Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy – Vikrant Suri
Energy Invention Research –Alternate Renewable – Vikrant Suri
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR GENERATING ELECTRICITY
Novel means of extracting shaft horsepower from ambient heat.
From :
VIKRANT SURI ,
810 , Phase - 2 ,
Industrial Area , Ram Darbar
CHANDIGARH - 160 002
INDIA
e-mail : vikrantsuri7@yahoo.com
vikrantsuri@indya.com
web site : http://www.anandgarh.org
Phone: 91-172-648465 / 668421
Dear Sir ,
The device we have developed uses the low boiling point of certain liquids as a means of transferring their mass to another part of the device. By this means we are able to recover the change in potential energy that the fluid has gained due to the change in location. This energy is recovered by rotating the device about an axle through which useful work can be extracted with each movement. The device requires an on going supply of input heat energy to cause the phase change and removal of thermal energy at the cold end and thus does not qualify as a "Perpetual Motion" device or as a "Free Energy" device as these terms are used on the web. The fact that the temperature differentials required to make the device work can be designed to make them low enables it to use sources of energy which are freely available in the environment. A thermal hot pool or solar concentrators will provide the energy to keep the devicein motion and are free of charge to the owner of the device. If coupled to the exhaust flue of a space heater, the device woul duse this thrown away or free heat to operate. The device can be said to produce free energy as the shaft horsepower which th edevice produces comes at no cost to the owner other than the construction and maintenance costs of the machine once it is inplace.To be perfectly clear:THIS DEVICE IS NOT A "PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE" NOR IS IT A"FREE ENERGY DEVICE" in the context that these terms are used on the many web pages that our research has unearthed. We haveconducted extensive searches on Energy, Renewable Energy etc.and have run across these terms many times. Our device uses sound scientific principles and working models are available for inspection at our offices in India to any who would care to visit. This is in sharp contrast to many of the web pages we have visited.The underlying concept of our work is not new or strange.
The knowledge that certain fluids boil at temperatures close to room temperature has been known for years. Amusement devices such as the "Bobbing Bird" are easily found. The base principle of our device is easily illustrated with this toy. The movement of the working fluid causes the center of gravity of the bird to change and it dips the beak into a glass of water and the fluid is condensed. The condensed liquid then flows back into the lower chamber which again changes the center of gravity and causes itto return to the vertical. Our invention takes this principle and scales it up many times and uses construction materials that are more durable. We also change the arrangement of the chambers to allow for efficient heating of the hot end and easy cooling of the cold end. In short, our device bears littler resemblance to the toy, yet it uses and exploits the same proven scientific principle.
Another device which uses the boiling and condensing of a volatile liquid is the Minto's Wheel (Popular Science, March1976). It differs in construction, complexity from our device.We feel that our device has distinct advantages over the Minto'sWheel in the areas of size, simplicity and the need to be perfectly balanced - all of which are critical factors for a device which is to be locally built and maintained in adeveloping area.We feel that any reasonably handy person with access to the appropriate shop facilities could build a working model of our device in about two weeks of spare time.
We encourage interested individuals to do so. To help you, we held a press conference on May 17th, 2000 to declare to the world the worth of and make public our invention. A web site with pressreleases as well as the first two chapters of our Detailed Report with 4 diagrams is available at ; link Energy Research.
These references should be enough to give interested parties the basic understanding necessary to begin construction of a working prototype. If you have any ideas or questions after reading these pages, please feel free to contact me. I will endeavor to reply to all emails within 24 hours. We are interested in seeing this device become a commercial reality and will limit our involvement to whatever level you desire of us that is within our capability. With greater engineering skill and better facilities for manufacturing we feel that the gross shaft outputs that we have measured can be increased by a factor of ten.
We feel that this
is justification for further development of the device and investigation into tasks to which the device may be placed. We envision the device pumping water from wells, generating electricity, turning mill stones and any other stationary application where the shaft horsepower that can be generated can be used. All of these tasks can be accomplished by the device without the need for fossil fuels. If operation is desired during a time that the free heat of the sun is not available , renewable sources of heat such as burning wood could be used to supply the heat input needs of the device.
We have constructed thirty working models. Our largest stands 2.13 meters high and masses about 6.5 Kg. Our goal is to provethe utility that can be gained from it. In the society of today we need every means of harnessing the energy that is produced by the planet or that falls from the sun in an environmentally sensitive way. The device operates on a small enough temperature differential and is sealed so that once put into operation, it will function for years with minimal maintenance.
