The Japan Syndrome

---

---

Years ago, I went with my mother to see a movie called "The China Syndrome."

The movie — which starred Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas — was about the perils of nuclear power. The title came from the popular misconception that, if someone in America drilled through the earth, he/she would come out in China. The movie's premise was that, if a nuclear reactor melted down, its core would do something similar.

It was a frightening premise that was made even more frightening by an actual nuclear accident at Three–Mile Island in Pennsylvania not long after the movie made its theatrical premiere.

That event gave the movie a lot of unexpected publicity, resulting in higher–than–expected ticket sales and a lot of anxiety on the part of the public.

We know more about nuclear power now than we did when that movie came out — but not, perhaps, as much as we may have thought — or, perhaps, would like to have thought.

In my adult lifetime, Americans have always seemed eager to embrace the simple solution to a complex problem, and many seem to be taking that approach to the nuclear situation in Japan.

"How bad could it get?" asks Josh Dzieza at The Daily Beast. And that's a fair question to ask — flippant though it may seem.

Barry Brook writes at Brave New Climate about the "misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media" and asserts that "[t]he plant is safe now and will stay safe."

Well, time will tell.

Maybe it is the same mindset that always seems to assure Americans that higher gas prices are only temporary. In the past, yes, gas prices have declined after enormous spikes — but rarely, if ever, to the levels that existed before.

I'm not inclined to think that gas prices will fall to anything resembling what they were just a couple of months ago — especially now because the most vocal proponents of that particular pie–in–the–sky theory (that gas prices will decline almost exclusively on the basis of consumer behavior) also have been advocates of nuclear energy as the solution to the cost of heating and cooling our homes.

Those are the same people who scoffed at President Carter when "The China Syndrome" was at the theaters — because he warned that America's dependence on foreign oil was setting this nation up for disaster.

The recent events in Japan are sure to be mentioned now whenever someone promotes nuclear energy in this country. The issues that have been raised are far too complex to be addressed by a simple solution.

The truth is that, for all that 21st century humans know about nuclear power, there is still much they do not know — even in Japan, which, if anything, has been overly cautious about safety in just about every aspect of its existence when compared to virtually any other place on earth.

That is why you could watch video footage of the area nearest to the ground zero of the earthquake — and see large buildings that were still standing, even though a 9.0–magnitude earthquake struck the area 2½ days ago, and powerful aftershocks continue to strike.

Japan is no stranger to earthquakes. As a result, it has done a remarkable job of preparing its buildings for the possibility that one will strike, but this is the strongest ever to hit that country — and only the third earthquake globally to register 9.0 or higher in the last 50 years. One was the 9.2 earthquake that struck Prince William Sound in Alaska 47 years ago this month, and the other was the 9.1 that struck Indonesia the day after Christmas in 2004.

And this earthquake, along with the tsunamis it has produced, has been causing a number of unforeseen problems. Japan, as I say, always appears to prepare for the worst–case scenario — but its engineers didn't actually anticipate the worst case, only a worse case.

And that could have tragic consequences.

When you are dealing with something like nuclear energy, you must think way outside the box. I don't fault Japanese officials for not preparing for the size earthquake that almost never happens, but the fact remains that attempts to restart the cooling system at one of the damaged reactors have failed.

Safety standards have to be revisited — and, until we know more than we do about nuclear power, we have to treat it with the respect it deserves and prepare ourselves for a disaster that is much greater than anything we've seen — or may be likely to see.

Memo to Nominees — How to be a Successful President

It's a question that every president-elect — not to mention the president-elect's millions of constituents — would like to have a handy answer for.

And Jeffrey Goldberg, whose normal gig is with The Atlantic magazine, has written a piece in the New York Times that purportedly has the answer.

What does the next president absolutely have to do to be judged a success?

"The next president must do one thing, and one thing only," writes Goldberg. "He must prevent Al Qaeda, or a Qaeda imitator, from gaining control of a nuclear device and detonating it in America."

