economic nation? How is it better for the American people if the government can’t pay its bills? How is it better for us as a country if old people that worked all their lives and put money into social security now over night are told that their money isn’t coming? How are we better as a country when we are fighting 3 wars and the people on the battle field don’t get paid? How are we better when widows of fallen service men don’t get the life insurance policy that the government provides? How does closing national parks help the citizens of this country? How do credit card interest rates going up to FIFTY PERCENT OVERNIGHT help the average American? How do car loans with 35% interest help our consumer economy? How does it help the average American (who already won’t get their social security payments if the GOP has their way) if the stock market tanks and everyone’s 401k is cut in half?

Some Republicans would rather see the entire United States economy collapse then to see Obama get an increase in the debt limit. When George Bush was president, the Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling SEVEN TIMES IN EIGHT YEARS (and the one time they didn’t was because Bill Clinton left him a freakin’ surplus and not a deficit). Now this same group of Republican politicians won’t raise the debt ceiling one time IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION CASUED BY GEORGE FREAKIN BUSH. They would rather see unemployment go up to 40% just to screw Obama and win a political argument.

This is not the first time that this has happened. If the GOP had their way there would be no General Motors now. They would have rather seen all of Detroit be unemployed to screw Obama instead of support his package that saved the automobile industry. Now these politicians and their friends are buying stock in GM at $31 a share. Do they say Obama may have been right? HECK NO. They take every opportunity they can to stick it to him. Have they said, “I am glad we still have an auto industry?” Of course not. Rather than give Obama one small victory in this economic hell or acknowledge that America having a manufacturing sector may be a good thing, the GOP would rather continue to publicly state that Obama’s idea was a bad one and take every chance they can to screw him.

I am not suggesting that everyone who voted against Obama hates America. I am not suggesting that all Republicans hate America. I am not saying that everyone has to agree with everything Obama does. I know many people that did not vote for Obama who love America. There are many things that Obama has done that I don’t agree with. What I am saying is that it is in the political interest of the GOP for things to get worse. I am also saying that there are some politicians who hate Obama so much, who hate what he is proposing so much that they would rather things get worse just to prove a point. I am saying that there are politicians who would put their political views and their hatred of Obama and what he stands for in front of the best interest of the country. It is in NO ONE’S best interest (Democrat, Republican, progressive, conservative) if this country defaults on its obligations. It makes America less secure and less prosperous. So why would ANYONE want to see America go into the toilet over a debt ceiling that we have the power to change? I think the GOP is more interested in winning the argument than helping the country. I want America to prosper. If the conservative philosophy prevails and America is successful, I WILL BE THE HAPPIEST GUY IN THE COUNTRY. I would love to write an article 20 years from now called America has solved all of its problems and we did it with conservatism. I can’t see a time when Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnell would ever make that admission. The GOP needs to act like a political party and not someone’s psycho ex wife. That is what I call a Medea Complex.

Queue Samuel Barber mythologically inspired music!

Academy Awards

The 2011 Academy Awards are supposed to highlight outstanding movie-making. I often feel that the actual movies take a back seat to a lot of other junk that goes on. I personally could give less than 2 farts about who is wearing what or who shows up with whom on the Red Carpet. A lot of hype has been directed to the hosts of this year's Oscars. I am actually a big fan of both of the hosts. While I don’t mind a good show, I am more concerned with who wins the awards. I found the actual field of movies this year to be a little lacking. There was nothing in this field that I hated. There were a few movies that I really loved. Most of the movies this year were just ok. They left me thinking “This is the 10^th best movie this year, really?” Having said that, I made several observations about the movies that I saw (I saw everything nominated for a major category, plus all the shorts). This will be a list of my observations.

THE FREAKY and the FREAKED OUT

“Black Swan” was the freakiest movie of the year. Even with my untrained eye it was obvious that main character had ISSUES!!!! Anyone with a psych degree should watch this movie and attempt to diagnose what this girl had. I love the psychological thriller aspect of this movie. I like that you are never really sure what is reality and what is imagined in this movie. I appreciated the local connection as many of the dancers in this movie were from the Pennsylvania Ballet (I have season tickets). Hopefully this movie will inspire a new generation of ballet fans so I am not sitting in the seats with old ladies all the time.

“Black Swan” was the freakiest movie but the movie that freaked me out the most was “127 Hours”. (I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICS OF THE PLOT. IF YOU WANT TO GO IN FRESH BE WARNED). This movie is based on the true story of Aron Ralston, An adventurer who goes on a rock climb and gets stuck in a canyon. The only way he ultimately can free himself is to CHOP OFF HIS OWN ARM!!! I was sitting in the theater trying to imagine if I could have the will to chop off my own arm even in the face of certain death. It reminds me that people can get into situations that are so desperate they could do the unimaginable.

KIDS: Love ‘em/Hate’em

I traditionally hate seeing kids at the Oscars. Sorry, I am heartless, but usually, I don’t feel they are deserving. Usually, I think that people lower their standards because kids are cute and young and all this stuff. If you are nominated for an award you have to achieve, not just do a good job “for a kid”. This year there are actresses under 21 nominated for awards. I thought Hailee Steinfeld was amazing. I hate westerns in general but I loved “True Grit”. Miss Steinfeld was great. She was on screen with Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges and I really didn’t care about them. She played an able-bodied but quirky character with knowledge beyond her years. Maybe this was not a stretch for her but I still thought she played it well. Jennifer Lawrence was great in “Winter’s Bone”. I have to admit I didn’t care for this movie too much at all. I appreciated the look into Appalachian living but that is about it. Miss Lawrence made this movie bearable for me.

