New energy policy for America.

[chinaco]

GWB is a weak, lame duck president. He isn't the 'here and now' - he's already history.

So, if you want to forget about the past, fine - then let's do it. So, do any of the current candidates offer anything real in terms of environmental issues?

I have not looked into it in detail, the little I have had 'more of the same' stamped all over it. Ethanol supports (gag me!), hydrogen and hybrids (more gag), bla,bla,bla. Tell the people what they want to hear, bla, bla, bla.

-ERD50

ERD. He could do more lame duck or not.... he could try to lead.

I suppose there could be several answers:

1. He either lacks vision
2. he has self interests that are not in support of fixing the energy problem
3. He doesn't care
4. Or he has given up

 

[ladelfina]

Carter.. ahh yes.. widely mocked for wearing a sweater and suggesting turning down the thermostat. What!? Are we COMMUNISTS or something!?

a right-wing and a left-wing offering:
The Carter Energy Plan: Analysis and Alternatives
Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago

from the second offering:

"Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth," [Carter] said, a point that is still true. "We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden." Carter directly challenged the fossil fuel and automobile industries. "One choice," he said, "is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years. "Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. "We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process."

Whether what he managed to get done was "baby steps"... the message he was sending was loud and clear and no-one wanted to listen.

I remember even from when I was a kid the phrases "windfall profit tax" (eliminated by Reagan) and "moral equivalent of war".

[Hey, why have a "moral equivalent" of war when you can have the real thing with blood and everything. As Bush recently sustained.. combat is so "romantic"!!]

Reagan also removed the solar panels Carter installed on the WH roof. This I recall being greeted with great general public/mediatical relief!! Because it was "morning in America" and pomp and waste and excess were to be embraced!! Whew! We dodged that austerity bullet and sent that party-pooper Carter packing!! People were GIDDY about it!

 

[ERD50]

ERD. He could do more lame duck or not.... he could try to lead.

I suppose there could be several answers:

1. He either lacks vision
2. he has self interests that are not in support of fixing the energy problem
3. He doesn't care
4. Or he has given up

My only issue with your line of thought is that you are willing to apply it to GWB, but you won't apply it equally to Clinton/Gore.

-ERD50

 

[chinaco]

My only issue with your line of thought is that you are willing to apply it to GWB, but you won't apply it equally to Clinton/Gore.

-ERD50

Oh.

Bill Clinton was a disappointment with some of his antics. No question about it. Plus some of his policies did not pan out.

There are some things GWB did that I agree with. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. I liked the tax cuts. There are other things also.

I am a middle of the road voter. I am for middle class interests. That does not mean I am against helping the down and out or that I do not see the big picture from a capitalist point of view.

Unfortunately GWB seems to lean more towards representing certain elite interests instead of all of the rest of us. The middle-class and the poor are after thoughts to him.

 

[dumpster56]

It's a good bet that if oil were still $30/bbl, and gas $1.50/gal, the whole debate about energy we're having now would not have even happened...

Not true in my book after 9/11 in december the price of gasoline hit 89.9 cents a gallon for about a week bounced back up to around 1.05.9 for the rest of that winter. No that time I had stated that a tax on gasoline of 1 2 or 3 dollars would have been a good idea. the thought of giving the Saudis One cent of our money for their oil after 15 of the 19 hijackers came from the kingdom well still sickens me.

 

[ladelfina]

Comparing Clinton and GWB on particulars of any issue is kinda like apples/oranges. Clinton LOVED the wonky details of governing and that sometimes even tripped him up. Bush wants to go back to eating pretzels on the couch and possibly become baseball commissioner and has always been largely phoning it in.

On a cell phone. With a crap battery and kinda far from the repeater tower.

Ok that was gratuitous (but fun!). For Bush's energy policies I would look to Cheney.

 

[prgsdw]

Amen - and that's the answer to what was done under Bush 1, Clinton, etc in terms of long term planning. And it's also the reason why the "market" won't magically work us out of this problem without significant pain and risk that a long term, viable solution can not be found. It's why the argument for enlightened LEADERSHIP in government is so important - and so heart breaking to see not happen. Not only on this, but on nearly ever major problem facing the nation. Quite sad.

