Democrats & Liberals Archives

The point is that we cannot inflate our way out of the energy problem.

McCain (and the other Republicans disputing Obama) did NOT disagree with Obama about properly inflating tires—in fact McCain bolstered the argument, saying “And could I mention that Senator Obama a couple of days ago said that we ought to all inflate our tires, and I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it, but I also don’t think that that’s a way to become energy independent.”

Properly inflating our tires is obviously a good idea, but it’s not a substitute for other good ideas… such as offshore drilling, expanding nuclear power, and increasing our oil refining infrastructure.

The ridicule of Obama arises from his attempt to attack the necessity of offshore drilling with a non-comprehensive energy solution. It’s like offering a health plan that recommends eating an apple a day. Not a bad idea, but not a real solution.

Oh, please, LO. Obama has a comprehensive energy plan. Don’t try to feed us that kind of crap.

AP, what Obama said was “We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.” The implication here is pretty clear—that inflating is somehow a better energy plan than drilling.

Of course he’s going to offer and post on his website something he calls “a comprehensive energy plan.” But just LOOK at that plan. It’s nothing but gimmicks, subterfuge and evasion. It contains absolutely nothing about actually getting and making use of EXISTING sources of energy.

He wants to tap our strategic oil reserve. He has NO plan for how to replenish it. He wants to invest in alternative energy sources—fine, but that’s a scientific problem, not an “energy plan.” It’s like telling a cancer patient today that a miraculous cure might appear someday that could cure him—a nice thought, but it doesn’t solve the problem NOW.

He calls for hybrid cars which can get 150 miles per gallon. Is he going to invent this thing himself?

Increase carbon fuel standards? That is an ENVIRONMENTAL plan—not an energy one.

And he’s going to “creat jobs” with all of these initiatives too! FANTASTIC!!! GREAT PLAN!!! The only thing missing from Obama’s glorious energy plan is any actual energy.

L.O.

Inflating tires - sounds silly. The moment I heard it, I knew that no matter how much sense it would make, how much it would help RIGHT NOW unlike almost every other part of either candidate’s energy plan, the Cons would ridicule it.

Proper tire inflation was never meant to BE an energy plan, for Pete’s sake! But if you listen to your right-wing pundits, it is! It was ONLY meant to be PART of a comprehensive plan, and something that can be done RIGHT NOW.

THAT is the important thing - it’s something that Americans can do RIGHT NOW - not seven years from now which would be the first drop of oil from any new drilling.

Has McCain put forth anything that would help America save money on their gas bills RIGHT NOW? Other than flip-flopping and suddenly agreeing with Obama, that is?

No.

Carter tried to lead the way for America to be less dependent foreign oil…and was ridiculed for it. Sure woulda been nice if the Cons had listened instead of laughed…..

LO
Actually a 150 MPG plug in toyota prius hybrid is already on the market but Toyota isnt making it…

Is the $800 and 50,000 barrels based on every car tire on the road being improperly inflated?

Here in middle-class land, miles away from elitistville, our fathers taught us at a young age the importance of properly maintaining your vehicle. So I guess your personal responsibility angle doesn’t work, but if you think real hard you might figure out why the statement was so ignorant.

Also, I’m sure McCain is working overtime trying to figure out how he can save face after not getting Hilton’s endorsement.

Yes, proper tire inflation WILL help. Lots of things will help in the aggregate. Maybe people should just walk or bike more. Maybe they should have flexible schedules.

McCain wants to look into ALL opportunities. Obama’s worldview is more limited. Evidently he thinks if you explore for oil you cannot also inflate your tires.

I suppose if inflating your tires is the kind of change you can believe in, go for it. I tried to keep my tires properly inflated before Obama told me it was a good idea and some of us want to do that and some other things too.

BTW - We know Obama wants to copy Jimmy Carter’s windfall tax and we see him with those same homely ideas like tire pressure. Is Obama going to give us back the 55MPH speed limit?

AP, it is also a fact that when oil had risen to $35 a barrel a couple years ago, the oil Execs sat before a Congressional Committee and testified to the person, that they did not need federal subsidies to afford to drill for more oil with prices at $35 a barrel.