We envision the device pumping water from wells in competition with more expensive Solar Panels and pumps and being cost effective versus internal combustion pumps and electrical generators. The device uses a level of technology so that it can be locally manufactured and maintained and thus is ideal for developing areas in India and the world. Due to the low cost of construction and the long service life that this device promises, we anticipate that the world will not be able to ignore it for long. .
Please feel free to put forward any enquiries to me.
Vikrant Suri
http://www.anandgarh.org
vikrantsuri@indya.com
vikrantsuri@rediffmail.com
Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy – Vikrant Suri
-- Vikrant Suri (vikrantsuri2@yahoo.co.in), December 11, 2000
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion and
the environment. What
makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply that
the party's familiar
positions are out of step with those of a majority of citizens.
It's that a lot of swing voters
care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in voting
decisions. It's also
that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal interest
groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a potential
advantage, one that would make itself felt if the basic legal status
of abortion were ever
seriously threatened.) It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial posturing to the right, he has
made fairly clear that he
isn't going to squander any political capital promoting his
unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated
Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City" policy, which bans federal support for groups
that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary
issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on the big questions of abortion's legal
status, he shows every
sign of bowing to political reality. Instead of trying to change the
law, he'll try to
"change hearts." That's because according to the most
recent Gallup poll on
the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a margin of more
than 2 to 1. Bush
won't challenging this consensus with any kind of serious effort
because he knows that
overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the GOP.">
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion
and the environment.
What makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply
that the party's
familiar positions are out of step with those of a majority of
citizens. It's that a lot of swing
voters care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in
voting decisions. It's
also that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal
interest groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a
potential advantage, one that would make itself felt if the
basic legal status of
abortion were ever seriously threatened.)
It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial
posturing to the right, he has made fairly clear that he isn't
going to squander any
political capital promoting his unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment
making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City"
policy, which bans federal support for groups that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush
has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on
the big questions of abortion's legal status, he shows every sign
of bowing to political
reality. Instead of trying to change the law, he'll try to
"change hearts."
That's because according to the most recent Gallup
poll on the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a
margin of more than 2 to 1.
Bush won't be challenging this consensus with any kind of serious
effort because he knows
that overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the
GOP.
On environmental issues, however, Bush has been
acting lately in a way
that seems the opposite of politically astute. He has taken a strong
stance in favor of gas
drilling ("exploration" in Bushspeak)
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Last month, he knee-capped
EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman when he reversed his campaign pledge
to combat global
warming by lowering carbon dioxide emission standards for power
plants. Then, most recently,
he blocked a Clinton administration executive order that would have
set lower levels of arsenic
in drinking water.
With the exception of
drilling in Alaska, an issue
that even the Republican Congress is afraid to back Bush on, it can be
argued that Bush's
substantive positions on these issues are not especially fanatical. In
the case of both CO2
emissions and arsenic levels, Bush isn't repealing existing
standards or regulations.
He's simply resisting proposals to tighten them. In a context of
rising standards, however,
forestalling additional progress essentially means going backward.
Democrats are already
salivating at the prospect of using arsenic levels as an issue in
2002. Politically, it's a
pretty obvious call. Bush would have been far more sensible to let the
Clinton regs
stand.
When a politician takes a position that
is apparently
self-destructive in the way that Bush's arsenic-friendly stance
is, it can indicate one of
three things. The first thing to look for is the possibility that the
person is so isolated that he
doesn't recognize political reality. A second possibility is that
the politician is making a
more complex political judgment than most people assume. For example,
a straightforward
reading of national poll numbers suggests that gun control should be
an issue helpful to
Democrats. But in 2000 it wasn't because the NRA is stronger than
its counterparts on the
other side, because the issue is important to blue-collar men, and
because those blue-collar
men are crucial in several swing states in the South and Midwest. A
third and final possibility is
that a politician's unpopular decision is motivated by conscience.
He may be willing to
accept a potential risk or damage in order to do what he believes
in.
In the case of Bush and the environment, we're
dealing with a
combination of these factors. The right-wing echo chamber effect leads
administration officials
to believe that there's a bona fide national constituency for
things like arsenic in tap
water, negligence on global warming, and derricks in Alaskan
wilderness. I don't think that
Bush's guru Karl Rove is so blinded by ideology that he thought
these would be popular
stands. But it's likely that everyone Rove speaks to on a daily
basis thinks they were the
right ones to take.