Everything else pales in comparison, Goldberg says.

And, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it's worth reflecting on his words. "The nuclear destruction of Lower Manhattan, or downtown Washington, would cause the deaths of thousands, or hundreds of thousands; a catastrophic depression; the reversal of globalization; a permanent climate of fear in the West; and the comprehensive repudiation of America’s culture of civil liberties."

It's the kind of argument — playing on not just fear but a specific fear — that many people would like to see dominate the discussion in this campaign.

---

"In the cold war, the Soviet Union had the technical ability to eliminate America many times over, but was restrained by rational self-interest, by innate conservatism, and, perhaps, by an understanding of the horror of world-ending nuclear war. Though Al Qaeda cannot destroy the world, it will destroy what it can, when it can."

Jeffrey Goldberg
Op-Ed contributor, New York Times

---

It is true that there are many perils in the world. There always have been.

Humans have always faced risks, for example, from deadly diseases. It would be great if a president could spearhead a renewed effort in the medical community to eradicate something like AIDS or cancer, but, throughout history, it seems that no sooner have humans conquered one scourge than a new one emerges to take its place and bewilder another generation or two of dedicated researchers.

And humans have always been at the mercy of nature. We're currently in the middle of hurricane season, with its unpredictable death and destruction. Even if the dire reports about global warming are correct, reversing that trend will not rid the world of hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes. They're not the products of global warming — they've been with us since time began.

It seems to me that John McCain would like for the public to focus attention on the war on terrorism. It is the centerpiece of his campaign.

In the tradition of modern American politics, the emphasis on one issue implies that other problems are only temporary and will correct themselves if left alone.

But terrorism is only one of many issues with which the next president must contend. A president can't specialize in one area and hope everything works out all right in the other areas. If a candidate for president knows he is weak in some area — like foreign affairs or economics — that candidate should share with the voters what he plans to do if elected.

In a little more than four months, George W. Bush will leave the White House, and a new commander in chief will move in.

Will the next president rely on a panel of expert advisers to compensate for his lack of expertise in certain areas? Will he follow President Lincoln's example and put his ego on a shelf, seeking the counsel of a "team of rivals" (to use the phrase penned by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin) for the good of the country?

It has been suggested that the clash between Russia and Georgia led Barack Obama to acknowledge, at least to himself, his personal limitations and narrow the focus of his running mate search, resulting in the selection of a Senate colleague with clear credentials in foreign affairs.

If that's true, it shows that Obama is aware of the need for an administration to be prepared for anything that may happen on the global stage.

But it doesn't tell us if he is prepared to stand up to the terrorists.

Goldberg frets about what he sees as Obama's naïvete in foreign affairs. He says it was "disconcerting" to hear Obama tell ABC's "Nightline" a few months ago that the efforts following the first attack on the World Trade Center were commendable.

"We were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial," he quotes Obama as saying. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

Goldberg concedes the point, "yet there is no better example of why law enforcement is inadequate to the demands of effective counterterrorism today than the prosecution of the 1993 bombers," he writes.

"The capture and conviction of the terrorists were perfectly executed; the F.B.I. reached all the way to Pakistan to catch the plot’s mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, who is today thoroughly incapacitated at the federal 'supermax' prison in Colorado."

Law enforcement appears to have followed all the rules. But other terrorists stepped forward — and, as a result, "the World Trade Center is gone. Eight years after the first attempt, Ramzi Yousef’s uncle ... organized a more successful attack. The successful prosecution of the original bombers lulled the country into a counterfeit calm."

Preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is important.

But McCain has acknowledged a lack of knowledge about economic issues that is also risky today.

In America, gas prices are easing, but a gallon of gas is still selling for what would have been an astronomically high price less than a year ago.

Have wages kept up?

That's assuming, of course, that you still have your job — according to figures released last week, the unemployment rate is at its highest level in five years. August job losses were 20% higher than expected. What will the September figures reveal? Will unemployment be higher in October than it is today?