So, tell me AP, why did Congress authorize billions in subsidies to the oil corporations last year to drill for more oil? Looks to me like Democrats in Congress have hands as black and oily as Republicans on this issue.

wow
Jon Stewart showed most of Obama’s comments that included the inflation statement, and he joked about what would be commented on — and listed all the RELEVANT points that Obama made, but then, sure enough showed the clips from Fox news and all the CNN “pundits” that focused on……
Tire pressure.
and now all you right wing bloggers are doing the same stupid thing
and you make it sound like that was ALL he offered — “inflate your tires”
No, Obama has a comprehensive engergy plan that was NOT written by the Oil companies — unlike the current and future Republican plans.
We cannot inflate our way out, we cannot drill out way out (McCain’s plan) nor Nuke our way out.
(by the way, McCain’s call for 45 new reactors in the next couple of decades — the people involved in the industry have indicated that not only would 45 reactors in that lenght of time be impossible, it would be stupid)
This is one Senator that should take advantage of his inflated Senate Retirement fund.

And shame on all of you for perpetuating this stupid focus on one small statement out of a complete speech — but then — that’s all you know how to work with — the inconsequential.

Good point David - this Congress has been a disappointment for sure. They came in with a lot of promise but the leadership has fallen flat and done little to reign Bush in or to propose real solutions to problems. Granted it’s hard to accomplish anything with the GOP filibustering and W still in the White House - but anyone who voted to give a subsidy to the oil companies should be ashamed of themselves.

As to the solutions for the energy crisis - more drilling isn’t going to solve much long term or short term. It takes about 7 years to build one of those platforms and by that point we had better have a better solution to our energy needs than that. It will produce a drop in the bucket and the oil companies won’t even sell the oil to the US - it will wind up on the world market and most likely go to China or India.

We do need some comprehensive energy plan and considering what McCain has done in his 25 years in Congress (nothing) I’ll throw my lot in with Obama.

tcsned

You know that Obama voted FOR the Bush energy bill with those subsidies. McCain voted AGAINST.

In the 5-7 year term, pretty much nothing will work except the high prices, which have already brought down demand (and lowered emissions BTW.)

If we set that unreasonable criteria, we may as well just forget about it. You have to plan today for the future.

LO, et al.-
The technology to go green exists now, and the technology to go even greener will exist in the next ten years.

The main questions at this point are ones of economics. McCain’s 45 Nuclear power plants are not feasible on the time scale he wants, not if we want them safe (the consequences of an unsafe reactor are unacceptable) With temporary subsidies and tax breaks, we may be able to quickly bring online plenty of renewable power.

And renewable power is a good thing. There isn’t an infinite supply of good Uranium ore, much less of fossil fuels, and both nuclear and fossil fuel methods of generations have serious potential blowback. Solar, wind and, biomass, and ethanol energy have the virtue of the most externalized fuel costs imaginable: the sun powers all, with a 5 billion year supply.

All that’s in the way is a lack of leadership.

This is essentially about learning to live within our means, something that years of oil, gas, and coal supplies have spoiled us about. These hydrocarbons are excellent at storing energy, but at the price of releasing long stored CO2 in the process of releasing that energy.

We need to put aside childish things, a love of ancient fuels that burn, and use our immense technological prowess to mature our infrastructure out of the industrial age.

John,

What an interesting take on Paris Hilton’s ad. I thought it was hysterically funny but why anyone would try to say it means more than it does is beyond me to comprehend. It was a joke nothing more nothing less and to try and interpret all kinds of hidden meaning and to try and figure out what kind of point she was trying to make-are you serious? you have got to be kdding me!!! IT WAS A JOKE!!!

Obama was quite serious in his statement about inflating tires and tuning engines saving more energy than new drilling would produce. Now folks, that’s just plain stupid. His plan to steal enough from private oil companies to give American families $1000 each is as far as one can get from the intentions of our founders.

Government can not regulate our way to energy independence nor can they tax our way out. These two failed prescriptions by liberal politicians have been tried in the past with total failure.

As I understand it, there are two reasons why liberals do not want new drilling for oil. 1. they fear that cheaper oil will reduce the pressure to develop alternatives and 2. they worry about man-made global warming. If #1 is not true, then why subject the American public to the dire consequences of high oil prices in an effort to preserve and hoard a natural resource that will be declining in value as new energy sources are developed?

Does anyone really believe that OPEC and other oil producing and exporting countries are pumping at near capacity because they love their fellow man? In reality, they want to sell their oil at today’s high prices rather than keep it in the ground and see its value decline. World oil giants are being accused of not drilling for oil on land already leased. How does this make business sense? $4 oil is about as good as it gets and I doubt they are not drilling in hopes of $10 oil. What company does not produce more of what is selling well and making them huge profits?