I guess in the traditional sense “Toy Story 3” is a kid’s movie. In reality, I LOVE PIXAR. I do not think they have made a bad movie (I have not seen all of them so that maybe uninformed). This movie is wonderful for all ages. The level of technical achievement is great. The storytelling is excellent. I love the characters. This movie is well deserving of a best picture nomination.

MY ARTSY GEEK HEART MADE GLAD

I LOVED “INCEPTION” even though I did guess the ending in the first ten minutes. I loved it. It was a great science fiction movie. I have to admit to a man crush on Leo DiCaprio; not gonna lie. The dude can just act his butt off. The story is well thought out. The special effects are amazing. The movie is thought provoking. Imagine what kind of industry would arise if we had the ability to plant thoughts in people’s mind. What would people pay to manipulate others as well as to remove painful memories from their own life? The idea of infiltrating dreams and getting paid for it is a neat concept that is explored by this movie. 20 years ago a Sci-fi like this wouldn’t even be considered for best picture. The fact that it both did well at the box office and gets noticed for its artistic value makes my geek heart happy. I still get funny looks when I wear my star trek shirts in public, but hey, we are making progress.

I saw the play “Rabbit Hole” a few years ago at the Arden Theater. I didn’t remember it until I saw the first 5 minutes of the movie. This is a very good adaptation. They added locals to make it more like a movie and less a stage production, but they stayed very true to the dialogue and the script. Seeing both productions highlights the difference between theater and movies and shows how they are both different but equally valuable.

THE MOST COMPETITIVE

In my opinion the best actor category was by far the deepest and most competitive field in this year's Oscars. All 5 performances are very strong. I would have no problem with any of these actors winning. In addition, the best supporting actor category was really strong. Some of these performances in another year could have been best actor performances. I loved Geoffrey Rush (The King’s Speech), Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are All Right) and Christian Bale (The Fighter). I could make my annual argument that actresses don’t get as much cool material as men do, but I won’t.

RELEVANCE

The “Social Network” was the most socially relevant movie of the field. The idea of social media for good or for ill has significantly changed many of our lives. The revolutions in the Middle East while not started by social media, have used things like Facebook, twitter, and YouTube as instruments. While many would say this is a good thing, there is the possibility that these media can be used for ill. I have to admit, I LOVE FACEBOOK. Probably more than most. I got to the facebook party relatively early (one of the benefits of having a Rutgers email address for teaching marching band). Like most early facebook users, I was not concerned with the legal battles going on but was rather worried about “friending” and “poking” people. To see a representation of the people and the problems behind the scenes was great. I will not debate the accuracy of the portrayals, but will just accept that this is one side of the story. This is still a great movie. My only complaint was that I thought that Jesse Eisenberg was Michael Cera!

Here is who I think should win. These are not predictions. These are the people I think should win. The great thing about art is that we can all like something different and still be valid.

Picture - The King’s Speech

Actor – Javier Bardem, Biutiful

Supporting Actor – Christian Bale, The Fighter

Actress – Natalie Portman, Black Swan (not really committed to this one)

Supporting Actress – Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

Directing – The King’s Speech

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – The Social Network

Writing (Original Screenplay) - Inception

We Can Freakin' Get This Done!!!

In my previous 2 articles I discussed the challenges that face this country regarding our energy policy. In the first article I attempted to define the severity and the urgency of this problem: We have a few short decades to implement a 20 year solution or we will face catastrophic consequences ( http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/fucked.html ). In this article I site three dates that illustrate the urgency in which we must proceed.

2015 – We will have used up all the easy to access oil. I am not predicting that we will run out of all oil, but that oil will become more expensive to locate and produce.

“By 2015 Easy to access oil will be unable to keep up with demand”. John Heifmeister, former president of Shell Oil

This prediction is 5 YEARS AWAY!!!

2020 – We will need a new energy source equal to half the energy we are currently producing. This prediction is 10 years away.

2054 – The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a 3° temperature rise. Many experts think this will cause significant changes to our way of life. This is 44 years away. This is significant because once this occurs the effects will be very hard to reverse.

My solution for this crisis could be enacted in 4 phases and I have marked these phases by milestones. These milestones are what I believe we as a country need to do to combat this crisis. I wrote about the first of these milestones in the previous article ( http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/tick-tock.html ). The following is a summary of the 4 phases.

Phase 1 – Change the Economics; Build a power grid

Phase 2 – Massive Research & Development effort; Education; Start building Magnetic Rail

Phase 3 – Build a lot of stuff; Implement penalty phase of tax structure

Phase 4 – Redesign cities

I have structured these articles by setting what our goals should be by year 1, year 5, year 10, and year 20. We should not wait until the specified year to start these things; rather, by the specified year we should have made progress in a given area.

Year 1 – Phase 1

http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/tick-tock.html

Year 5 – Phase 2

Education

By year 5 there needs to be a massive re-education of our workforce. This energy revolution is going to create many new opportunities; however, it is also going to make many current jobs obsolete. A significant part of our workforce will have to be retrained. This is a necessity. To ignore this reality is to invite economic calamity. The current unemployment situation highlights this reality. There are many people who will never again have a job similar to the one they just lost because there are some jobs that ARE NEVER COMING BACK. These people have to be trained to do something else. Part of this can be done by reforming the unemployment system to allow a training component in addition to just giving people money. Employers could also be encouraged to give their employees training. A big part of training for energy jobs (at least at the beginning) is going to have to be done by the government. I suggest using community college infrastructure to offer certification and training in green energy jobs. In this economy we need a mechanism to retrain our work force regularly.