What happens in the American economy has a ripple effect in the economies of the other nations of the world. In the Financial Times of London, Mark Penn alludes to Hillary Clinton's famous commercial from her primary campaign against Obama: "It’s 3 a.m. and your children are asleep, and the markets are collapsing in Shanghai, and in the White House a phone is ringing," Penn writes.

"Who do you want to answer it? With the collapse of the credit markets, the gyrations in energy prices and the surge in unemployment, this is becoming the central test facing America’s presidential contenders."

Yes, preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is important.

But so is health care. And, in an age of rapidly escalating prices, affordable health care is essential — if only to help people pay for the prescription drugs that sustain their lives. Of course, there are so many other reasons why affordable health care is important.

And so is employment. The economic figures may indicate growth (even if it's slower) — but what does it say about an economy when its unemployment rate goes up at the very moment when the workforce is shrinking because young people are leaving their summer employment and returning to the classrooms?

As I say, with a presidential election heating up and the September 11 anniversary a couple of days away, it's fitting that we should reflect on keeping America safe from terrorists.

But that is only one of the threats to our standard of living.

Americans need to discuss many issues before casting their votes in November.

Goldberg does readers a disservice by suggesting that only one issue really matters in 2008.

There will be many complex problems waiting for the next president.

Wanted: A Sensible Energy Policy

Ryan Randazzo writes, in the Arizona Republic, that "people who pay $4 a gallon or more for gas on the way to the polls will likely be thinking of energy issues while in the voting booth."

You think?

Perhaps that's being a little sarcastic, although I must admit I'm getting tired of hearing people suggest that energy might be on voters' minds in November.

Actually, I believe energy should have been on their minds for the last 30 years.

I also believe that there's only one way that energy won't be on the voters' minds in November — but it would require another terrorist attack comparable to 9/11.

And I don't think anyone wants to see that.

(Although, if it does happen, I'd like to suggest something to George W. Bush: Don't encourage us to go shopping again. Encourage us to work together to declare our independence from foreign oil producers.)

But Randazzo does try to be constructive in his article, offering "some questions to help voters weigh the candidates on energy:"

1. Is the next president likely to enact energy legislation?


2. Why is there debate over drilling for oil off U.S. coasts and in Alaska?


3. Obama said McCain is focused on drilling because it "polls well." (Actually, Randazzo isn't asking a question with this one — I presume he's wanting both candidates to defend their positions on drilling.)


4. Will laws limiting the amount of greenhouse gases from power plants or cars make things more expensive?


5. Can't we use more U.S. coal?


6. Why not build more nuclear plants?

Some people seem to insist that the answer is more drilling. Short-term answer, maybe (provided, of course, you're willing to define "short-term" as roughly 10 years from now because that's how long most analysts believe it will be before these drilling ventures pay off). But it's not the long-term solution.

Still, it's clear that we need some sort of answer if we're going to try to bring the economy into some kind of state of equilibrium. The ripple effect is devastating.

"Airlines are cutting back on flights and services as higher fuel costs eat into declining revenues," writes Donald Lambro in the Washington Times. "Increased trucking costs are driving up the price of nearly everything that's shipped. Tighter budgets mean consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending. Retail sales barely budged last month, even despite government tax rebates."

The Times is one publication that appears to have bought into the argument that drilling can accomplish something almost immediately.

"[I]t's another left-wing lie that passing a drilling bill now would have no effect on today's oil prices," Lambro writes. "Just the act of declaring a pro-production oil and gas policy would 'send a message to the market and result in lower prices for oil and gas,' John McCain is telling voters on the stump."

This, in turn, would influence oil futures, Lambro says.

"International oil traders bet on what the world's supplies will be in the future because supply determines price. Increasing oil exploration and production will drive future prices down."

But it won't change the basic facts, which are:

• The supply of fossil fuels in the earth is limited.


