Friday, May 23, 2008
America's contribution to the world's energy supply
If you are not a transnational progressive, you will find it appealing to think of energy this way:
Candidate Obama, like so many lefties, seems to believe anything bad about the United States, without even submitting it to critical thinking. He said on May 19, 2008, for example, that 3% of the world’s population (i.e., in his calculation, the United States) accounts for 25% of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. In the 1970s, the lefties used to talk about 6% of the world’s population using 25% of the world’s energy. Even before Obama, they were blaming America first.
The left’s figures depend on what is meant by “energy.” Before the founding and development of the United States, “energy” meant the human back, beasts of burden, windmills, waterwheels, burning wood, coke, and coal, and the like. The United States is certainly not using 25% of the energy generated by those means today. I don’t think so, although it might be. The darn country is just so efficient.
But if we mean by “energy” only the modern sources of energy – electricity, the Franklin stove, the steam engine, the piston engine propelled by gasoline (and now by electric and/or hydrogen batteries), the processing of crude oil into gasoline, nuclear energy, the jet engine, the development of ethanol and other fuels derived from plants, and other devices – all of these except one were invented by the people of the United States, as their gift to the world. (The exception was the steam engine, invented by our cousins in Britain, and further developed here as well as there.)
In other words, the United States has invented nearly 100% of what the modern world means by “energy.” And it has helped the rest of the world to use 75%.
Why can’t the other peoples of the world learn how to discover, invent, and develop new kinds of energy? Why must the whole burden be placed upon the people of the United States?
All good questions. In the end this is just another variant on the anti-Americanism of people who assume that the world's wealth was found in the ground or given to us by Allah or extracted from the stolen labor of working people. If you believe -- as I do -- that wealth is the surest expression of human creativity, then you also believe that America's great inventions spring from our system, not the natural resources with which we have been endowed or the winnings of imperialism. But most peoples of the world (including American leftists) do not understand this -- which is why they do not invent anything important -- and instead view American wealth as if it were looted, rather than created. Hey, if I thought America was rich from theft rather than creativity, I'd feel guilty too.
MORE: Several astute commenters have pointed out that the quoted text in the link above is less than entirely accurate. Or worse.
29 Comments:
By 
Neil Sinhababu, at
Fri May 23, 03:41:00 PM:
In other words, the United States has invented nearly 100% of what the modern world means by “energy.”
Well, the Europeans and more recently the Japanese did a lot too.
And it has helped the rest of the world to use 75%.
This shouldn't give rise to complaints about those ungrateful foreigners -- we made out pretty well as a result, as did the Japanese and the Euros.
More importantly, we should divide energy into renewable and nonrenewable sources for these purposes. (Beast is renewable, oil isn't.) I'd be interested in seeing how the use of nonrenewable energy sources breaks down.
By CAD Daddy, at
Fri May 23, 04:17:00 PM:
TigerHawk; New to your blog.
I like the way you think.
By 
, at
Fri May 23, 09:19:00 PM:
So, what is Novak saying? That the U.S. does NOT create 25% of greenhouse gases? I sort of half agree with the basic argument, but don't see what it has to do with Obama's view on the environment. (Personally, I'm anti-green but have found his environmental positions worded safely enough I don't think he will go whole hog on the global warming thing.)
By SR, at
Fri May 23, 09:23:00 PM:
The world creates 100% of the output of greenhouse gases. It also creates 100% of it's wealth. Now it would be interesting to compare, the fraction of world output produced by the 3% in the US to the fraction of total greenhouse gases. My guess, the USA's population comes out quite favorably.
By Escort81, at
Fri May 23, 09:39:00 PM:
But most peoples of the world (including American leftists) do not understand this -- which is why they do not invent anything important -- and instead view American wealth as if it were looted, rather than created.
