Regulate, Baby, Regulate

Posted on 02 January 2010

About 4 years ago, I bought stock in a company called XTO.  At the time they were seen as a great long term play in the alternate energy field.  They are one of the leading companies in extracting natural gas with non-traditional methods.  Recently, XTO announced that we were being purchased by Exxon Mobil.  Experts quickly concluded that this was a smart move by Exxon to diversify their business into future energy sources, like natural gas.  I bought XTO because I liked how the company was run, and I decided to sell this investment because that is my typical reaction when companies I own get bought out.  If I wanted to own Exxon Mobil, I would have bought their shares 4  years ago.

Dont Drink the Water

Don't Drink the Water

Since I was following this development, I came across this story.  The premise here is that because XTO was purchased by Exxon, that this will attract environmental consciousness to the practice of how they extract natural gas, because we all know that Exxon Mobil is the corporate embodiment of pure evil.  XTO injects chemical-laced water 1,000s of feet below the surface of the earth, this fractures the shale deposits, and the gas comes out.  Radical environmentalist, in their relentless quest to ensure that no resource is ever consumed, are worried that putting chemicals thousands of feet below the surface of the earth could contaminate the water tables that lie thousands of feet above the gas deposits.

Stories like this reaffirm my tendency to never take environmentalists seriously.  We are told by the climate doom-mongers that we need to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere, but when a company comes up with a viable alternative these environmentalists’ comrades in arms find some other ecopalypse for us to worry about.

A while back, my friend asked me if I thought global warming was just a big liberal conspiracy.  I think our rigourous scientists at the prestigious climatology department of East Anglia University have settled this matter.  However, my response to this question would be to look at the liberal solutions to any environmental “problem.”  For the average soft green, liberal, leftist, democrat environmentalist there is one obscenely predictable solution for preventing environmental doom: Exerting government power through regulation and taxation.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times regularly claims that clean-tech is the next big thing, and divorcing our economy from oil is this generation’s moonshot.  Then, rather than propose moonshot ideas, he usually comes to the conclusion that we need to start taxing carbon.

I have recently been reading Superfreakonomics, and the authors suggest that we can cool the planet by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere from hoses suspended by balloons.  This would cost a couple hundred million dollars as opposed to cap and trade which would cost trillions.  This is a moonshot idea.  Of course to really come up with and execute a moonshot idea like this, we would actually need some scientists.

Bookmark and Share

4 Responses to “Regulate, Baby, Regulate”

  1. HarrisonNo Gravatar says:

    Volcanoes errupting would accomplish the same task. There was talk in that book about trying to get them to explode, thus cooling the planet. A sort of “Day After” without the radiation or Jason Robards losing his hair.

    Libs aren’t interested in that because it won’t force anybody dto shance their lifestyle.

    How did you do on your investment?
    Harrison´s last blog ..Obama, Goldilocks, and American Exceptionalism My ComLuv Profile

  2. adminNo Gravatar says:

    My point exactly. Environmentalism as we know it is far more about controlling behavior than it is about protecting the environment.

    I made about a 40% gain on my XTO stock. Over 4 years it was about a 10% annualized gain. Not bad considering the fact that the DOW is right about the same place as when I bought this back in 2005. However, I was expecting bigger things, and apparently so is Exxon Mobil.

  3. LaraNo Gravatar says:

    As the threat of global warming grows more urgent, a few scientists are considering radical—and possibly extremely dangerous—schemes for reengineering the climate by brute force. Their ideas are technologically plausible and quite cheap. So cheap, in fact, that a rich and committed environmentalist could act on them tomorrow. And that’s the scariest part.

  4. adminNo Gravatar says:

    Lara,

    Have you read the chapter in superfreakonomics?

    The thesis isn’t that global warming is so urgent, but that there is a 1 in 200 chance that some of the negative consequences might materialize.

    Those odds might suggest it is worth doing something and pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere is a cheap solution that can be easily monitored, dialed up, dialed down, etc.

    It isn’t any more dangerous than the naturally occurring event of a volcano erupting, and so if you are worried about the potential danger this method would offer, than perhaps you should focus less on changing the behavior of billions of people, and try to find a way to stop volcanoes from erupting.

    Ultimately if I had to choose between cap and trade and pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, I go with the sulfur dioxide. Global Warming alarmists insist that I trust in the infallibility of scientists, yet here are scientists proposing viable, cheap solutions and all of the sudden they are dangerous quacks.


Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled
Login with Facebook:

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

Badges

blog search directory Add to Technorati Favorites Independent Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Blog Directory & Search engine

ConList - Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet
Conservative Blog