R & D

We also need to conduct massive research & development. The technology available today is sufficient to solve most of our problems, but there will have to be many improvements to technology to help us completely solve this problem. We also need to find more efficient ways to make the things we are currently making. I suggest that the government provide incentives to private industry to conduct most of this R&D. Creating a new government agency to conduct this R&D may be a good long-term goal, but in the short term it may be best to encourage private industry to do this.

Magnetic Rail – Part 1

The primary action that the government must take according to Phase 2 of my plan is to develop (or at the very least incentivize) a magnetic rail system. Many people view this as impossible in the short term and a long-term economic loss. In the context of this pessimism let me discuss some things about magnetic rail.

Magnetic rail (or Maglev or high speed rail) is a technology that uses electro magnets and levitation to propel trains at high speeds. It does not use any fuel, but uses huge amounts of electricity. The fastest of these trains was recently built in China and clocked speeds of 220 mph. Magnetic rail in this phase should have two potential goals.

First, magnetic rail has the potential to replace all the long distance shipping in the United States that is currently done with 18 wheel tractor trailers. If we build a national light speed rail system, companies could ship goods faster and with no fuel costs. Companies have until recently assumed cheap fuel use in their economic projections. We all know that this will not always be the case. A shipping method that does not require fossil fuels would be more stable and in the long term more cost effective for business. If we build a power grid and integrate renewable energy sources correctly then we could get our electricity from the sun and from wind power. If we stopped subsidizing oil as I proposed in the first phase of this plan, the price of gas would be $14 a gallon. Now the choice for business becomes (1) fuel a fleet of tractor trailers with $14 gas, or (2) use my light speed rail system that RUNS ON THE SUN!!!!!!

We also have a chance with a national light speed rail system to replace most domestic air travel with light speed rail. In recent summers we have seen what affect the price of gas has on air travel. There is no reason that you can’t go from New York to Florida in 3 hours by light speed rail. I do not mean that Americans should yet use the train for every day travel in this phase. Nor am I saying that this will be done by year 5. However, by year 5 we need to see the beginnings of an initiative to build this system.

Make no mistake: I am talking about putting most truck drivers out of business. I am also talking about making it harder for an already crippled airline industry. That is why the education programs are so important. People already in these jobs have to be able to get retrained. People who are currently employed in these jobs need to begin to retrain themselves NOW. Not wait 5 years from now until they are unemployed.

Year 10 – Phase 3

The Build Phase

By year 10 we need to be totally committed as a country to massive renewable energy building. I believe that wind and solar power should be the backbone of this new energy strategy. This needs to be a gigantic effort. By year 10 our power grid should be complete and the economic incentives should be in place which should lead to the production of clean energy. The best way to have this stuff built is for it to be built by private investors. It is the government’s job to ensure the marketplace favors the production of clean energy. It will be private industry properly motivated and incentivized to get this stuff built.

By this time we also need to be redesigning the subways and transportation systems in our inner cities. We need better methods for getting large groups of people from place to place. As people have to change jobs quickly and frequently, there are going to have to be ways for people to get around. The public transportation systems of this country are woefully inadequate. IF YOU HAVE TO DRIVE YOUR CAR TO THE TRAIN STATION THEN THAT IS A SUCKY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM!!! We have to resolve the problem of how you go the last 10 miles once you get to your “destination” by train or public transportation. The “last 10K” scenario is something that city planners have been trying to redesign for years. Several options using current technology have already presented themselves. I believe that a massive R&D effort will lead us to something that will be effective.

Penalty Phase

By year 10 the penalty phase of the conservationist tax structure discussed in Phase 1 will be fully implemented – after 10 years of policy and incentives. Anyone still unprepared will be PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE BY YEAR 10. If you are still driving an SUV, tough. You are getting taxed. If you still want an energy IN-efficient appliance, too bad. You will be taxed. I also propose a tax for driving into a city like that imposed in London. If you are a business and you are still engaging in bad energy production you will have to pay for it. By this time these bad decisions will come directly out of your profit margin. Also, oil and coal will be completely unsubsidized (see article about year 1). That means everyone will be paying the full price of fossil fuels. These policies would have been in place for 10 years. We as a country will either become more energy efficient or we will pay for our energy inefficiency (and then use the money to help those that are energy efficient become more energy efficient).

Phase 4 – Year 20

City Redesign

By year 20 we will have had to have begun redesigning our cities. Urbanization is one of the biggest uses of energy. It is silly to think the population of this country will not increase. It is equally as naïve to think that the way cities are currently constructed will be sustainable in a world where traditional energy sources are less available. Most of this technology will be invented after the massive R&D effort mentioned in Phase 2. Having said that, there are some principles I think we should apply to our city redesign.

Urban Farming

I have to admit that this is a concept that I have known about for a while. I kind of dismissed this idea until my cousin Justin made a very good case for this practice. It kills multiple birds with one stone. There are lots of vacant lots in many inner cities across this country. There are a lot of condemned buildings taking up space. There is unemployment and a need for people in the inner city to find well paying jobs. There is also the problem of feeding a growing population, especially as the percentage of farmers decreases. The main problem that relates to our energy crisis is that cities often have to import food from far away. This requires fossil fuels to ship these foods and more energy for refrigeration the food as it travels. A solution that could potentially solve all of these problems is to turn all the vacant lots and condemned buildings into…FARMLAND!!!

Unemployed people in the inner city could get an honest well-paying job as a farmer. The condemned buildings and drug houses and nasty vacant lots would be replaced by farmland. There would be less food shipped from all over the place to sustain cities. There would be more people growing more food. I won’t even mention the numerous studies that speak to the positive effects of a city with parks and green areas instead of vacant lots. Everybody wins. Before you dismiss this as something that is impossible consider that Detroit is attempting and urban farming initiative in the wake of the economic havoc going on in the car industry.