• When the supply of fossil fuels runs out, the world will need a new source of energy. Clearly, that supply is starting to run out. And, just as clearly, there is no "next generation" energy source ready to take its place.


• Oil is not a renewable resource. Global demand continues to increase along with the world's population, but the amount of oil in the ground (the supply) remains the same as it's always been — except, of course, for that part of it that has already been extracted from the ground and used up. The traditional rules of supply and demand don't really apply.


• The United States does not control most of the parts of the world that have the richest oil deposits — therefore, the U.S. is in no position to dictate to anyone about the price of oil or production levels or anything else.

"The conventional wisdom says Democrats will likely make major gains in Congress in November," writes Lambro, "but they may not do as well as expected if the voters blame them for inaction on the biggest economic issue in the country."

With all due respect, Mr. Lambro, now is not the time for pointing fingers. Now is the time for our leaders to act like leaders and put the interests of America first.

What's the Answer for Gas Prices?

At a time when the price of a gallon of gas seems to go up every day and Americans have been paying more at the pump than ever for what seems to be a long, long time, it was inevitable that someone like National Journal's Amy Walter would describe the two major party presumptive presidential nominees' disagreement on energy policy as a "gasoline fight" -- evoking images of a raging fire that engulfs both men.

And that's what the gas crisis threatens to do to whoever wins in November.

The American public wants easy answers, like the ones they used to get from politicians. But the same old song and dance doesn't work anymore.

The tough choices didn't go away -- they just got tougher.

Today, President George W. Bush said he wants America to expand domestic oil production.

Bush correctly pointed out that high oil prices lead to high gasoline prices.

And prices have risen, in part, because demand has risen in India and China.

Well, we've outsourced a lot of jobs to those countries, and those incomes are pumping money into the Indian and Chinese economies now, not the U.S. economy. All those workers in India and China need transportation to work. And they want to enjoy some of the other benefits of more prosperity.

Which is why demand has increased.

And some people over here want to blame Indian and Chinese workers for needing more gas to do precisely what American workers have done for decades -- commute to work.

But the U.S. is still the leading gasoline consumer in the world.

Even though the American population is (seemingly) dwarfed by India and China.

The population in the U.S. is a little over 300 million. India has nearly four times as many people (1.1 billion), and China has a little more than four times as many (1.3 billion).

Just based on population figures, India and China each should be consuming four times as much oil as the U.S. Right? Well, the cultures are different, there are different levels of personal freedom in each country, but the fact is that India and China have done more to promote the idea of mass transit.

Bush wants to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration. And he wants Congress to halt a ban on offshore drilling.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain -- to re-phrase a famous John Kerry quote -- was against offshore drilling before he was for it -- as he appears to be now.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called it "a cynical campaign ploy that will do nothing to lower energy prices, and represents another big giveaway to oil companies."

Sounds like coded words of support for the other really bad idea on energy in this campaign, Barack Obama's recent call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies with the proceeds being used to help the poor pay high energy bills.

But, as I said a few days ago, drilling in ANWR or offshore is a short-term solution at best. And a windfall profits tax may make people feel better, but it won't improve supply and, ultimately, it won't raise the kind of money some people say it will.

What we need is a long-term solution. We have to stop pretending that there is a way to return to the way things used to be.

When McCain and Obama have finished preaching to their respective choirs and decide that they're ready to reach beyond their bases, maybe we can have a realistic discussion about energy policy.

So who's got an answer?

ANWR Isn't the Answer

"Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best -- I mean really the best -- energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country," writes Thomas Friedman in a May 28 column in the New York Times.

Actually, I believe that did happen, in the summer of 1979, when President Carter delivered what was ridiculed by Republicans as his "malaise speech."

After saying that America was suffering from a "crisis of confidence" (which had been brought on by the severe inflation that was a result of OPEC's direct influence), Carter said, "I'm asking you, for your good and for your nation's security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel."

