Resources

Home | About Me | Contact Me | Additional Sites | Arizona LP | Maricopa LP | Pima LP National LP

Yours in Freedom,

Search

WWW Severin4Congress

Latest news

October - If my website doesn't look much different from two years ago, it's because my positions haven't changed much since two years ago. Nobody can call me a 'flip-flopper'. Be that as it may. Once again, I have essentially nil probability of winning. My purpose in running is to steer discussion to important topics and keep my opponents honest (if that's possible...). So far I've engaged Harry and Dave in a couple of debates and the differences are about what you'd expect. Next week, 10/22, will be a couple of televised debates, on channel 8 (Horizon) and on Scottsdale cable which often goes to CSPAN.

Candidate Sites

I will post links to other Libertarian candidates as their website addresses become available.

Energy ...

Cost of Energy ...

The cost of energy continues on a long-term upward climb with some variation due to short-term economic influences. This is to be expected. The rest of the world is using more energy per capita as it becomes more industrialized. And, the population continues to rise. The supply of energy has not kept pace with demand and barring some quantum technological breakthrough it doesn't look like it will.  So, even in a a truly free market, basic supply and demand theory says we will have increasing prices for energy.

But it isn't a free market. Nowhere near. It is dominated by one primary commodity (oil), and that commodity is subject to global cartel actions (OPEC). Then, the refinement of crude oil into usable products and the distribution of those products is subject to localized monopolies.  Nope, not a free market. It's open to all kinds of shinanigans on the parts of the nations and companies that control it.

'Global Warming' ...

It appears that global temperatures are rising. This is not unexpected. We are recovering from a major ice age somewhere ten thousand years ago, and a minor ice age just a few hundred years ago. These are natural events, occuring regularly long before human ability to influence them. The recent temperature increases may be partially due to human activity, specifically the release of significant amounts of previously sequestered carbon compounds, burned to create carbon dioxide.  Just how much of the recent (in geological timescales) increases in temperature are due to human involvement is a subject of significant debate. That is useless debate. Let me repeat. Useless. 

The important points of debate are:

1. To what extent can mankind reverse the trend, and how? and, 
2. What is the cost/benefit of doing so?
3. Are there better ways of deploying resources?

To the first point: Most arguments make an implicit assumption that mankind is causing the problem and therefor by reversing course, mankind can reverse the progression of the problem.

• If mankind is not the dominant cause, it's a good bet that reducing CO₂ output will not significantly reduce temperature increases
• If mankind's CO₂ output is the dominant cause, is it technologically possible to find alternative sources of energy that can make a difference?

To the second point: Is reversing the increase in global temperature worth doing, even presuming that it is possible?  Most arguments begin with an implicit assumption that reversing CO₂ output is desirable. Maybe, but only as the result of a more detailed examination of costs and benefits. Believe it or not, there are some things that are positive about higher CO₂ content and higher temperatures. The biggest effect is on plant growth. Plants, including food plants, depend on CO₂ for growth. The more CO₂ the better they grow. And generally, the warmer the climate, the more prolific the plant growth. That's not bad news to a hungry world with a growing population. And, what would be the consequences to our global economy of drastically reducing the use of carbon fuels? The consequences would be drastically reduced productivity, wages, standard of living, health, and longevity.  I don't have the answer to this question. I do, however, know enough to raise it in the first place.

To the third point: Given that temperatures are rising and we have finite resources to deal with the matter, how are those resources best used?  We might well come to a consensus that mankind is a primary contributor to global warming, and that there are expensive courses of action that might reduce global warming. What to then? Are the resources that might be availabale to avert or delay global warming better spent doing that or preparing a world to deal with it? For example, living in a city that is below sea level, on a coast that is frequented by severe hurricanes is probably not wise. Especially if sea levels are expected to rises and storms may become more frequent and violent. Are limited resources better spent battling CO₂ levels or encouraging movement away from problem areas? It's a discussion that needs to be had at the global level.

What's the solution?

In the short term, we need the energy we can get. I advocate the production of oil from the North Slope of Alaska and from other off-shore areas.

In the medium term, we need an abundant source of energy that is realizable at reasonable cost with acceptable levels of environmental risk. There aren't a lot of those right now. The best bet is nuclear. The technology has advanced over the past several decades to where risks of catastrophic releases of radiation are very small. Disposal is the last hurdle. We need to get disposal and reprocessing facilities up and running. When that's done, nuclear can be a clean source of energy for decades or centuries to come.

In the long term I don't know what the solutions are. They are probably not those technologies that are widely ballyhoo'd, like solar and wind. They aren't economically viable now, and for a number of technical reasons it is not likely that they will provide serious solutions in the long term.