Additional Development

There is a whole list of things that can be used to actually redesign urban buildings. There is a significant amount of space on the roofs of sky scrapers’ that could be utilized: solar panels and other energy generating devices, hydroponic bays to grow food, and algae make energy. Even if you just paint the roof white it would increase energy efficiency. There will undoubtedly be more solutions produced by a 15 year long Research and Development effort. The point is that we have to think about how we design and redesign cities to support a growing population and consume less energy.

Many people may argue that my proposals are impossible and impractical. They will say the transformation is too drastic and the solution is unworkable. My response to this is to point to an episode in our somewhat recent American History: In 1941 Germany was marching all over Europe. They harnessed the resources of every country they occupied. Every people they took over added to their limitless supply of slave labor. The United States entered WWII in 1941. The economy was in a GREAT depression. Over night the United States completely retooled all of their factories to make tanks and planes instead of cars. They then trained a significant percentage of the female population (many who had never worked in factories) to build wartime armaments. This new American workforce then managed to out produce all of Germany and the Axis Powers. This retooled American workforce build more stuff than all of the countries in Europe COMBINED!!! And they did it over night while everyone said it was impossible.

We can still get out of this? Will there be bumps along the way? YES. Will there be unanticipated consequences? YES. Will it be difficult? ABSOLUTLEY. Will our lifestyles be completely different after this transformation? YES. Will these policies result in a total social, political, and economic upheaval? YES. Is this plan as I have presented it flawed? DEFINATLY. I do not believe that a solution is impossible. What I do believe is that we have ZERO time to fart around. We do not have time to whine about how hard this will be or how unfair the world is. This is the time to get it done. I still believe in our capacity to solve this problem. I still believe that American ingenuity can save us from this. I believe we have the capacity to get this done. I also believe that America can once again lead the world as we endeavor to save this planet.

Tick-Tock

In my last article (http://spoon-spoonworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/fucked.html), I discussed the problem that the United States is facing regarding its energy policy. The biggest challenges that we are facing are a rising energy profile and a limited supply of easy to acquire energy. Add to this the possibility that we are reaching an environmental tipping point that may result in our inability to sustain our civilization. I also indicated the urgency of fixing this problem. I believe the severity of this problem coupled with the importance and difficulty of implementing a solution means that we have to take immediate and drastic actions.

We as a country are living in a world that is undergoing a fundamental change. In the past we were living in a society with lots of energy that was easy to produce. We were also living with the notion that we had unlimited financial resources. Both of these things are fundamentally changing. The solution I am proposing is a fundamental change to our entire way of life. It will not be pretty, but it will be necessary. This deadline is imposed by nature. If it were up to me, I would recommend a smooth, comfortable transition during the next 40 years that would involve education to ensure that everyone understood the nature of what we are doing. I would also be advocating solutions that were feasible in our current political environment. WE DON’T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME. Nature has given us a hard and fast deadline. We cannot change the nature of the situation so we MUST change the politics. Nature is not conservative or liberal. It does not care if people are inconvenienced. Nature has given us an ultimatum. Fix this problem in 20 years or we as a civilization are doomed.

I equate this situation to a football game. It is 5 minutes left in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and we are down by 2 touchdowns. This situation is not impossible to overcome, but we have ZERO time to mess around. In the first quarter getting 4 yards/carry out of the running game would be great. But in the context of the fourth quarter and loosing, it is not an adequate game plan. In the fourth quarter we need to be THROWING THE BALL. Because of the urgency situation I cannot be happy with baby steps. I cannot be happy with an efficient ground game. This is the time for long bombs and huge chunks of yardage. I cannot be happy with politically friendly three yard running plays when the situation is so urgent.

My energy solution is based on a fundamental idea. It is my belief that the fastest way to change behavior is to change the economics of the situation. We do not have time to wait for people to come to the realization that this is important. We don’t have time to slowly transition to our new clean-energy based economy. We don’t have time to gradually move away from the wasteful way of life that we have had for the last 80 years. We as a society have to pay for bad behavior and be rewarded for favorable behavior.

I will present my energy policy in terms of what I would like to see happen within the next year. I will then state what I think our goals should be in year 5, year 10, and year 20.

Year 1

The primary thing we must accomplish right now is to change the economic incentives that will allow our energy policy to be effective. Most of this will have to be done at the legislative level. The major argument that opponents of clean energy put forth is they believe the market forces should determine what energy source we use. They say that the market does not favor investment and use of alternative energy.

I. Remove Oil and Coal Subsidies

I agree that the market should dictate what energy sources we use. The problem is that the government is subsidizing oil production and thereby artificially deflating the price of oil. The government is giving private industry money (in the form of tax credits, investment cost, and free land) to develop oil. This has the effect of making oil appear cheaper for the general population. On the surface this may make sense to some people: The oil companies are doing a service to this country by providing cheap energy so it would be worth while for the government to aid in this effort. Everyone in America in theory will benefit from cheap gasoline. People then go to the alternative energy companies and say that the market says alternative energy isn’t doable. Because our current economic system artificially makes oil cheaper, it then tells alternative energy companies that its solar power is too expensive. If alternative energy were subsidized on the level that oil production is, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If we really want to let the market dictate energy policy then we have to make people pay the full cost of oil production.

Therefore the first thing the government must do is stop subsidizing oil. I would not do this at one time. I would decrease the oil subsidy by 10% a year for the next 10 years. This sends a price signal to the market and to investors that 10 years from now oil will not be subsidized by the government and will therfore be more expensive. It also says that if you invest in alternative energy now, 10 years from now there is the potential for a huge payoff.