He was asking Americans to do what it has taken $4/gallon gas to get them to do -- voluntarily reduce consumption. (And, by the way, Carter never used the word "malaise.")

That was 29 years ago.

And, in the roughly year and a half that Carter had left in the White House, he mostly tried to move the country in the direction of developing alternative energy sources.

Except when he yielded to political pressure and tried to offer a quick-fix solution in the form of a windfall profits tax to an electorate that didn't like what it was being told.

The American people, you see, didn't like to be told the truth then, and they don't seem to like it now, either. Yet that's what they continue to insist that they want.

But they don't want the truth. They want an easy, pain-free, quick-fix, tomorrow-be-damned answer.

Speaking of the quick fix ...

In the Washington Post more than a week ago, George Will wrote that we get the oil prices we deserve because of our refusal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

That opens the door for Will to complain about how "72 of today's senators ... have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market." Both Barack Obama and John McCain were prominently mentioned as cuprits.

And the people who voted for the individuals who supported that policy in Congress are disqualified from complaining about today's high prices, Will said. "[T]hey should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice."

Will goes on to say, "One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel."

Supporters of drilling in ANWR, like Will, often say that the opposition to it is based on emotional appeals from wildlife groups (the "tree huggers," as they like to call the environmentalists).

(In fact, Daniel Henninger makes that point in the Wall Street Journal: "We won't drill for the estimated 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil in the moonscape known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) because of -- the caribou.")

But the truth is it isn't just the harm to the environment that makes drilling in ANWR a bad idea. That's a convenient argument, and it's one that's probably easier for most people to understand than complex economic concepts.

(That, of course, doesn't change the fact that drilling for oil poses a genuine risk to the wildlife in that region.)

While I'll admit that I am no economist, I don't think you have to be an economist to understand that drilling for oil in ANWR is really nothing but a short-term solution. The long-term answer lies in developing renewable energy sources.

Because the ultimate goal is energy independence. It affects everything else. Our addiction to foreign oil has led to simply disastrous decisions in, among other places, the volatile Middle East.

And, whether they want to admit it or not, Americans are helping to support our enemies in that part of the world with much of the money they spend on oil, even while Americans are dying in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. That won't change until we face reality and develop different energy sources.

But that's going to take decades to achieve, whines Fred Barnes in Weekly Standard. We're going to need energy in the meantime -- to heat and cool our homes, to operate our vehicles, to maintain our lifestyle. So he encourages McCain to promote more domestic drilling.

"On this issue," says Barnes, "Republicans need McCain, and he needs them."

Americans are like the cocaine addict who can't accept the fact that his addiction to the drug supports dictators and rogue elements in South America.

It was time to start looking for alternatives 29 years ago, but America didn't want to listen to Jimmy Carter.

Now, Americans are desperately seeking a solution.

Well, ANWR isn't the answer.

The Taste of Money

Nationally, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is $3.30. That's 7 cents more than it was last week, and it's 73 cents more per gallon than it was this time last year, when gas was selling for $2.57.

I'll admit that it may not help much to be told that gas prices in the United States still aren't as high as they are in most other countries.
That's because Americans simply aren't used to the prices they're having to pay.

It reminds me of when I was a child. We lived in rural Arkansas when I was growing up, a couple of miles from the town limits. And my parents were regular customers at a bait shop/gas station on the route to town. Gas had been selling there for about 29 cents/gallon for years and years. Then, it went up a couple of pennies per gallon.

The Arab Oil Embargo of the early 1970s led to fuel shortages in the U.S., the likes of which had not been seen since World War II more than a quarter of a century earlier. Although my parents complained bitterly about having to pay a few pennies more for a gallon of gas, we never saw gas prices that low again.

But, even though the oil price increases of the early 1970s seem mild by today's standards, the impact was severe enough at the time that forms of gas rationing were implemented in various states ... believe it or not.

It also may not help much to be reminded that, over the last three decades or so -- essentially beginning with President Carter in the late 1970s -- Americans have been warned that high prices for gasoline ultimately would be the result of not dealing with our dependence on foreign oil.