Perhaps Obama should advertise free tire gauges on his website for those who can’t afford one. Of course the gauge will have to come with clear instructions as many of those ordering the gauge can’t even figure out how to use a voting machine.

Reason #2, man-made global warming is a handy excuse for all kinds of thievery for liberal politicians. This nonsense will last another five or ten years and then fade much like global cooling and the hoola-hoop. But in this time frame, libs can do a lot of damage to the world’s economy and our personal freedoms. Energy users will become the new pariah’s much the same as today’s ill-fated tobacco users. First will come the castigation and then the regulations, fees and taxes levied on a legal, but despised proclivity.

We can save a huge amount of oil by subsidizing rail and discouraging long haul trucking. We can retrain truck drivers as border security, rail employees or some other useful occupation in emerging energy technology. The point is, many innovative ways are available to conserve energy while at the same time increasing supply and using government to encourage new energy technology.

As usual, government is the problem and not the answer. The red-tape and legal hurdles involved in building a new refinery or nuclear power plant is enormous, time consuming and costly. Government does not encourage a solution to the problem, but rather places obstacles in the way.

T. Boone is selling shares in his windmill endeavor and no one listening begins to understand the existing obstacles in getting that energy to the end user. What the hell good does it do to produce gigawatts of electricty if it can’t be delivered and requires nearly 100% redundancy with oil and coal backup. Are liberals ready to petition congress with new laws and regulations to make this feasible? Has Obama said one word about helping to make this possible? No! It’s the same problem with our solar farms, how do we distribute the energy produced?

It just words, and more words folks. Pander to the believers and other idiots without a thought to will it work and how do we implement it? While all the legal challenges are being discussed in congress for the next 10 years we can be pumping and using new oil now.

tcsned, your reply sounds eminently reasonable to me. Pretty much the same rationale I have about the choice presented us voters.

“His plan to steal enough from private oil companies to give American families $1000 each is as far as one can get from the intentions of our founders.”

Of which intentions do you speak Jim M?
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Thomas Jefferson, 1812 Source:Liberty Quotes

The private oil companies you speak of are actually multi national corportions that set the energy policy with this administration and have already stolen enough of the taxpayers money through subsidies havent they? Or did the founding fathers intend to subsidize corporations at the expense of the taxpaying people of this country?

John-
Obama’s numbers, as of recent polls are about 5-7 points higher than McCain’s. Virtually all predicted claims of problems he would have with certain demographics turned out to be unsound. Obama’s not in any serious trouble.

And your interpretation of Paris Hilton’s ad is almost as laughable as the ad itself. Unfortunately for you, I get the sense you wanted to be taken seriously. Just so you’re clear on this, the ad starts out targeting McCain as old as dirt, even going so far as to show an image of the Crypt Keeper. If she was wanting to disparage Obama, she would have essentially piled on with McCain, probably saying something like he was worse than her. She made McCain the butt of the jokes instead.

Jim M-

Obama was quite serious in his statement about inflating tires and tuning engines saving more energy than new drilling would produce. Now folks, that’s just plain stupid. His plan to steal enough from private oil companies to give American families $1000 each is as far as one can get from the intentions of our founders.

He gave actual numbers. Such measures have the virtue of saving money and reducing demand NOW. Many organizations and industries have essentially said he’s right.

As for stealing? Nice rhetoric. Look up the definition of theft. Has to be unlawful. If congress taxes oil company profits, it has the authority of the constitution to do so. Perhaps you think its a misinterpretation of the constitution to go in that direction, but that’s your opinion.

And would most Americans consider this undeserved? Virtually every industry and every American is being held hostage by their gasoline prices, and they’re measuring their profits with eleven digits. Was this kind of economic bondage envisioned by the founders? I think not.

There is no simple plan to gain energy independence. But it certainly won’t come from more drilling. It’s naive to think that we’ll get any immediate relief from it. We’ll burn through the new supplies in months and still be dependent on a environmentally harmful fuel that’s in ever more limited supply.