The better
explanation, however, is that Bush is acting from conscience and
thinks he can frame the issues
in a politically advantageous way. Bush's political case is that
voters back environmental
protection until they're faced with its real costs. He calculates
that the public prefers a
pristine home for caribou in the abstract, but that most people
aren't willing to pay more
for gasoline to preserve it. The same goes for CO2 emissions and
arsenic water. People may be
worried about global warming and environmental toxins. But Bush thinks
they're more
worried about their utility bills and the general health of the
economy. His rationalizations may
also have something to do with appeasing conservative zealots within
his party.
But--and this is the important point--Bush
wouldn't be straining so
hard to come up with plausible political justifications if he
weren't acting on the basis of
conviction. The widespread cynical assumption is that Bush's
pro-industry measures are
rewards for corporate contributors. But a look at Bush's biography
and Texas record
underscores a much stronger case that for him, this is a rare matter
of fundamental belief.
Bush's first career was exploring for oil. As governor of Texas,
he clearly and consistently
took the position that the rights of businessmen trumped a variety of
other public goods, such
as cleaner air and water. You can say what you want about this view.
But you can't say that
Bush doesn't sincerely hold it.
It seems
likely that Bush's
principles have led him into an important political miscalculation.
Texas is America, but
America is not Texas. A moderate, pro-environmental consensus has
become a powerful force
in many states that Bush aspires to win in 2004, including Florida,
Colorado, Oregon, and
Washington. On the one hand, I suppose it's admirable that Bush is
willing to take a big
political risk for the sake of his beliefs, even if his beliefs are
dead wrong. (Like Clinton, he
doesn't govern merely according to the polls.) On the other hand,
government by polls
isn't always such a bad thing. A bit of political cowardice can be
a powerful antidote to
ideological extremism.
|
Unfair and inaccurate to slap a generic label of "cowardice"
on any and all decisions
based upon polls. Polls can be useful advisers. Just as inaccurate to
honor "idealism"
in knee jerk fashion. History has seen "ideals" that were
best killed at inception.
As for eco standards v. costs: In virtually all instances, a good,
safe, clean and healthy
environment is going to come at a cost. This is as true in our
individual homes as it is for the
country at large. A leader does more than hold up a ledger sheet. He
educates, first himself,
and then the people to the importance of the standards, and then
figures out how to make then
happen.
--Joan
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob: I have a lot of respect for your analysis and fundamentally
agree with your conclusions
about Bush and the environment.
However, I disagree when you suggest that we should be grateful that
he is at least acting on
his own beliefs rather than those of his supporters. Should we feel
less outraged by
Hitler's activities in WWII, comforted by the fact that he
actually believed in what he did,
rather than simply acted on someone else's behalf? The answer is
clearly no. In fact, quite
the opposite. A man with strongly held beliefs that benefit a powerful
minority, while also
being continually surrounded by members of that powerful minority
during the course of his
everyday business, is about as dangerous as you can get.
And it sure don't sound democratic to me.
--Michael Cranna
(To reply, click here.)
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 08, 2001.
Response to Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy – Vikrant Suri
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion and
the environment. What
makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply that
the party's familiar
positions are out of step with those of a majority of citizens.
It's that a lot of swing voters
care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in voting
decisions. It's also
that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal interest
groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a potential
advantage, one that would make itself felt if the basic legal status
of abortion were ever
seriously threatened.) It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial posturing to the right, he has
made fairly clear that he
isn't going to squander any political capital promoting his
unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated
Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City" policy, which bans federal support for groups
that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary
issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on the big questions of abortion's legal
status, he shows every
sign of bowing to political reality. Instead of trying to change the
law, he'll try to
"change hearts." That's because according to the most
recent Gallup poll on
the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a margin of more
than 2 to 1. Bush
won't challenging this consensus with any kind of serious effort
because he knows that
overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the GOP.">
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion
and the environment.
What makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply
that the party's
familiar positions are out of step with those of a majority of
citizens. It's that a lot of swing
voters care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in
voting decisions. It's
also that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal
interest groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a
potential advantage, one that would make itself felt if the
basic legal status of
abortion were ever seriously threatened.) It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial
posturing to the right, he has made fairly clear that he isn't
going to squander any
political capital promoting his unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment
making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City"
policy, which bans federal support for groups that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush
has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on
the big questions of abortion's legal status, he shows every sign
of bowing to political
reality. Instead of trying to change the law, he'll try to
"change hearts."