I think there is a sentence structure problem here with the parenthetical that leaves the reader with the impression that you mean to say that nobody on the left side of the political spectrum in the U.S. has been involved in significant wealth creation. Obviously, that is inconsistent with the donor patterns that Obama has been enjoying. Tons of software and other technology companies come to mind, Google being the one with the largest capitalization. Herb and Marion Sandler, who started up Golden West Financial also come to mind (setting aside that they sold to Wachovia just before the mortgage bubble burst). Soros, is, well, Soros, and I will leave it to CP to say whether what Soros did personally constituted wealth creation or simply short-term financial speculation that resulted in wealth transfers.
By , at
Fri May 23, 10:18:00 PM:
The SNL skit that sums up this whole primary season
Get These Latest Designs
Bill wants Hill as Veep
This and more on…
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
By , at
Sat May 24, 01:48:00 AM:
Like the rest of the demacrooks he wants to keep us dependent on OPEC and SCREW THE GREENS
By , at
Sat May 24, 07:46:00 AM:
Prez+Congress=1+365+100=466 (more or less). They account for 1.5EE-6 of the population, control about 60% of what we do and are closing in on the other 40%.
100% of the dough that BHO wants to use for existing & expanded programs is looted from that 3% of the world's population.
By , at
Sat May 24, 07:49:00 AM:
Not that I disagree with your argument, but the jet engine was developed pretty much simultaneously by Frank Whittle (a brit) and Hans von Ohain (a German).
Of course, it was optimized by good-old US knowhow, just as the internal combustion engine was optimized.
By LifeTrek, at
Sat May 24, 07:52:00 AM:
The United States may use 25% of the worlds natural resources, but ever wonder what the world get for its investment? It's a pretty good immediate return.
DKK
By , at
Sat May 24, 07:52:00 AM:
The 3% of the world population living in the US produces between 20 and 21% of the world's GDP(down from about 28% in 1951).
The value of U.S. imports in 2006 was roughly the same as the entire GDP of France. The U.S. is the world's largest exporter; indeed, if all U.S. exporters banded together and seceded from the country, they would have the eighth-largest GDP in the world.
So next time you hear the 25% of energy number, see if the speaker knows the rest of the story.
By , at
Sat May 24, 08:06:00 AM:
I have long campaigned on this point of argument, but you might just want to go back over that inventors' list. The piston engine is French; the jet turbine English; electricity wasn't 'invented' but was pretty useless until the
Englishman, Faraday; nuclear, hmmm, ours thanks to Hitler I'd say, and the Germans had alternate-fuel vehicles running around the roads while we were bombing their refineries. Americans are good at developing discoveries into marketable [European take: patentable]inventions, and at noticing things (like the free natural gasoline in crude oil that was getting thrown away), but we didn't invent all that stuff. And Eugene Houdry was born in France.
Sooner or later we're going to have to establish that CO2 is not a pollutant. Well, either that, or Obama will have to disembowel himself onstage.
By LifeTrek, at
Sat May 24, 08:07:00 AM:
Anonymous, at Sat May 24, 07:52:00 AM,
It is still 25% in 2007 and 27.4% in 2006.
DKK
By Jay Manifold, at
Sat May 24, 08:26:00 AM:
Factoid I'm too lazy to source: 80% of all the oil wells ever drilled are in the US. (And I'd guess that very nearly 100% use/used American technology.)
By Pierre, at
Sat May 24, 09:01:00 AM:
Good stuff Tigerhawk. I would only add that the left believes everyone is a thief because they are thieves. The entire leftist philosophy is all about justifying stealing the labor of those who work for a living.
I linked to you with a post explaining this
By Webutante, at
Sat May 24, 09:11:00 AM:
Great points, all. Thanks for this post. Keep reminding us of these truths!
By , at
Sat May 24, 09:26:00 AM:
While I agree with the sentiments, the facts are wrong. Ths US did NOT invent the jet engine--it was independently developed by Frank Whittle of Britain and Hans von Ohain of Germany. Germans--Nikolaus Otto, Karl Benz and Rudolf Diesel--developed the internal combustion engine.
The US played the leading role in making these technologies universal. But Americans did NOT invent them.
