In an informal address to Houston Texas area energy execs, former US Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan recently had this to say.
Ethanol, he said, was a "politically-driven fuel" and a less efficient means of meeting demand for transportation fuel in the U.S. For this reason, Greenspan touted nuclear power as the way forward to generate electricity in the U.S. and urged the development of electric-powered cars.
"Global warming is real," Greenspan said, stressing the need for alternative fuels.
"I think that while there's great opportunities in cellulosic ethanol we're not going to find that corn ethanol is a big deal," he said.
As competition becomes more furious for resources, food prices are going up "substantially," he said. Yet, the U.S. economy is falling short of approaching a period of stagflation, defined as a period of increased inflation and slowing economic growth, he added.
So. Nuclear power is good. Presumably, the green gospel according to Greenspan includes the corollary that plug-in hybrids are vital (how else would nuclear power expansion seriously help long distance ground transportation)?
The AP recently had this to say about Housing Bubble, a.k.a. Nuclear Bubble, Man.
The former Fed chairman, who served in the role for 19 years -- from 1987 to 2006 -- has acknowledged he failed to see early on the potential danger of the increase in mortgages to people with questionable credit histories.
China View also quotes Greenspan from the same oil patch speech referred to above:
He also told the group of energy-industry executives that a mandatory cap on carbon emissions "will lead to lower levels of economic activity and significantly higher unemployment".
So, US Federal government supported carbon bubble should remain un-popped by mandatory cap and trade measures enacted by US Congress.
Doing the symbolic math on Mr Greenspan's recent mouthing, the product can only be one thing: a government funded nuclear bubble over-laying the already billowing carbon bubble. All good free-market stuff (joking).
What might be the philosophical roots of this for the now-81 year old man. Something Randy it seems.
Greenspan writes that as a student he had no interest in big ideas. Unlike his classmates who were in the thrall of Keynesianism with its promise of building a better world, Greenspan was simply good at math. He started doing research for powerful corporations; it was profitable, but Greenspan made no claims to a higher social contribution.
Then he discovered Ayn Rand. "What she did...was to make me think why capitalism is not only efficient and practical, but also moral," he said in 1974.
Rand's ideas about the "utopia of greed" allowed Greenspan to keep doing what he was doing but infused his corporate service with a powerful new sense of mission: Making money wasn't just good for him; it was good for society as a whole...
TreeHugger's Lloyd nailed how Greenspan has violated his inspiration: see Lloyd's Environmentalism is NOT a Religion
We should go all Ayn Rand objectivist on them and say that I am doing this for me and my kids- we want fresh air, clean water and working ecosystems. After all, "Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at achieving knowledge about the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings" and "that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest." (wikipedia) which sound like perfectly good reasons to fight climate change.
We should become the new conservatives, the defenders of the status quo. We like things the way they are- cold winters, tolerable summers, stable water levels, cute polar bears. We are fundamentally against change, and things that cause it (like coal plants, low density suburbs and big SUV's).
Via::Dow Jones Newswires, Greenspan: ""We're Clearly On The Edge" Of Recession", AND Yahoo Finance, "No Recession Yet, Greenspan Says" AND China View, AND Digby, "Noble Neocons" Image credit::China View