That's because according to the most recent Gallup
poll on the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a
margin of more than 2 to 1.
Bush won't be challenging this consensus with any kind of serious
effort because he knows
that overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the
GOP. On environmental issues, however, Bush has been
acting lately in a way
that seems the opposite of politically astute. He has taken a strong
stance in favor of gas
drilling ("exploration" in Bushspeak)
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Last month, he knee-capped
EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman when he reversed his campaign pledge
to combat global
warming by lowering carbon dioxide emission standards for power
plants. Then, most recently,
he blocked a Clinton administration executive order that would have
set lower levels of arsenic
in drinking water. With the exception of
drilling in Alaska, an issue
that even the Republican Congress is afraid to back Bush on, it can be
argued that Bush's
substantive positions on these issues are not especially fanatical. In
the case of both CO2
emissions and arsenic levels, Bush isn't repealing existing
standards or regulations.
He's simply resisting proposals to tighten them. In a context of
rising standards, however,
forestalling additional progress essentially means going backward.
Democrats are already
salivating at the prospect of using arsenic levels as an issue in
2002. Politically, it's a
pretty obvious call. Bush would have been far more sensible to let the
Clinton regs
stand. When a politician takes a position that
is apparently
self-destructive in the way that Bush's arsenic-friendly stance
is, it can indicate one of
three things. The first thing to look for is the possibility that the
person is so isolated that he
doesn't recognize political reality. A second possibility is that
the politician is making a
more complex political judgment than most people assume. For example,
a straightforward
reading of national poll numbers suggests that gun control should be
an issue helpful to
Democrats. But in 2000 it wasn't because the NRA is stronger than
its counterparts on the
other side, because the issue is important to blue-collar men, and
because those blue-collar
men are crucial in several swing states in the South and Midwest. A
third and final possibility is
that a politician's unpopular decision is motivated by conscience.
He may be willing to
accept a potential risk or damage in order to do what he believes
in. In the case of Bush and the environment, we're
dealing with a
combination of these factors. The right-wing echo chamber effect leads
administration officials
to believe that there's a bona fide national constituency for
things like arsenic in tap
water, negligence on global warming, and derricks in Alaskan
wilderness. I don't think that
Bush's guru Karl Rove is so blinded by ideology that he thought
these would be popular
stands. But it's likely that everyone Rove speaks to on a daily
basis thinks they were the
right ones to take. The better
explanation, however, is that Bush is acting from conscience and
thinks he can frame the issues
in a politically advantageous way. Bush's political case is that
voters back environmental
protection until they're faced with its real costs. He calculates
that the public prefers a
pristine home for caribou in the abstract, but that most people
aren't willing to pay more
for gasoline to preserve it. The same goes for CO2 emissions and
arsenic water. People may be
worried about global warming and environmental toxins. But Bush thinks
they're more
worried about their utility bills and the general health of the
economy. His rationalizations may
also have something to do with appeasing conservative zealots within
his party. But--and this is the important point--Bush
wouldn't be straining so
hard to come up with plausible political justifications if he
weren't acting on the basis of
conviction. The widespread cynical assumption is that Bush's
pro-industry measures are
rewards for corporate contributors. But a look at Bush's biography
and Texas record
underscores a much stronger case that for him, this is a rare matter
of fundamental belief.
Bush's first career was exploring for oil. As governor of Texas,
he clearly and consistently
took the position that the rights of businessmen trumped a variety of
other public goods, such
as cleaner air and water. You can say what you want about this view.
But you can't say that
Bush doesn't sincerely hold it. It seems
likely that Bush's
principles have led him into an important political miscalculation.
Texas is America, but
America is not Texas. A moderate, pro-environmental consensus has
become a powerful force
in many states that Bush aspires to win in 2004, including Florida,
Colorado, Oregon, and
Washington. On the one hand, I suppose it's admirable that Bush is
willing to take a big
political risk for the sake of his beliefs, even if his beliefs are
dead wrong. (Like Clinton, he
doesn't govern merely according to the polls.) On the other hand,
government by polls
isn't always such a bad thing. A bit of political cowardice can be
a powerful antidote to
ideological extremism. |
|
Unfair and inaccurate to slap a generic label of "cowardice"
on any and all decisions
based upon polls. Polls can be useful advisers. Just as inaccurate to
honor "idealism"
in knee jerk fashion. History has seen "ideals" that were
best killed at inception.