Reason #2, man-made global warming is a handy excuse for all kinds of thievery for liberal politicians. This nonsense will last another five or ten years and then fade much like global cooling and the hoola-hoop. But in this time frame, libs can do a lot of damage to the world’s economy and our personal freedoms. Energy users will become the new pariah’s much the same as today’s ill-fated tobacco users. First will come the castigation and then the regulations, fees and taxes levied on a legal, but despised proclivity.

If you want to play political games with science, expect to get your butt kicked on the facts. First, Global cooling was one hypothesis, and Global warming was another. The climate question, three decades ago, was not all that settled. This, though, is normal. However, such situations do not last forever. There has yet to be a scientific study that conclusively demonstrates the probability of global cooling.

Hell, the evidence doesn’t support it. But you know, they had to consider it first. It wasn’t that everybody ran to one side of the ship and then to the other. This was a gradual filtering of proponents from one side to another, as the evidence mounted.

But plenty of evidence shows a warming trend, shows that the characteristics of this warming (where it warms and by how much) are consistent with CO2 forced warming. They show an undeniable rise in the concentration of it, and the isotope profile is not consistent with a huge natural release of it, but rather a fossil fuel release, which only we’re doing.

In science, you don’t get to challenge explanations for free. You have to demonstrate conclusively that folks are missing something critical, and then, come up with a better explanation, and neither of those demonstrations can be done with any credibility without the evidence, observations, and scholarship to back it up. Personal disbelief and personal dislike is not enough, and every scientist who has successfully challenged the status quo has realized that, and countered the old ideas with the research to justify their radical revisions.

For the time being, the best supported science should direct our policy. It’s time to stop stalling, and start taking some actual action.

Now that we have that out of the way, let me address your alarmism. Right now, we have the capacity and the technology to get our current energy from renewable sources. It might be a tad more expensive to start with, but advances have made it competitive. Energy users won’t become pariahs. They’ll simply be getting their power from other sources.

And that power will be carried like any other power is: by long distance power lines, which, contrary to your alarmism, are a well understood and technologically feasible means of power transmission.

Any other baseless fears you wish to invoke?

Stephen Daugherty says; “Right now, we have the capacity and the technology to get our current energy from renewable sources.” with no cited legitimate sources and then has the audacity to criticize me for not naming my sources for not believing the man-made global warming myth. I tried listing and attaching reports by leading world climatologist in the past and the usual response was to deride the source. If the source isn’t hawking your position the author isn’t accepted. So I no longer cite my sources.

Perhaps I misunderstand Stephen. Are you saying that we could satisfy all our energy needs today with existing technology and delivery systems using only renewable resources? Pardon me, where do I fuel my Lincoln Town car, and to what do I attach my natural gas furnace? Park the oil tankers, close the coal fired electric generation plants and shut down the refineries boys, we have achieved nirvana.

Now here is a real jewel of a statement by Stephen, “As for stealing? Nice rhetoric. Look up the definition of theft. Has to be unlawful. If congress taxes oil company profits, it has the authority of the constitution to do so.”

Wow…that is a revealing statement that sheds lots of light on typical liberal thinking. It sort of resembles the theory that if we make murder legal it won’t be a crime. My friends, some only believe in man’s law and many believe in God’s law. Stephen finds it unobjectionable to rob and steal providing it has the imprimatur of congress.

We hold these truths to be self-evident…stealing, even if done by congress, is wrong and abominable. But then, they have been robbing us for years in their slimey and underhanded ways, why not come right out and do it in the daylight. Right Stephen?

I believe it is everyones responsibility to conserve energy, even doing the things that BHO suggested. But to have the nerve to compare that to new drilling is totaly assinined. And congress going home on vacation and not even attempting to vote on an energy bill is dispicable. I applaud the Republicans for what the are doing in congress. This just shows the american people the ture color of the Democratic party. All Nancy Pelosi is worried about is selling the book she wrote, she don’t care if us poor folk have to scrip every week to get money for fuel and food, she has plenty. We need to get energy independent NOW, and we need to take whatever steps needed for that process , if it takes drilling on the White House lawn SO BE IT. Better yet Al Gore’s back yard.

Jim M and KAP,
Big Oil consists a group of huge multinational corporations. They seek profits. They do not act in the interest of the United States. That has nothing to do with their goals. They do what they do because it is in their self-interest, NOT because it is good for you or me.