Make no mistake this WILL RAISE GAS PRICES. It has been estimated that unsubsidized gas would result in gas costing between $6.00-$14/gallon. This simple fact will go along way to change the behavior of both the market and the individual. If gas is $6.00, paying an extra $3,000 for a hybrid is more economical. Driving an SUV would be impossible for most Americans. Taking the train to work may be better than paying $6.00 for a gallon of gasoline. If the cost of a plastic grocery bag was 50 cents, there would be a lot more people buying a $1 reusable cloth bag. What would packaging of products look like if companies had to pay the full price for plastic (which is made from petroleum byproducts)? How would it change business if companies with a fleet of 18-wheelers had to pay for $6 gas? To stay competitive, business would have to change. They would first pass the cost onto customers. They would soon realize that in to stay competitive they would have to find cleaner ways to do business, or they would have to HIRE SOMEONE ELSE (more jobs) to help their operation run cleaner. This one policy change would send ripples through our entire economy. The price signal drives incentive toward the production of clean energy. The first step is for us as a society to pay the full price of carbon fuel. As long as this double standard is embedded in our economy, alternative energy economy will never work.

I propose the same type of action regarding the coal industry. We also currently subsidize the production of coal. But we must also pay the full price of coal. Currently 51% of our electricity comes from coal. This will be more drastic for the consumer and the consumer would have much less control. To mitigate this I suggest that the government reward people for the purchase of energy efficient appliances and “incentivize” energy conservation methods. Replacing coal is essential if we are going to have any chance at a clean economy. It does us no good to have bullet trains and plug in cars if we get our electricity from coal. As long as we are burning coal to get our electricity we have no chance of having clean energy. We have to have economic incentive to offset the 90 year head start that the fossil fuel industry has had.

II. Power Grid

I have stated in many other essays I have written that the first thing this country needs to do is build a power grid. Everyone who knows me knows this issue is something I have been yelling about for a decade. This is not some Green Peace techie pipe dream. This is something that we absolutely must have if we want any chance of getting out of this.

When I think of our current power grid I am reminded of a time when I was a kid when my family (Mom, Dad, and Sister) went to Disney World. We drove from New Jersey to Florida in the middle of summer in my grandparent's Buick. The trip took about 2 days. We stayed over night at South of the Border (Dillon South Carolina). The trip was long and hot, but we finally got to Disney World. Now imagine the same trip without taking I-95. Imagine driving from New Jersey to Florida BY ONLY TAKING THE BACK ROADS!!! That long uncomfortable trip becomes impossible. Our current power grid is very similar to that back roads trip to Florida in many respects.

Our current grid is extremely regionalized. It is more like several smaller grids instead of one large one. The problem with this is that it makes it very difficult to get power from one place to another. We need a grid that can get power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. It does us no good to build a solar field in Arizona if all that power generated can’t get to the big cities in California. We can build all the wind power in South Dakota we want, but if we can’t get that power to New York and Chicago then we are not getting the most of our investment. There is also some discussion as to what clean energy source is the best one to use. It may not be clear what energy source will win out. What is certain is that we will need a new power grid no matter what energy source we use.

The current grid is also very inefficient and very unreliable. The performance of the grid is only going to get worse as we consume more energy and the grid itself gets older. The grid could be vastly improved by using the latest computer technology to monitor and react quickly to changes in the system. As it is now, a little bit of rain can cause power loss in large sections of the grid. This grid also has to be able to monitor energy usage especially at non-peak hours. It has to interact with other components of the grid and allow the flow of energy in both directions. We have to be much more efficient with our energy usage and production. The only way to do that is with a new power grid. The potential is for the grid to actually interact with our appliances to help the individual conserve energy. We need to put the right economic incentives in place and give people the information they need to curb their energy habits. There is an additional benefit not related to the energy crisis. We would need people from every sector of our workforce to build this grid. We would need construction workers, tradesmen, metal workers, engineers, computer scientists, city planners and everything else to build this thing.

III. Conservationist Tax Structure

Conservation is the most effective short term policy we have in this energy crisis. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter launched one of the biggest conservation programs on record in response to the oil embargo and resulting gas shortage of the decade. It was one of the most successful campaigns ever launched. If Ronald Reagan had not reversed most of Carter’s policy we may not even be in this mess. We do not have time for people to come to the realization that they must conserve. We need to create incentives for doing the right thing and penalties for doing the wrong thing. We have to change the tax structure to reward good behavior and economically punish bad behavior. Many of these tax incentives have already been proposed. Most of the penalty phase comes in year 10 of my plan, but things like an SUV tax and a tax on bottled water could be implemented right away. The energy conservation measures proposed by this administration are a very good start, but by no means enough.

IV. Higher Standards for Federal, State and Local Governments

It would be too expensive to retrofit every building that is not energy efficient. This may be a long term goal, but in the first 5 years it is not feasible. What I do propose is that every building built by a state or federal government going forward is built with the highest energy efficiency standards. The initial cost would be higher, but it would actually save money in the long term. The other economic impact would be to send a price signal to the market. People who provide green energy services will have customers, and lots of them. Every state and local government will need to hire these small businesses to construct these buildings of the future. Every vehicle bought by state and local governments should have the highest fuel efficiency standards. This doesn’t help fix our current problem, but it stops the bleeding. This is also a standard that can be enacted relatively quickly.