 

[Independent]

True. But the effort should be more aggressive. The Executive Branch did this merely are political cover. GWB represents Big Oil interest... not the majority of Americans. His tactic is to say something publicly (be politically expedient) and do something altogether different in the back room. His administration is full of stall tactics... hoping it will fix itself or maintain the status quo longer.

I understand your logic. We probably are on our way to doing something like that. But there is a fundamental problem (trap) that we are in today. Too many people at the margins get to work on cheap gas. America is a country of urban sprawl and rural folk. Much of America does not have workable mass transit for the masses... heck some doesn't have it at all.

Putting a consumption tax on top of rising prices today would further exacerbate the problem. But you are correct, that would drive down use and provide money to fund part of an energy program.

But! I am not a fan of taxes. Consumers will pay for it one way or the other... I would rather have the free market put the price and have government make sure the Oligopoly does not scr3w us. The problem with taxes is that it might be reasonable to help incubate a new program... but they would never stop after the program is on its way... the gov't would continue to spend the money.

You are correct about poor people and the lack of infrastructure. That's why a crude oil tax should be offset 100% by a reduction in some other "tax". In practice, a $2 per gallon tax on crude can be offset by a $2,000 per person refundable credit on your FIT return. That means that most poor people make a profit because most of them use less than an "average" amount of crude.

If that's too "progressive" for your tastes, rebate half the tax per capita and the other half as a reduction in the FICA percent and an bonus on SS benefits.

None of the new tax should be used to subsidize or incubate new technology. As you point out, once those subsidies start, it's extremely difficult to stop them.

Again, the problem is that the free market can't put a price on crude oil that includes the geo-political costs (just like it can't put a price on burning coal that includes the cost of putting sulfur in the air). Gov't has to do that. The gov't might also have a role in some basic research, but the appropriate dollars are small potatos in the energy world. Private investors can do everything else.

 

[ERD50]

Comparing Clinton and GWB on particulars of any issue is kinda like apples/oranges.

OK. But I'm not comparing style, I'm comparing results.

It's why the argument for enlightened LEADERSHIP in government is so important - and so heart breaking to see not happen. Not only on this, but on nearly ever major problem facing the nation. Quite sad.

Agreed, and it is sad. Kinda interesting, even though I probably don't agree with Obama on most issues, I do get the feeling that he could provide leadership - that might be the most important thing.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

Agreed, and it is sad. Kinda interesting, even though I probably don't agree with Obama on most issues, I do get the feeling that he could provide leadership - that might be the most important thing.
-ERD50

He hasn't led anything substantive that I am aware of...............McCain is licking his chops when he thinks of Obama and him debating.....it won't be Harvard Law School 101...........not that McCain's the cat's meow either..........

 

[chinaco]

He hasn't led anything substantive that I am aware of...............McCain is licking his chops when he thinks of Obama and him debating.....it won't be Harvard Law School 101...........not that McCain's the cat's meow either..........

If it winds up being those two in the general election. Don't count Hillary out just yet.

Since McCain is not really speaking on domestic issues and trying to trumpet his background in international politics and war...
he is going to have an uphill battle if he makes the War the key issue. Most middle ground people will interpret it as: This guy does not get it!

Most people in the middle want the heck out of there are quick as possibly. They realize that cut and run is not a good idea... but want to begin moving towards turning it over to the Iraqis and exit.

I do not dislike McCain.... Would have voted for him in 2000. But today is a different time.

If McCain wants to win the election... he had better get domestic real quick... or he is toast!

 

[ERD50]

Most people in the middle want the heck out of there are quick as possibly. They realize that cut and run is not a good idea...

I don't follow you. Isn't 'as quick as possibly' the same as 'cut and run'?

If not, what constraints are you putting on 'as quick as possibly', and what are each candidate's position on that?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

He hasn't led anything substantive that I am aware of...............

IMO, leading a campaign and taking a 100+ delegate lead against a candidate that was considered a 'shoe in' is pretty substantive.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

IMO, leading a campaign and taking a 100+ delegate lead against a candidate that was considered a 'shoe in' is pretty substantive.

-ERD50

I was referring to sponsoring legislation in the Illinois Senate or being on an important committe in the Senate, you know, boring stuff like that........

Hillary wasn't a "shoo-in", Barack got the attention of the folks that matter in the DNC after his speech at the 2004 DNC..........