Offshore drilling is estimated to have the potential to contribute 200,000 bbl per day by 2030. Currently the US uses 20 million bbl per day. So, offshore drilling leases give Big Oil the option to drill in places most Americans would find objectionable. The concerns are real. Oil spills off Florida or Virginia would have disastrous economic consquences for the coasts. The GOP is merely taking advantage of panic to rake in the Big Oil money donations, in exchange for delivering leases on marginal fields that would otherwise be politically unpalatable.

It sounds good to a gullible, frightened public, but in reality offshore drilling is not much of an answer for cutting down on imported oil. Not even close.

And what the GOP are doing in the House is a joke. If they didn’t want to adjourn, they shouldn’t have voted for it.

phx8
How many oil spills have there been in the Gulf of Mexico? How many oil spills were there when Katrina went through the Gulf? Technology has advanced even in oil drilling and weather it be 200,000 or 200,000,000 every little bit helps. But I do like the Republicans way of doing something then the Democrats way of doing NOTHING!

KAP,
The GOP merely proposes doing more of the same. What needs to happen is a sea change in what we are doing- conservation today, radical changes with means of transportation, development of alternative energies.

There have been many spills in the Gulf. Katrina spread a lot of toxic waste in NO. And McCain cancelled his visit to an oil rig recently just as a huge fuel spill closed the Mississippi.

I don’t understand how Republicans have all of a sudden jumped on the “energy indepedent” bandwagon in the last few months of the Bush Presidency. The rest of us have been talking about this for years, especially after 9/11, that we needed to get off of oil and move to home grown renewables. This will do three things: stop directly funding our enemies, improve our own economy, and improve the environment. Right after 9/11 Bush should have asked for Congress to raise CAFE standards, and put us on a track to get off oil. In one of his state of the union adresses he said that America was addicted to oil, and his solution has been more oil. That doesn’t even make sense.

Republicans had complete control of our government and did nothing on this issue, they didn’t even bother extending the offshore drilling, or opening up ANWR when they had the chance. Now that they see the writing on the wall that they will be out of power for the next generation due to their incompetence, they are trying to secure those areas for future drilling. FUTURE DRILLING. Oil companies are not about to drill these areas and flood the market with oil right away, dropping the prices and their profits for the “good of America”. What dream world do Republicans live in if they seriously think that will happen?

Domestic drilling will not make us energy independent. We peaked domestically in the 70’s just as predicted, and supply will continue to drop as demand rises. There has been no major new oil discoveries in years compared to the discoveries of the past. It’s now time to make the transition off of oil and towards increased efficiency and renewables, and not waste time and money in order to feed our addiction. We need tax breaks for hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. Plug-ins can charge overnight during off-peak hours without impacting the electric grid at all, and hybrids can extend the car mileage by regenerating the electricity lost to braking. These cars can be made now, we just need to give an incentive in the form of a tax break to offset the higher sticker price.

Pops mcgee,

“In one of his state of the union adresses he said that America was addicted to oil, and his solution has been more oil. That doesn’t even make sense.”

Excellent succint summary of the Republican energy plan.

Jim M-
I put forward requirements for what your sources would have to do. You believe its sufficient to raise doubts, but anybody can raise a doubt, even if there’s no substance to raise it over.

People continue to suggest that solar radiation increases might be responsible. But scientists have found stratospheric cooling and strong differentials between warming in the polar regions and those in more tropicial regions. Such warming is not characteristic of increases due to increases in solar brightness. It is characteristic of greenhouse gas forcings.

Still, they use it, so that the media picks it up, so the rank and file pick it up, and use stuff that sounds convincing to stall whatever it is the industries are afraid of from happening.

The trouble is, things can sound convincing, and yet be untrue. That is why the claims of those trying to cast doubt on theories and hypotheses must also be assessed scientifically. You can’t have it both ways. If you claim it’s solar radiation increases that are causing the warming, that it’s things like the Milankovich cycles, your claims must be put to the test as well. Or, if evidence already indicates the falsity of your claim, people have every right to bring that up to refute what you say.

But are you really interested in establishing scientifically what’s going on, or are you seeking to justify a pre-determined set of policies?

I have been quite willing to cite sources to back up specific scientific points. If you’re not willing to do the same, if you’re not willing to offer us evidence to back your controversial statements, then why should we take your disagreement with the science seriously? If it’s the intensity of my arguments, you have only to tap your passion and and your willpower. If it’s the scientific points I make, you have only to do your own research and figure things out. It’s not my fault if your sources get unreliable, peddling outdated or incorrect information.