V. Cap and Trade

I am not usually someone who says we must have cap and trade, but if a cap and trade policy is well done it would create a huge pool of money that we could use to pay for many of the other things we so desperately need. It would also make a scenario that would force business to think about the impact they are having on the environment. Cap and trade has gotten a bad reputation because of the lack of success it has had in Europe. If done correctly, it would allow the individual to make money in the long term. At the very least the short term economic strain on the individual could be managed. There are some fundamental things that can be avoided if adopting a cap and trade system since there are many cap and trade models. I am not going to dive into each one of these models now. I don’t think cap and trade is necessary for a successful energy policy (removing subsidies I think is better), but it could be a helpful tool for generating revenue if done correctly.

Cost

The limiting factor in any new program is cost. This will cost A LOT. To quote the movie "Timecop" it will cost “more than a little and less than too much.” The cost of doing nothing would be devastating. I do not believe our society would survive. In the first 5 years of this plan the biggest cost is the power grid. “Popular Science” estimates that we loose billions of dollars worth of productivity a year due to power outages and having to maintain obsolete technology on our current power grid. Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment estimates the cost of a new power grid at $65 billion. The stimulus package allocated just $11 billion to start production of a new power grid. The coal and oil industries currently get annual subsidies of $17 billion and $14 billion respectively. My suggested 10% phasing out of subsides would generate $42 billion in 5 years (wish I would have paid attention to that N factorial crap in calculus). That gets us most of the way there. That is only for the power grid, that doesn’t count anything else. A lot of the money we raise will have to pay for the tax incentives that we are going to give for good behavior. Some of that will be offset by the idiots who will continue to do the wrong thing, but that still will not be enough. We are also going to have to pay in the form of tax credits to offset the increased energy cost of the middle class. This is only for the first 5 years. We will have to raise a lot of money some other way. A well-run cap and trade system could generate a huge pool of money. Here are some other suggestions for where we can get the money.

Cost of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 - $144 billion

Total Defense Budget 2009 - $560 Billion

Total United States Oil Imports 2007 - $327 billion

2 Bush Tax Cuts – $3.1 Trillion over 10 years

I don’t know where all of the money will come from, but it has to come from somewhere. If we don’t fix our energy problem then NOTHING ELSE MATTERS ANYWAY. Of course, I am not in favor of dismantling our military, but when you look at how much we are spending on defense, $60 billion to save the planet (or at least begin to) doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

My next article will discuss how we go forward in years 5, 10, and 20. I am by no means an energy expert, this is just what makes sense in my mind. I also admit I don't have all the answers. With a situation this complex very few people (if any) do.I encourage everyone to look at the situation objectively and come up with another plan. What we must do is be realistic about the mess we are in. We have a deadline. A 3 yard running play is not a solution. “Drill Baby Drill” is a great bumper sticker, but is a pretty crappy energy policy. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. While we as a country are whining about what can't be done and complaining about how unfair this situation is in TIME IS RUNNING OUT! We can either whine about the situation that is confronting us or we can try to think of a solution. I choose the later.

FUCKED

I must begin this article with an apology to all my readers. In life I never use profanity; I feel that there are better ways for one to express one-self than resorting to baseless language. I reluctantly chose this title because it is the only word that conveys the potential seriousness of the current situation that I am attempting to define. It is also the only word that conveys the sense of urgency that we as a civilization must take in our very immediate future.

I have commented in several other articles that environmental catastrophe is the number one threat to our lives on this planet. And closely related to the environment is how we get energy: What we consume to maintain our lifestyle directly effects our environment. Since America is the biggest consumer of energy (for now) the energy policy that it sets is extremely significant, in fact crucial. I believe that in the very immediate future we will be unable to produce the level of energy needed to sustain our lifestyle. I believe that this scenario will manifest itself in DECADES. Not a century, not a generation, but DECADES. The severity of the problem is heightened because any solution that we devise will take 20 years to implement. If we start trying to solve this problem when these consequences begin to occur, then it is already too late. We have to anticipate this crisis point by 20 years to even have a chance at making this work. So, if we are, for example, 20 years away from crisis, and the solution needs 20 years to implement, then we have to start implementing it RIGHT FREAKIN’ NOW!!!!! Not next election cycle, not after the economy stabilized, not after we get out of Iraq, RIGHT FREAKIN’ NOW!!!! This article is an attempt to define the contributing factors that I believe will lead to this crisis.

Future Energy Profile

The biggest challenge we face is not a matter of sustaining our current energy profile, but what this profile will look like in the very near future. Fifty years ago there were few countries outside of the United States and Europe with a middle class that consumed a significant amount of resources. That picture is changing very very rapidly. Although America still consumes a lot more energy than anyone else (more than the next 3 biggest economies COMBINED) there are several other countries undergoing considerable growth and therefore using much more energy than they have before.

China is experiencing a major industrial revolution. Before the recession, China’s economy was on a pace to double every 14 years. As an economy grows, it uses more and more energy. China is building more and more by the day. However, as mechanized as China is becoming, half of the population is still living by the impoverished standards of the 1900s. So, what happens when those millions of people in villages begin driving cars, using computers, and begin running air conditioners?

India, though not growing as fast as China, is still growing quickly. The number of people moving into the middle class – and therefore consuming more energy – is growing rapidly. The number of people living “like Americans” is rising.

I believe that everyone on some level is engaged in this rat race. Even Developing Nations with traditional agrarian economies are consuming more and more energy. The era when America used nearly all of the energy while the rest of the world stood by and watched it happen has ended. To illustrate my point, consider China again: 1/3 of age eligible drivers in China’s cities have drivers license but no car. They believe that they will own a car in the future; but as of now, they lack the wealth and resources to own one. What happens when those millions of people start consuming resources at the same level that Americans are?

