Fossil Fuel Fan

                                          

Coal Queen

I have to admit that I love fossil fuels and feel extremely grateful that I have lived my entire life as a beneficiary of their use. I can hardly imagine what life would have been like without them. The modern world that we know would have been impossible without fossil fuels and the related industries that enabled us to use them. Let me offer a couple of examples that might shed light on my affection.

I just watched John Huston’s 1956 film version of Herman Melville’s classic novel, Moby Dick. I first saw the film when I was a teenager, and I now consider it an “iconic” film because I can still remember even minor characters and scenes with great vividness. The film had a great director, a fine cast, and awesome cinema effects for the time.

It is a magnificent film but somewhat hard to watch today because of the whale hunting scenes. Since 1956 the advent of television and innumerable nature shows have sensitized us to the killing of animals especially whales. We might feel differently, however, if we had lived 200 years ago in what was a veritable dark age.

Back then whales, especially sperm whales, were hunted not for sport or food but for their oil. The oil was used to light the lamps that did a much better job of illuminating homes than candles. Before that time, you were basically in the dark when the sun went down. Just consider what it is like when we have a power outage today and have to rely on candles for light. It’s doable but hard to endure for more than an hour or two.

Fortunately, the discovery and use of underground oil in the nineteenth century was a tremendous improvement in home lighting. The subsequent harnessing of electricity finally took us into the modern world. We no longer had to kill whales and that industry is virtually banned today.

When I was a child in the 1940s I still remember watching with fascination as the coal delivery truck emptied a load of coal through a small basement window into a room size coal bin. We loved the coal and never considered that the dust stirred up in delivery might be harmful. I can remember my father or mother going down into the basement on winter mornings to shovel some coal from the bin into the burner. It was hard work but it heated our home beautifully.  

We lived in a crowded borough of New York city and there was no way we could have heated our homes with wood. Actually, the advent of coal meant that just as we no longer had to kill whales, we no longer had to chop down forests for firewood.

Eventually, oil derived from petroleum replaced coal in our household. What a blessing!  No more shoveling, no more messy coal bin, and no more ashes to discard. You just had to turn up the thermostat every morning and the heat came up. Eventually the coal trucks disappeared from our streets. 

Nevertheless, fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas still play a major role in our energy system. Even green power advocates still use them for heat and light as well as to power up their cell phones every night, and charge up the batteries of their hybrid and electric vehicles. 

Maybe the day will come when alternative and renewable sources make it no longer necessary to extract fuel from beneath the surface of the earth. If it does come, I don’t think it will have anything to do with climate change. Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick in 1850, and oil began to replace coal in homes around 1950. I won’t live to see it but I suspect that by 2050 human ingenuity and technology will have found cost-effective ways to heat and light our homes even without government laws and subsidies. 

###

Progressive Issues 2019

      

Democrats have taken over the House of Representatives in Washington, and two years of President Trump seem to have made “blue” states even bluer. In the mid-term elections Democrats not only made significant gains in numbers, but also politically inexperienced Progressive new faces have caused the party to shift further to the left. 

Popular Progressive issues are now on the agenda both nationally and locally. Among these issues are an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour; free college education; and extended family leave for workers who need time off to help out at home. I know that it’s useless to raise objections or even try to discuss these popular issues that sound so noble and caring. But let’s still try.

Issue 1: Minimum wage increase. The best cure for low wages is full or high employment. In the last year the number of unemployed has dropped to record levels. Moreover, the level of part-time employment has also declined as increasing numbers of part-time workers have found full-time jobs in the past two years. We now have a scarcity of workers which must inevitably lead to higher wages for all. Job mobility, not minimum wage laws, leads to higher wages.

History has shown that increases in the minimum wage often drive the lowest paid and least skilled workers out of their jobs. Moreover, the secret about increases in the minimum wage is that it benefits the middle class more than the poor. If you are a store manager at McDonald’s currently making $15 an hour, what happens when a cashier just out of high school starts making the same salary. The manager’s salary must also be increased. 

For this reason, union members, who always make more than the minimum wage, are strong supporters of substantial increases. It’s certainly not compassion for the poor and the lowly, who usually find it very difficult to get into unions in the first place. A quick web check showed that white males make up 75% of the Carpenter’s union, an important element in the huge construction industry. 

Issue 2: Free College Education. Free college tuition is a misnomer. Even if students do not have to pay tuition, someone will still have to bear the cost. Actually, taxpayers traditionally have borne the cost of public elementary and high school whether they have children or not. But what about college?

Actually, it has already been tried. When I was in high school during the fifties, the New York City colleges were tuition free. There was a catch, however. An admission test was required that effectively limited enrollment to the best students in the city. As a result, City College (CCNY), and Brooklyn College were on a par with the best in the country. Jewish students predominated since their parents seemed to prize higher education more than other ethnic groups.

During the political turmoil and race riots of the sixties, protestors criticized the high admission standards, and demanded enrollment open to all.  As it turned out, open enrollment benefitted the white middle class more than black or Hispanic minorities. Children of Irish and Italian immigrants were the greatest beneficiaries. 