By , at
Sat May 24, 10:00:00 AM:
Americans have made huge contributions toward making human life safer, easier and more fun. Rather than quibble about who invented what, we could safely say that good ol' Western civilization has been responsible for most of the world's progress for the last couple centuries, at the least.
By , at
Sat May 24, 10:29:00 AM:
At least we can take solace that an American - Al Gore - invented the Internet.
By , at
Sat May 24, 11:03:00 AM:
I know the following is merely a nit, but I have this obsession about falsehoods entering and then remaining in the public conversation. The US population is not 3% of world population. It is 4.56%. Not a great difference, but not hard to distinguish either.
By , at
Sat May 24, 11:20:00 AM:
If you wish to take this tack, why not get to the heart of the matter by asking:
How much energy does the USA *produce*?
Another: "If the U.S. uses 25% of the world's energy supply, how much of that 25% is produced elsewhere?"
You might even go to the heart of the _scientific_ debate (about global warming at least, from which this argument is derived) by asking:
"OK, say the Earth is warming. What would you suggest as the *correct* average global temp?"
But this isn't the proper method for debating these mud puddle mystics nor the nihilists who, motivated by hateful envy, would love to see the USA in ruins, because it all implies that we're OK _because we help others_.
The proper tact is philosophical, namely to challenge the implied ethical notion that whatever you do, to justify it, you must demonstrate that it also helps others.
That 2,000 year old ethics is derived from the morality of self-sacrifice (giving up greater values for lesser ones)--which effectively works out to be an ideal of self-destruction, a heroic nobleness of suicide and which none of you nor none of the rest of the world questions.
(DIGRESSION: Observe that this was also worshipped by the Nazis in the ideal of Teutonic heroism: Götterdämmerung--Twilight of the Gods.)
That is not on what the American political system (or its ideals) of rights, i.e., the right to pursue happiness, rests. American freedom rests of the morality of rational self-interest.
The reigning ethics--a 2,000 year old ethics of death--is what allows the mud mystics & the nihilists to evoke in most a sense of guilt about America's wealth.
This ethics of self-abnegation lies behind such diverse issues as:
+ROE's that effectively set up our troops as sacrificial lambs, sacrificing for the good of...the Vietnamese...Afghans...Iraqis...
etc., (and prevented us from declaring war on & nuking on 912 the real enemy, the center of Islamic totalitarian ideology, Iran, for fear of killing "innocent civilians"--just as it did in Korea; and in 'Nam).
+Restrictions on oil exploration, nuclear power production; eletrical power generation; etc.
+Regulations on evil seekers of (selfish) profit, such as the oil companies, financial institutions, etc.
+Condemnation of birth control, sex, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
+Hatred of the rich, the able, the famous.
And so on.
And, PS, no, the rational egoism of which I imply as alternative is not pillaging, raping & plundering. It is a code that recognizes Man's nature as that of a rational being, from which is derived the concept of rights--moral principles that define & sanction a man's freedom of action in a social context. It is only the morality of self-sacrifice that gives you the (false) choice between masochistic victim or sadistic brute.
No one has the right to slaughter, rob, rape or commit acts of fraud. But men do have the right to exist for their own sake--to produce and profit and pursue happiness WITHOUT justifying it on the basis of helping others.
Interstingly, though, when men are permitted such freedom, the sense of benevolence towards others skyrockets.
Go figger.
The ethics of self-destruction lies at the heart of the *moral* crisis--and ever other significant crisis-- now faced by the West. Why are the worm loving mystics/nihilists so intent not only upon our destruction but on their own?
From _TOMBSTONE_
Earp: What does Ringo have against me??! Why does he want a fight?
Holiday: Revenge.
Earp: For what?
Holiday: For having been born.
The death ethics con: The foundation of Obama, Clinton, McCain, Paul & Nader's campaign.
You can live without them because you can live without the death ethics. But you'll never live with it.
The question to you is: Do you want to live?