Add to this profile the sheer numbers associated with population growth. What happens when there are another 1 or 2 BILLION people on this planet? Even if these new arrivals consume minimal energy, it is still very significant. What happens when people in underdeveloped areas move to a city to find a better way of life? The migration of people from rural areas to large cities adds to the current energy profile.

The actual numbers are staggering. Luis Giusti (former president of Venezuela State Oil Company) estimates that we as a planet currently use the energy equivalent of 80 million barrels of oil per day. At the rate we are growing, we will be using 120 barrels of oil per day by 2030. THAT IS TWENTY YEARS AWAY. We as a planet have to find a source of NEW energy equal to half the energy we are already producing. Wade Adams (Director of Nano Technology Research, Rice University) believes that we will need 14 terawatts of energy (220 million barrels of oil/day) by 2050. In just 40 years, we will be using twice the amount of energy that we are currently using. Please note that although energy consumption is being measured in barrels of oil, this does not necessarily mean that is how much oil we are using. However you measure it, we are going to need a lot of new energy. We cannot wait 20 years to start to develop a 7 terawatt energy source.

Peak Oil

The United States uses 25% of the world’s oil yet has 2% of the world’s oil reserves. I believe we are running out of oil and that Saudi Arabia and OPEC have been lying to us about how much oil they are producing. Since this argument seems ridiculous to most people I will not even make it today; I will save my peak oil discussion for another time. However, I will say that I believe that as we go forward, the extraction, production, and refining of oil will become harder and more expensive.

All of the oil on this planet has already been made. Oil is not like corn that you can grow every year. It took millions of years and a lot of dead dinosaurs and biomaterial that was heated and compressed by geology. All of the oil we have already used and are ever going to use has ALREADY BEEN CREATED. The challenge now is how do we find what is left and refine it. The fact that we are trying to drill for oil 5 miles under the ocean floor means that we have already used up a lot of the “easy oil” that shoots out of the ground like in the “Beverly Hillbillies.” You may laugh, but just 50 years ago America was the biggest oil producer in the world and there were several places in Texas where oil just shot up in the air. When I see oil companies trying to mine oil from tar SAND, that tells me they have run out of easy to access oil. Why would an oil company waste energy to try to get oil out of tar sand? Because that is the only oil left to discover!!! The former president of Shell Oil made a prediction that by 2015, easy to access oil will be unable to keep up with demand.

There are several people who suggest that if we use the untapped oil resources of the United States, we could get out of this problem. They say there are places like ANWAR in Alaska and the west coast where we could find some oil. I believe that the oil we may find there would be only a drop in the bucket. Consider the recent Gulf spill. If you assume that 100,000 barrels a day (that is the biggest estimate to date) have been spilling into the gulf for 60 days, that is 6 million barrels spilled. According to an estimate made in 2007, the United States uses 21 MILLION BARRELS a day. So, all of that mess in the Gulf, all that disaster in the marshes of Louisiana, all of the dying pelicans and tar-balled beaches is equal to the amount of oil the United States uses in 8 HOURS. We use three times as much oil PER DAY as all the mess that is in the Gulf. That is how much NEW oil we will have to find and produce to support our CURRENT energy profile.

Atmospheric CO2

And now I will address global warming and climate change. I will give opponents of clean energy the benefit of the doubt and pretend that the data on climate change is inconclusive. However, we should consider this: Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere between 50 and 200 years, depending on who you listen to. If we stopped using all CO2 right now, we would still have a ton of it in the atmosphere. Living organisms also create CO2, which ends up in the atmosphere.

Most scientists think that a CO2 measurement of 550 parts per million (ppm) in the Earth’s atmosphere will lead to a 3 degree temperature change, and that such a temperature change is fairly significant. Currently, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated at 440 ppm, and we are adding 2.5 ppm per year. This means that at our current rate of CO2 production, we hit the magic number in 44 years. That is assuming that we maintain our current level of CO2 production. But we all know that if we proceed on the course we are on now, the amount of fossil fuels we are using is going to rise. How fast they rise and by how much is the question. Add to this number the fact that every forest we cut down to make more room for people reduces our ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Every tree we cut down exacerbates the problem because as we all know from 7th grade science, trees use CO2 and produce oxygen.

There are some who think that the 550 ppm = 3 degrees idea that I have quoted is debatable. And, there are also some who do not believe that 3 degrees is significant. There is also a debate as to how much of this CO2 is naturally occurring and how much is do to man using fossil fuels. As I said, I am not going to argue the merits of climate change in this article. But I will say that as the population of the world uses more carbon based fuel, we will be producing more CO2. That CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for years and add to the total amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. That part is not debatable.

Possible solutions

Several technologies have been proposed as solutions to our energy crisis. Here are a few of the popular ones. I do not believe that any one of these can replace what we get from fossil fuels.

Natural Gas

NATURAL GAS IS NOT CLEAN. It is less “dirty” than gasoline, but is by no means a clean fuel. The plus side is that this country has an abundance of natural gas that could be extracted relatively cheaply. Although I do not believe natural gas is an adequate energy solution, I do believe (and T Boone Pickens agrees with me) that natural gas could be useful in bridging the gap to whatever we end up transitioning. We also have to ask the question “how much natural gas infrastructure do we want to build for something that is probably a temporary solution?”

Biomass

Most experts think that fuels from biomass could not be scaled up adequately to play a major part in energy production. Sugar-based ethanol is better than corn-based ethanol, but even this has significant challenges. One problem that opponents present is that to grow fuel, we will have to give up the space needed to grow food. This can be overcome somewhat by using switch grass and things that are the unusable parts of food crops themselves. The problem with this is that we have to use a lot of energy to make this clean fuel. Also, biomass is not dense enough to even come close to replacing fossil fuels. The best estimates realistically predict that even with a major scaling up of our biofuel capabilities, it would still be less than 10% of our energy profile.

