T. Boone Pickens has some interesting ideas. You may not agree with all of them (I don't), but you have to admit that he's taking some ideas into the media mainstream that might not get there otherwise, and he just might generate some valuable discussion on energy alternatives.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Pickens Plan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
T. Boone Pickens is a self-serving, self-righteous multi-billionaire that has no ones' interests in mind but his own. He also plans on pumping the Ogallala acquifer dry so that he can sell water to Dallas -- transported via pipeline under the authority of a water district formed as a quasi-government entity which consists of Boone and a couple of his employees. Now, the issue of eminent domain comes into play. Land for the water pipeline will be taken so that water can be piped to Dallas. Power transmission lines are necessary for transporting the wind energy from his new wind field -- which will be paid for by electrical consumers and the taxpayers of this state. The easement for the pipeline will then be leased by Boone's water authority back to the state (under a loophole in Texas law) for erection of a power line to transport electricity from Boone's wind generation field.
When you also consider Pickens' investments in natural gas and alternative energy related companies, you will quickly see that his Energy Plan is nothing but a PR campaign whose primary beneficiary of the $54 million expenditure is T. Boone Pickens. It will NOT be beneficial to the people in the Texas Panhandle who depend on the Ogallala Acquifer for their drinking water and for their livlihood in agriculture. Studies have shown that the water will have no significant benefit to the DFW area.
Chris, I'm going to quote something to you: "I do applaud China's use of windpower. But we are ahead and installing it about as fast as generators are available. T. Boone Pickens just placed an order for $2 Billion worth of generators to be installed in my area. It will be the largest wind-generation field in the world. It is amazing how capitalism can fuel growth." Recognize that, YOU wrote that less than two months ago.
So it would seem that you are all for greedy capitalists when it suits you, but against them when it doesn't?
You know, of course, Chris, that I completely agree with you that pumping the fossil Ogallala aquifer dry is reprehensible. There are resources that are irreplaceable, and shouldn't be squandered by individual profit seekers. I don't think that public money and public power (through things like eminent domain) should be used merely to underwrite the profit making of private corporations, whether it be through pumping water OR pumping oil.
A point I have tried to make several times in this blog is that capitalism, and the profits of capitalism are propped up today by expenditures of public tax money. That's just as much (or perhaps more) true of the oil industry and the coal industry, as it is of the incipient wind industry. Our government is largely dominated by in the interests of large profit making capitalist corporations and their owners. I think this is wrong. I think we should try to elect people who will attempt to take a broader view than who has the deepest pockets for campaign finance and lobbying. I think ordinary people should expect their elected officials to stand up for broader, longer term interests whether it is in protecting precious resources like the Ogallala or shifting us to a less petroleum-based, more renewable based economy.
I'm glad to see that you and I agree on at least a few small points.
[I've got to learn to proof read better before hitting post!]
Sue: I think possibly you have a skewed view of my views. When you get a chance you might scan through my blogs -- not the Panhandle Poetry blog -- the other 2. Then head over to Senator John Cornyn's blog www.johncornyn.com/news and read my guest post and some of my comments on the other posts. You might be surprised at some of the things that you read.
Part of my goal in challenging some of the things that you have written is merely to stimulate discussion -- possibly to get you to think in a slightly different direction on some things. You, on the other hand, have sent me to dive in and research some of my beliefs. Occasionally I will alter course (slightly :)) because of something that you have written.
I know that you feel that I attack everything that you write. Sometimes it does seem that way. As to Global Warming -- I think the jury is still out. I'm not convinced either way. I am extremely skeptical of some of the so-called scientific data. My first questions are always -- what is the source, who funded the study and how was the original hypothesis posed. Studies start with a basic question. That question arises from the belief system of the questioner. I've seen very few issues about which you could not find evidence to support either side. I don't disbelieve in Global Warming but I also don't believe in it. An even more important point -- if global warming is real, is it induced by human behavior and can our change in behavior have any impact on it one way or the other?
Pickens wind field will destroy prime habitat for the Lesser Prairie Chicken -- which is a candidate species for endangered. The transmission line will pass through more prime habitat.
I'm for wind energy. I don't care if Pickens makes a few more billion from it. I'm not a big fan of his and I object to his glorified Energy Plan that plays on the sentiments of a public concerned about their energy bill in the interest of doing nothing but lining his pockets. I don't care for people who try to dupe the public -- whether they are so-called climate scientists or energy moguls. I'd rather deal with someone who is honest about their intentions. I don't believe that he is.
Great place to Discuss Energy Environment Issues :
Energy Environment Forum
Cheers !
All,
I think we're ignoring the important thing, the real hero, E.R. Dunhill, for putting the two of you together. What a guy.
I'm E.R. Dunhill, and I approve this message.
Post a Comment