By JorgXMcKie, at
Sat May 24, 12:52:00 PM:
Actually, Obama's comment isn't even close to the mark. As I understand it, about 95% of all greenhouse gases consist of water vapor. CO2 makes up about 3%. Thus, 4.5% of the world's population is producing 25% of 3% of the greenhouse gases in the form of CO2. I have no idea how much H2O vapor the US produces, but I'm willing to bet it pretty much corresponds to our population percentage and water surface area compared to the rest of the world. We probably produce a fair amount of methane from meat animal production, but not as much as rotting vegetation in some parts of the world (don't rice paddies also give off a large amount of methane?). If I had to guess, I'd guess we're not 'producing' much more than our share of 'greenhouse gases' when everything is considered, and maybe less due to our drive for efficiency.
By , at
Sat May 24, 01:54:00 PM:
some correction is needed here.
steam engine - newcomen and watt were British
internal combustion engine - Otto, Daimler and Benz were German
Jet engine - Whittle (British) and Ohain (German)
Electric battery - Volta (Italian)
Fuel Cell - Schonbein (German) Grove (British) with substantial development by GE in the USA
The first oil refinery was in Poland. Most of the scientists in the Manhattan project were European.
Literally 100% of this post is incorrect factually. Americans have a great history of expanding and improving the technologies, but sole credit is completely wrong.
By , at
Sat May 24, 02:14:00 PM:
I'm not sure what history book Novak is reading but as anon @ 1:54 said above virtually that entire list of inventions is being wrongly attributed to the US.
That one that leapt out immediately to me was the jet engine. You really have to know very little about both aviation and WWII to say the US invented the jet engine.
By Unknown, at
Sat May 24, 02:26:00 PM:
There are some nuances regarding CO2 that many do not consider. CO2 does not contribute to the greenhouse effect in direct proportion to its presence in the atmosphere. CO2 contributes .0095% of the total greenhouse effect. The remaining gases - primarily water vapor followed distantly by methane - are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect. Even so if one still wants to blame man for the rise in CO2 one must also consider the tremendous contribution of CO2 from geophysical forces over the past 100 years.
For example, since 1990 Mounts St. Helens and Pinatubo volcanoes alone have blasted more CO2 into the atmosphere in twenty minutes than all indusrial civilization in 200 years. Also, worldwide deep-ocean volcanism has increased dramatically (for whatever reason) since at least 1850. This means that for 150 years Arctic and Atlantic Oceans have been warming steadily, as have waters around the Pacific Rim, Indian Ocean, and other major bodies. As warm water rises, it evaporates to emit high levels of volcanic CO2.
By , at
Sat May 24, 02:54:00 PM:
RE: invention of the internal combustion engine:
First patented by Samuel Brown of the USA in 1823. Subsequent works by Otto, Diesel and Benz are based on this patent.
Besides the point anyway, because engines are energy SINKS not energy SOURCES, which is what the article is about.
By , at
Sat May 24, 03:19:00 PM:
The US will still be the only Superpower in 2030, much to the chagrin of leftists.
By , at
Mon May 26, 08:24:00 PM:
To our credit, we have Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse who created AC and DC, which have been extremely helpful, of course. While this may not directly create energy, it certainly helped invent more than one technology that creates electricity.
But replying to Anon at 2:54: Engines convert energy from hydrocarbons into energy that can do useful work, i.e Kinetic energy into Potential energy. It's just that the atoms that burning hydrocarbons produces, namely, H20 and CO2, are not very useful by themselves as a source of energy for useful work.
All energy comes from somewhere, it doesn't just appear out of thin air. Therefore, "energy sources" is not really an appropriate term.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Tue May 27, 09:43:00 AM:
"the United States) accounts for 25% of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere"
If the above refers to CO2, rather than as some others have pointed out H2O, may I add that the North American Continent is a CO2
SINK?
Our prevailing winds are West to East if one measures CO2 levels of the Winds coming in from the Pacific, and compares that to CO2 levels of the Winds entering the Atlantic, one will find a drop in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