Hydrogen

I do not believe that hydrogen power on a large scale is feasible in the short term. Ideally, it could be very clean. The problem with hydrogen is a matter of production. What are the ramifications of mass producing and storing hydrogen safely? We would have to create an entire hydrogen production infrastructure just to produce the hydrogen. I don’t think this endeavor is worthless, but we must be realistic about how hydrogen may help us get out of the mess we are in. There will be some rich people in some areas that can drive hydrogen cars, but this is not going to help us in the next 50 years, and definitely not in the next 20 years.

Nuclear

I have always argued that nuclear has gotten a bad rap. Additionally, we have let one accident that happened 30 years ago keep us from using a valuable technology. In the recent political discussion, more and more people have begun to push for nuclear power. But, there are some draw backs.

First, nuclear energy is the most expensive technology. The initial start up cost is enormous. Second, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant. David Goodstein of Cal Tech estimates that if we are going to use nuclear to replace fossil fuels, we would need to build 10,000 nuclear plants worldwide. If we did manage to build 10,000 plants in the next 10 years, we would use up all of our uranium in 50 years. Of course this is an extreme example, but when we couple the size of the problem with the cost of nuclear power, we have to be really optimistic if we think nuclear power is the way out of this.

The plus side of nuclear is that once we manage to get a nuclear plant built, the maintenance costs are very do-able. It also produces no carbon. The radio active waste of course is a huge problem, but I do not believe it is unsolvable. There are even some technologies that can make fuel rods out of some of the waste products.

I think that we should be using more nuclear power. I think it has role to play in our energy solution, just not the primary role. I think it can be used to significantly augment our energy production, but it should not be the backbone of our energy strategy.

Wind

This biggest draw back of wind power is that it is not a very dense energy source. The amount of energy we get per unit is not remarkable. The amount of time that wind is not blowing also creates a problem of reliability. Having said this, there are still some advantages to wind power. Wind power is one of the cheapest and fastest to build. The modularity of wind power is also a big advantage. We don’t have to wait 10 years for the whole wind farm to be built. We can start producing energy as soon as you put up the first few turbines. Wind turbines do produce completely clean energy, but there are environmental concerns. Most notably, birds fly into the spinning turbines, but there are experiments with sonar to find a solution to this setback.

Clean Coal

On the surface this may seem like a worth while endeavor. We have a lot of coal. We use a lot of coal. If we could use it cleanly, we could go quite far in solving our energy problems. The problem is how much money are we going to spend trying to get this to work?

We have very limited resources and it seems to me that there are more technologies that are further developed that can help us in the short term. Also, clean coal does not help to clean up the detrimental mining aspect of coal. Blowing a top off of a mountain to get coal is still not helping us in the long term. It may be easier to invest in a new alternative than to try to make a dirty old technology better. I compare clean coal to owning a really old, really beat up car. We can spend money to replace the engine and the transmission and the other components of the car, but eventually it is going to be better and cheaper to just buy a new car (a hybrid car of course).

Solar

I believe solar power can play the biggest part in solving our problems. The photovoltaic cell was invented in 1920!!! The solar panel is not some fringe piece of technology that we are not sure whether it will work, IT FREAKIN WORKS!!!! 20,000 times the amount of solar energy that we need hits this planet every day. Even if solar panels are only 10% efficient, that is still extremely significant. In addition to that, the United States has vast areas of flat land that get a lot of sun. The American southwest is PERFECT for solar power. Not to mention we have a significant part of the African continent that is dessert.

Estimates indicate that we would need an area the size of California to harvest all of the solar energy we would need to meet this country’s energy needs. If we add up all the solar capacity today, it roughly takes up the size of Connecticut. Increasing this capacity is not impossible, but it will require a HUGE undertaking and a huge political and financial commitment. [If I were president of the universe I would just move everyone out of Arizona, make it one big solar panel, and then hook a bunch of wires into it. EXTENSION CORDS AND DUCK TAPE!!!]

The energy produced by solar power is completely clean but realize that anytime you build on a pristine environment there are ecological consequences. I think these factors can be minimized. Of course, like most of the experts, I believe that it is going to take more than just one technology to get out of this mess.

In spite of the grim scenario I have outlined, I still believe we can fix this problem. If we were in this situation 50 years ago, or even 15 years ago, I do not believe we would be technologically advanced enough to handle this. I think the world we live in affords us the ability to fix our problems. The thing that makes me pessimistic is the political will necessary to get this done. I think we are FUCKED because we lack the ability politically to do what is necessary. Maybe it is a failing of American democracy that we can only achieve incremental change. It is a good thing when the radical elements of our government don’t dictate policy, but in this case it may work against us. The solution to this problem maybe too radical to be implemented by our current government.

In my next article, I am going to propose a solution to how I think America can fix its energy problem. I have to warn you that the solution I purpose will not be pretty. This problem is not going to be fixed by NBC putting a green logo on the bottom of the TV screen. It is not going to be fixed by a bunch of people wearing tie-dye on Earth Day. It is going to be a painful solution that will require everyone in our society to make changes. It will require complete social, economic, and political upheaval. All of us will be very inconvenienced. People will loose their jobs. People will go out of businesses. Companies will go bankrupt. The economy will slow down at least in the short term. In the long term, there will be new opportunities created and although our percent of the pie may be smaller, the pie itself will be much, much bigger. Most importantly, we will make a society that can carry us through the 21st century and beyond.