It's been nearly 35 years since the Arab Oil Embargo. And if one country seemed to prosper from the very start of its deprivation, it was Japan. Once chastised the world over for its reputation for manufacturing "junk," Japan recognized early that fuel efficiency and general construction quality would be important elements in automobile production in the future.

"Quality" was never just a buzzword for Japanese automakers, the way it has been for most U.S. automakers, who mostly cared about the quality of their profits. That led to Japanese automobiles that routinely outperformed their American counterparts year after year, whatever the prevailing price of gasoline happened to be.

Over the years, many Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that high prices for gas would decline as a part of the natural cycle of supply and demand.

But the recent increases in gas prices, which have sent rates well over $3.00/gallon, don't look like they're going to drop.

There are numerous steps that may be taken in the future to help Americans cope better with the higher prices. But long-term adjustments won't show up for awhile in the form of more fuel-efficient vehicles, or vehicles and homes that operate on fuel that we can produce in this country.

So, whether you refuse to rid yourself of a gas-guzzling vehicle or you're driving a fuel-efficient vehicle but still find it hard to pay the prices at the pump, I'd like to offer a few websites that are dedicated to directing your attention to the lowest prices in your area.

(By the way, if you're in the market for a new vehicle, do yourself a favor and read this from Forbes. It's about the top 20 most dangerous vehicles. Try to strike a balance between good gas mileage and road safety. Don't sacrifice safety for fuel efficiency.)

I'm sure there are other sites out there -- and I'm equally sure there will be more in the future. We haven't entered the peak driving season yet, and that seems almost certain to bring the price you're paying to $4.00/gallon or more.

But here are a few websites that may help you save a little while you plot your economic strategy to cope with the new reality.

And, as a bonus, here's a link that will answer your questions about how gas prices go up or come down. Don't blame the neighborhood retailer. The retailer is caught in a squeeze, too. The huge profits are being made elsewhere.

• Current Gas Prices and Price History (zfacts.com)


• Gasbuddy.com


• Fueleconomy.gov


• Gas Prices (Mapquest)


• Gas Prices (MSN)


• GasPriceWatch.com


• U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices (Dept. of Energy)

Does Daylight Saving Time Really Save Anything?

Don't forget to adjust your clocks tonight -- if you have the old-fashioned kind of clocks that you have to adjust yourself.

Some appliances, like computers, come equipped to change the time for you, when we shift to daylight saving time and when we shift back to standard time. That's a useful thing to have now that we start daylight saving time a few weeks earlier than we used to and we end it about a week later than we used to.

That's one of the problems we've had this year. Some of those appliances weren't equipped to extend daylight saving time into November. And that's caused inconvenience.

I, for one, have never been much of a fan of daylight saving time.

One of the ideas behind it was the notion that making this time shift would save people on their energy bills, but there's never been any conclusive evidence to show that consumers benefit financially. I was thinking about that today while I was filling up on gas that is now over $2.80 a gallon in my neighborhood.

I think $3.00/gallon will be coming along sooner than you might think. We might set a few more records before it levels off.

Read the editorial in today's Los Angeles Times. The Times says our insatiable thirst for oil simply enriches our enemies.

Gas Prices Going Up

The Lundberg Survey reports that the national average price for a gallon of unleaded gas went up 5 cents in the last two weeks.

But that nickel increase will pale in comparison to the increase that's coming. The price of crude oil went up 18 cents in the same two-week period, but that increase hasn't been felt at the pump because it hasn't been passed along yet by refiners, marketers and retailers.

So fill up at the best price you can get right now, because it isn't going to last.

The national average was $2.80, which is 60 cents higher than it was a year ago at this time. The best price to be found was in Newark, N.J., where a gallon was selling for $2.56. San Francisco had the highest price, at $3.17.

Here in my east Dallas neighborhood, the price ranges from $2.61 to $2.65.