(To reply, click here.)
As for eco standards v. costs: In virtually all instances, a good,
safe, clean and healthy
environment is going to come at a cost. This is as true in our
individual homes as it is for the
country at large. A leader does more than hold up a ledger sheet. He
educates, first himself,
and then the people to the importance of the standards, and then
figures out how to make then
happen.
--Joan
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob: I have a lot of respect for your analysis and fundamentally
agree with your conclusions
about Bush and the environment.
However, I disagree when you suggest that we should be grateful that
he is at least acting on
his own beliefs rather than those of his supporters. Should we feel
less outraged by
Hitler's activities in WWII, comforted by the fact that he
actually believed in what he did,
rather than simply acted on someone else's behalf? The answer is
clearly no. In fact, quite
the opposite. A man with strongly held beliefs that benefit a powerful
minority, while also
being continually surrounded by members of that powerful minority
during the course of his
everyday business, is about as dangerous as you can get.
And it sure don't sound democratic to me.
--Michael Cranna
(To reply, click here.)
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 08, 2001.
Response to Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy – Vikrant Suri
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion and
the environment. What
makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply that
the party's familiar
positions are out of step with those of a majority of citizens.
It's that a lot of swing voters
care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in voting
decisions. It's also
that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal interest
groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a potential
advantage, one that would make itself felt if the basic legal status
of abortion were ever
seriously threatened.) It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial posturing to the right, he has
made fairly clear that he
isn't going to squander any political capital promoting his
unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated
Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City" policy, which bans federal support for groups
that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary
issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on the big questions of abortion's legal
status, he shows every
sign of bowing to political reality. Instead of trying to change the
law, he'll try to
"change hearts." That's because according to the most
recent Gallup poll on
the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a margin of more
than 2 to 1. Bush
won't challenging this consensus with any kind of serious effort
because he knows that
overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the GOP.">
Two issues pose a special risk to Republicans these days: abortion
and the environment.
What makes these areas especially hazardous for the GOP is not simply
that the party's
familiar positions are out of step with those of a majority of
citizens. It's that a lot of swing
voters care about them enough for them to be a significant factor in
voting decisions. It's
also that abortion and the environment are issues where liberal
interest groups have a big
advantage in terms of organization, mobilization, and funding. (On
abortion it's a
potential advantage, one that would make itself felt if the
basic legal status of
abortion were ever seriously threatened.) It's instructive to contrast the ways in
which President Bush has
handled the two issues. On abortion, he has behaved in a predictable,
politically intelligible
way. That is to say, after some initial
posturing to the right, he has made fairly clear that he isn't
going to squander any
political capital promoting his unpopular position in favor of a
constitutional amendment
making abortion illegal. Bush has reinstated Ronald Reagan's
"Mexico City"
policy, which bans federal support for groups that provide abortions
abroad. But at home, Bush
has deferred on all the tricky subsidiary issues like RU-486 and fetal
stem-cell research. And on
the big questions of abortion's legal status, he shows every sign
of bowing to political
reality. Instead of trying to change the law, he'll try to
"change hearts."
That's because according to the most recent Gallup
poll on the topic, Americans oppose Bush's position by a
margin of more than 2 to 1.
Bush won't be challenging this consensus with any kind of serious
effort because he knows
that overturning Roe would be a political Waterloo for the
GOP. On environmental issues, however, Bush has been
acting lately in a way
that seems the opposite of politically astute. He has taken a strong
stance in favor of gas
drilling ("exploration" in Bushspeak)
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Last month, he knee-capped
EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman when he reversed his campaign pledge
to combat global
warming by lowering carbon dioxide emission standards for power
plants. Then, most recently,
he blocked a Clinton administration executive order that would have
set lower levels of arsenic
in drinking water. With the exception of
drilling in Alaska, an issue
that even the Republican Congress is afraid to back Bush on, it can be
argued that Bush's
substantive positions on these issues are not especially fanatical. In
the case of both CO2
emissions and arsenic levels, Bush isn't repealing existing
standards or regulations.
He's simply resisting proposals to tighten them. In a context of
rising standards, however,
forestalling additional progress essentially means going backward.