 

[youbet]

The past is gone. I would like to change some of it. But I can't. Perhaps Clinton could/should have done more. What bothers me is the here and now. GWB is here and now.

I suppose some must feel like they are defending the Republican party.

Not me. I was just pondering if there was a common thread to their lack of energy program improvements.

 

[chinaco]

I don't follow you. Isn't 'as quick as possibly' the same as 'cut and run'?

If not, what constraints are you putting on 'as quick as possibly', and what are each candidate's position on that?

-ERD50

I do not think so. Put it like this. DO you want to be in Iraq as long as we have been in Korea?

Not me. Matter of fact, I do not want to be in Iraq as long as we were in Viet Nam. I do not want to be there at all... but we are there.

As quickly as possible, I would like our Government and Military to get the Iraqi Army sufficient enough to defend themselves and get out.

Some are projecting that we will be in Iraq up to 2020 or longer.

Do you want to be in that country for 20 years?

 

[chinaco]

Not me. I was just pondering if there was a common thread to their lack of energy program improvements.

You are right we did get off subject.

I make a comment that GWB did not have an aggressive enough stance on energy independence and off it went.

 

[ERD50]

You are right we did get off subject.

I make a comment that GWB did not have an aggressive enough stance on energy independence and off it went.

chinaco, the point that some of us are trying to make is that you singled out GWB in that statement. As youbet has asked, if the GWB admin has dragged it's feet because of connections with 'Big Oil', what was it that caused Clinton/Gore to not take an aggressive enough stance on energy independence?

It's not about defending GWB at all. I don't think anyone posting is satisfied with the Bush energy policy. It's about understanding what, if any, difference there was in other admin's energy policy, and why.

I'm not sure why that would be considered 'off subject' in a thread titled ' 'New energy policy for America.''? Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I do not think so. Put it like this. DO you want to be in Iraq as long as we have been in Korea?

Not me. Matter of fact, I do not want to be in Iraq as long as we were in Viet Nam. I do not want to be there at all... but we are there.

As quickly as possible, I would like our Government and Military to get the Iraqi Army sufficient enough to defend themselves and get out.

Some are projecting that we will be in Iraq up to 2020 or longer.

Do you want to be in that country for 20 years?

'to get the Iraqi Army sufficient enough to defend themselves and get out.' I'm no military or political expert, but that sounds reasonable to me.

As far as our presence in Korea, for example, I really don't know. Is that a good or bad thing? Maybe a presence in the middle east is based on a similar approach? We've been in Korea far longer than 20 years. 20 years, or any number does not bother me as much as not knowing if there is a cogent plan to it all. There may be a reasonable plan, I'm not too confident that there is.

-ERD50

 

[Razor]

'to get the Iraqi Army sufficient enough to defend themselves and get out.' I'm no military or political expert, but that sounds reasonable to me.

As far as our presence in Korea, for example, I really don't know. Is that a good or bad thing? Maybe a presence in the middle east is based on a similar approach? We've been in Korea far longer than 20 years. 20 years, or any number does not bother me as much as not knowing if there is a cogent plan to it all. There may be a reasonable plan, I'm not too confident that there is.

-ERD50

Which Iraqi Army and who do they defend? The difference between Iraq and Korea is that there are three different factions fighting for power. These three groups hate each other and probably never will get along and play nice together.

 

[joesxm3]

Watch this video about a plan to get off oil hile making a profit doing so.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/51


You can download a free PDF copy of the book (study commissioned by the Pentegon) that shows the supporting documentation from this link. You just need to register on the site to download.

http://oilendgame.com

 

[chinaco]

Watch this video about a plan to get off oil hile making a profit doing so.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/51


You can download a free PDF copy of the book (study commissioned by the Pentegon) that shows the supporting documentation from this link. You just need to register on the site to download.

http://oilendgame.com

Excellent. Thanks Joesxm.


Recommend everyone watch it! Seems reasonable to me... give me a big glass of the Kool-aide.

 

[ERD50]

Excellent. Thanks Joesxm.


Recommend everyone watch it! Seems reasonable to me... give me a big glass of the Kool-aide.

Well, I think Lovin's message is good in general, but I do think you need a giant glass of Kool-Aid with it.