Even today the graduation rate in virtually free community colleges for black and Hispanic students is well below average. This is not a matter of racial inferiority. If there is little or no support at home, even free tuition will not help someone get through college. Statistics that show that college graduates make more than others only mean that graduation rates are important.

Issue 3: Paid Family Leave. Over the holidays I spoke with someone who works for a large manufacturing company. The company has already provided its union employees with a generous sixteen week paid family leave benefit. It would appear that the program is not only being used but that it is being abused. Workers seem to jump at the chance to get paid for not working. Some get friendly doctors to certify that they are having problems with stress. Others even work other jobs while out on family leave.

I suspect that most Progressives have never formally employed anyone outside of the government sector. In government they spend other people’s money. But what if they had to use their own money? For example, what would Progressive celebrity Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez do in the following situation. She goes to her favorite nail salon and the proprietor informs her that Maggie, her favorite, is on a four-month family leave but that Amy will take care of her. However, she will have to pay and tip both Maggie and Amy until Maggie returns to work. I wonder how she or any Progressive would respond?

###

State of the Union 2019

                                             

This is the time of year when many pundits like to make predictions for the upcoming year. Shortly after I started the Weekly Bystander, I realized that it was foolish to make predictions. Most predictions are either just wishful thinking, or simply a call for the continuation of the current trend. For example, last year hardly anyone predicted the downturn in the stock market in the last quarter that left market averages in negative territory for 2018. 

Nevertheless, I would like to do some wishful thinking of my own for 2019. Given the fact that Democrats in Congress will obviously be even more obstructionist in the next two years than they have been in the last two, I would like to see the President focus even more on foreign affairs. Now that Democrats control the House of Representatives, I believe that President Trump will have little success in advancing his domestic agenda through Congress.  He will have to follow President Obama’s example and govern by executive order and administrative action.

Internationally, however, he has a freer hand. In his upcoming State of the Union address he could present himself as a champion of world peace and claim that his primary goal in the coming year will be to lessen tension all over the globe. 

 One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. I do not recall whether any other candidate expressed a similar concern. Certainly, it was not a big issue during the 2016 campaign or in the recent 2018 mid-term election. 

Last year we commemorated the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I, a conflict sparked by the assassination of a leader in central Europe that eventually led to the slaughter of millions. Many even think that the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of totalitarian states with their horrible persecutions of their own people, and ultimately the devastation of the Second World War.

There are many trouble spots in the world where a similar spark could ignite a nuclear exchange that would have unthinkable consequences for the whole world. The President could make the lessening of tensions his major issue in the coming year. Here are some examples.

First, some real collusion with Russia would be a very good idea. Russia does not have to be an enemy of Europe or the United States. It would be really beneficial if Russia was brought into working relationships with Europe and the USA that would be beneficial to all.

If Russia became the primary supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, it would have little reason to aim intermediate range nuclear missiles at its customers in Europe. It would have every reason to treat its customers well. At the same time, Russia would receive a much needed revenue stream. 

As far as the USA is concerned it would be much better for us if Russia became a wealthy modern economy rather than a backward third world nation with so much of its GDP going to support a massive military. We don’t want to drive Putin’s back to the wall either economically or militarily. If we cut a deal with Russia, we could radically rethink the need for NATO, a military force that the Europeans don’t even want to support. 

The Ukraine remains a simmering issue that could easily burst into flame. The Ukrainians themselves have the most to lose if a spark should ignite a military exchange of any sort. Both sides have much to gain by cutting a deal that would guarantee a Ukraine independent of both NATO and Russia. 

Second, the closing of a fair trade deal with China would not only benefit both sides economically, it might also lead the Chinese government to reconsider and reduce its provocative military build- up in the South China Sea. The last thing anyone wants is some trigger happy pilot on either side buzzing a rival warship.

We no longer have to fear Communist ideology in either Russia or China. It is true that both have authoritarian governments but their leaders seem much less interested in Communism than teachers and students on American colleges and universities.

Korea would also be a good place to cut a deal on behalf of peace. A peace treaty between North and South Korea would finally bring an end to the Korean War that began in 1950. It would be a great first step in reducing the enormous military weaponry already in place on both sides of the demilitarized zone. If all it takes to get North Korea’s leader to dismantle his nuclear program is the removal of American troops from the peninsula, I think it would be worth it. We should let the Korean people decide.

Finally, there is no greater tinder box in the world than the Middle East. American troops have been stationed there for over 16 years. Impossible as it might seem, I do think that deals could be cut there that would involve both Russia and Iran. If you look at a map, you will see that both of them have much more reason to be there than we do. After all, we don’t need the region’s oil anymore.

In his State of the Union address the President could even trump the Democrats by offering sanctuary to all Syrians, especially Christians, who would be left unprotected by our withdrawal. We could easily transport them to the wealthy cities and states in our country that have already offered sanctuary to asylum seekers.

###