Democrats are already
salivating at the prospect of using arsenic levels as an issue in
2002. Politically, it's a
pretty obvious call. Bush would have been far more sensible to let the
Clinton regs
stand. When a politician takes a position that
is apparently
self-destructive in the way that Bush's arsenic-friendly stance
is, it can indicate one of
three things. The first thing to look for is the possibility that the
person is so isolated that he
doesn't recognize political reality. A second possibility is that
the politician is making a
more complex political judgment than most people assume. For example,
a straightforward
reading of national poll numbers suggests that gun control should be
an issue helpful to
Democrats. But in 2000 it wasn't because the NRA is stronger than
its counterparts on the
other side, because the issue is important to blue-collar men, and
because those blue-collar
men are crucial in several swing states in the South and Midwest. A
third and final possibility is
that a politician's unpopular decision is motivated by conscience.
He may be willing to
accept a potential risk or damage in order to do what he believes
in. In the case of Bush and the environment, we're
dealing with a
combination of these factors. The right-wing echo chamber effect leads
administration officials
to believe that there's a bona fide national constituency for
things like arsenic in tap
water, negligence on global warming, and derricks in Alaskan
wilderness. I don't think that
Bush's guru Karl Rove is so blinded by ideology that he thought
these would be popular
stands. But it's likely that everyone Rove speaks to on a daily
basis thinks they were the
right ones to take. The better
explanation, however, is that Bush is acting from conscience and
thinks he can frame the issues
in a politically advantageous way. Bush's political case is that
voters back environmental
protection until they're faced with its real costs. He calculates
that the public prefers a
pristine home for caribou in the abstract, but that most people
aren't willing to pay more
for gasoline to preserve it. The same goes for CO2 emissions and
arsenic water. People may be
worried about global warming and environmental toxins. But Bush thinks
they're more
worried about their utility bills and the general health of the
economy. His rationalizations may
also have something to do with appeasing conservative zealots within
his party. But--and this is the important point--Bush
wouldn't be straining so
hard to come up with plausible political justifications if he
weren't acting on the basis of
conviction. The widespread cynical assumption is that Bush's
pro-industry measures are
rewards for corporate contributors. But a look at Bush's biography
and Texas record
underscores a much stronger case that for him, this is a rare matter
of fundamental belief.
Bush's first career was exploring for oil. As governor of Texas,
he clearly and consistently
took the position that the rights of businessmen trumped a variety of
other public goods, such
as cleaner air and water. You can say what you want about this view.
But you can't say that
Bush doesn't sincerely hold it. It seems
likely that Bush's
principles have led him into an important political miscalculation.
Texas is America, but
America is not Texas. A moderate, pro-environmental consensus has
become a powerful force
in many states that Bush aspires to win in 2004, including Florida,
Colorado, Oregon, and
Washington. On the one hand, I suppose it's admirable that Bush is
willing to take a big
political risk for the sake of his beliefs, even if his beliefs are
dead wrong. (Like Clinton, he
doesn't govern merely according to the polls.) On the other hand,
government by polls
isn't always such a bad thing. A bit of political cowardice can be
a powerful antidote to
ideological extremism. |
|
(To reply, click here.)
Unfair and inaccurate to slap a generic label of "cowardice"
on any and all decisions
based upon polls. Polls can be useful advisers. Just as inaccurate to
honor "idealism"
in knee jerk fashion. History has seen "ideals" that were
best killed at inception.
As for eco standards v. costs: In virtually all instances, a good,
safe, clean and healthy
environment is going to come at a cost. This is as true in our
individual homes as it is for the
country at large. A leader does more than hold up a ledger sheet. He
educates, first himself,
and then the people to the importance of the standards, and then
figures out how to make then
happen.
--Joan
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob: I have a lot of respect for your analysis and fundamentally
agree with your conclusions
about Bush and the environment.
However, I disagree when you suggest that we should be grateful that
he is at least acting on
his own beliefs rather than those of his supporters. Should we feel
less outraged by
Hitler's activities in WWII, comforted by the fact that he
actually believed in what he did,
rather than simply acted on someone else's behalf? The answer is
clearly no. In fact, quite
the opposite. A man with strongly held beliefs that benefit a powerful
minority, while also
being continually surrounded by members of that powerful minority
during the course of his
everyday business, is about as dangerous as you can get.
And it sure don't sound democratic to me.
--Michael Cranna
(To reply, click here.)
-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 08, 2001.
Response to Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy , Energy – Vikrant Suri
-- might it work? (5@6.nep), April 11, 2001.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ
|