Lovin and the Rocky Mountain Institute have been big names in the environmental movement for a long time. I read a fairly in-depth interview with him a few years ago. It all sounded soooo good, but it was really weak on numbers. So I went to his web site, and I couldn't find much in the way of hard numbers there either.

I mean, if he claims he can keep his Colorado offices comfortably heated, and grow banana plants there with almost no outside energy - where are the numbers to say this is cost effective? I couldn't find them. Just look at Nord's solar install - with so many factors in his favor (subsidies, high local electric rates, good location for solar, scrounging used panels, sweat equity, etc), there is still a pretty long payback period.

Lovin makes good points, I just don't think it's as easy as he makes it out to be. And if it was, greedy old capitalists would be making it happen. I mean, that *was* his point about the capitalists saving the whales in the early 1900's. They ran out of customers before they ran out of whales, because petroleum was cheaper. So the greedy capatilists started chasing petroleum rather than chase whales. Did it take a long time for them to figure that out? Not really. So, if more energy efficient processes were truly that easily implemented, and provided so much benefit, I think businesses would be doing more of it. Some are, (Walmart and Google have programs), but I just don't think it is the slam-dunk that Lovin's makes it out to be.

I do 100% agree with this info from the slide:

Four basic market failures
! Oil is priced below its societal cost
! Most customers are very short-sighted
! Most customers have poor information
! Most managers resist disruptive innovations
Policy portfolio must turn these obstacles into
business opportunities and accelerate adoption
of advanced-technology vehicles

The number #1 thing govt could do is stop subsidizing fossil fuel, then start taxing it to help pay for environmental impacts, then get out of the way and let greedy capitalists address the issue with alternate clean sources.

-ERD50

 

[Independent]

Well, I think Lovin's message is good in general, but I do think you need a giant glass of Kool-Aid with it.

Lovin and the Rocky Mountain Institute have been big names in the environmental movement for a long time. I read a fairly in-depth interview with him a few years ago. It all sounded soooo good, but it was really weak on numbers. So I went to his web site, and I couldn't find much in the way of hard numbers there either.

I mean, if he claims he can keep his Colorado offices comfortably heated, and grow banana plants there with almost no outside energy - where are the numbers to say this is cost effective? I couldn't find them. Just look at Nord's solar install - with so many factors in his favor (subsidies, high local electric rates, good location for solar, scrounging used panels, sweat equity, etc), there is still a pretty long payback period.

Lovin makes good points, I just don't think it's as easy as he makes it out to be. And if it was, greedy old capitalists would be making it happen. I mean, that *was* his point about the capitalists saving the whales in the early 1900's. They ran out of customers before they ran out of whales, because petroleum was cheaper. So the greedy capatilists started chasing petroleum rather than chase whales. Did it take a long time for them to figure that out? Not really. So, if more energy efficient processes were truly that easily implemented, and provided so much benefit, I think businesses would be doing more of it. Some are, (Walmart and Google have programs), but I just don't think it is the slam-dunk that Lovin's makes it out to be.

I do 100% agree with this info from the slide:

The number #1 thing govt could do is stop subsidizing fossil fuel, then start taxing it to help pay for environmental impacts, then get out of the way and let greedy capitalists address the issue with alternate clean sources.

-ERD50

I watched the video (nice web site, I plan to go back and watch others), and was going to respond. Then I got interrupted. While I was away, ERD50 wrote my post for me.

Lovins has been preaching this gospel for a long time. I think the technology and, especially, the price of oil are finally moving enough so his vision may work even if his numbers are off by a factor of 3 or 4.

For example, I don't think that new, lighter materials for cars will be as cheap as Lovins claims. If automakers use these materials, cars will get more expensive. But if oil stays at $100 a barrel, we might buy them anyway.

Like ERD, I've been in favor of eliminating the subsidies on oil (which include the free use of the US military) and letting the profit seekers solve the problem.

Maybe all the gov't really needs to do today is pass a standby tax that will keep the price of traditional crude from dropping below $100 a barrel. If the market is certain the price won't drop below that level, then people can make investments with some degree of confidence.

 

[Brat]

No one has mentioned geothermal for electric power generation. DH and I were in Mexico and learned that they have a geothermal plant that serves part of the US.

It seems to me that geothermal is the ultimate renewable energy source, not dependent on sunlight or wind.