One politician states that her family’s military experience has given her integrity and strong American values and for that reason we should vote for her. Obviously that statement provides insufficient usable information to evaluate her positions on important issues. Her opponents aren’t any better.

When politicians are interviewed on TV, the interviewer lets them get away with vague answers instead of insisting that they properly and thoroughly answer the question.

The result of all this is that voters are inadequately informed and unable to make optimal decisions. If all the facts and proposed solutions were thoroughly explained, and if voters were willing to put the necessary effort into understanding the issues, we would all be better off.

It will be interesting to see how aeroponics works out. If it’s successful, it could significantly reduce water requirements for some crops, especially salad-type crops.

When an organization devoted to one issue becomes involved with other issues, it risks losing its influence on its principal issue. For example, if an organization devoted to racial equality became involved with economic policy, it would risk losing supporters who are strongly committed to racial equality but ascribe to different economic theories. Thus, it would, at least to some degree, become less effective in promoting racial equality.

Similarly, although I am very alarmed by the idea that the government can detain people indefinitely without charge or evidence, some people who favor clean energy may see such detention as a necessary evil to protect national security and may drop out of any organization that opposes such detention.

This is not a question of whether the supporters of a principal have the right to state opinions on other principals; of course they have such a right. But if they use an organization which is devoted to one principal to support principals which are not directly related, they risk weakening the organization.

A quick note in defense of my father’s predictions regarding the price of energy:

The three fossil fuels are elastically linked – there’s just a lag between one significantly effecting the other. Natural gas and oil use the same drilling rigs. For most of the past three decades, there has consistently been a ratio of ~2:1 of natural gas rigs to oil rigs… as the natural gas wells exhausted themselves more quickly and more wells needed to be drilled, while the price of oil was low and yielded far less profit for the prospective driller. In 2000, for instance, there was ~1300 active rigs drilling for natural gas, while there was only ~600 rigs drilling for oil.

As oil prices have skyrocketed, while natural gas prices have plummetted, the economics have reversed, and in the last three years there has been a rapid shift in new drilling. Last week showed 1372 rigs drilling for oil, and only 598 rigs drilling for gas, with another ~15 rigs or so switching from gas to oil last week alone. Natural gas will begin increasing in price as soon as the current overly large wells start losing production, as there will not be nearly enough new wells to replace them.

Oil and natural gas are closely coupled in demand in the U.S., as price drops in natural gas lead to decreased coal usage and vice versa. During the last three years of low natural gas costs, the usage of coal has plummetted in the U.S. at a far faster rate than anyone could have projected.

But the COST of coal is far closer linked to the price of oil than it is to demand pressures. When U.S. demand is down, we simply produce the same amount and sell more oversees. One of the three highest costs of coal production is the consumption of diesel (the other two being insurance costs and land destruction).. so there is a natural ramp in the cost to supply coal as oil increases in price.

Simply looking at the NYMEX front-month contracts over the last few years shows this clearly: In June of 2008, the front-month contract for a short ton of Appalachian coal peaked at over $140. In 2009, it averaged under $50, then averaged almost $60/ton in 2010, and ~$75 in 2011. In 2012, the warm winter cause such a tremendous crash in the price of natural gas that demand pressure is influencing the price of coal, and the price is lower… but there is no doubt that by this time next year (as excess natural gas inventories are depleted) the balance will be restored and the price of that contract will likely exceed $90.

It’s complicated, but in the end all three fossil fuels overlap in what they provide for society, which means that the market will eliminate extreme imbalances rather quickly.

As for the riots and the continued disintegration of our society – that depends on the course of the next few election cycles. Demographics are shifting, and the republican party will likely render itself irrelevant within the next 8 years. Without the republicans, I do not believe much of the dire social changes my father foresees will come to pass.