The Replacement of infrastructure is a concern, but the fact of the matter is, it gets done every day. We update computers, go for newer and better equipment, trade in our old TVs for new ones. You’ll probably replace your car at some point, but if you don’t, somebody else will in your place. The natural gas in your furnace doesn’t have to come out of the ground. You can get methane out of any number of renewable sources.

We’ve moved on from previous infrastructure before. We went from a morass of state highways to an efficient interstate system. We replaced Copper in much of our communications backbone with fiber optics, changed out switches and routers. We are not obligated to merely stick with the energy infrastructure you’re comfortable with. It won’t be nirvana, it’ll be hard work. But that’s what’s required to avoid negative consequences sometimes.

Wow…that is a revealing statement that sheds lots of light on typical liberal thinking. It sort of resembles the theory that if we make murder legal it won’t be a crime. My friends, some only believe in man’s law and many believe in God’s law. Stephen finds it unobjectionable to rob and steal providing it has the imprimatur of congress.

I find taxation, in the Constitution, to be a lawful power of the congress.

Have you any evidence gainsaying this, or are you just flinging loaded words at the audience, which the people feeding you your talking points have focus grouped as particularly effective?

I find authority over interstate commerce, an accurate description of the oil business, to be a power of the Congress within the constitution. Do you have anything but a personal opinion to gainsay that?

Now, you may not like a tax, but the argument that it’s theft in the eyes of God is the least of your arguments, because Jesus took one look at the coin paid to the Romans in taxes at the temple, and said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

If we don’t like how much they’re taxing us, we can argue that the tax is excessive and punish politically those who favor it.

To argue that any taxation is theft is just self-indulgent. There are excessive taxes, but we live in a Democracy, and can do something about getting such laws changed.

Right now, though, we have little voice in the effective energy tax that the oil companies are imposing on us. From our food to our ability to seek and keep jobs, our civilization is paying the price for an increasingly expensive energy source, as well as the corrupt choices of this administration, in how energy is sold and distributed. As much as you fume and vent over the injustices that the government imposes on us, you seem less inclined to complain about even more unaccountable corporations robbing us or cheating us out of that same money.

Me, I think Government can sometimes be a problem, and corporations can sometimes be a problem I don’t have this ideological bent which requires me to think that if one or the other was put in control, the world would be a happy place and we’d all tip toe through the tulips with ukelele music making us all frolic. I don’t think there’s a fire and forget solution to running an equitable economy.

KAP-
It’s not asinine. If we can make a bigger dent in our problem by being more efficient, is that not a legitimate argument?

The energy bill is a joke. So is any idea that we’ll become energy independent now, much less from drilling. The survey work takes time. The drilling takes time, and there are no guarantees on what you’re going to get and what quality you’re going to get out of it.

The trick is, we have plenty of renewable energy coursing through our country all the time. There’s our energy independence. Sunshine, wind, etc, all to ourselves.

The Republican’s way out of addiction is to seek more supply, but there will always be a finite supply of oil and other fossile fuels, and the more we take out, the more we become beholden to whoever has the most of it.

The trick is, we have plenty of renewable energy coursing through our country all the time. There’s our energy independence. Sunshine, wind, etc, all to ourselves.The Republican’s way out of addiction is to seek more supply…

It is NOT a “Republican” idea that we need to seek more supply—it’s a fact.

And no Republicans that I’m aware of have any problem whatsoever with augmenting our energy supplies with wind and solar. The problem is that solar power and wind energy—even if you could depend on the wind to always blow and sun to always shine exactly where you want it to—are not sufficient for meeting our energy needs.

Also, using “renewable” sources on the scale that they’d have to be used to make a real dent in our energy needs would require environmental damage on a massive scale.

For example, we would need to install 4,883 square miles of solar panels to substitute for our use of fossil fuels. This would mean covering an area of the United States larger than the state of Pennsylvania—and then hoping for the sun to shine! With windmills it’s even worse—we’d have to cover up to 20% of the country with windmills. Even a combination of these two methods would be an environmental and logistic nightmare—and for energy sources that simply aren’t predictable and dependable.

The environmental damage of not only covering such large surfaces of the earth with solar panels and windmills is only one part of the problem. There is also the environmental damage and massive expense of MANUFACTURING these solar panels and windmills on a huge scale.

Too many Democrats apparently refuse to even deal with such realities and instead offer unrealistic pie-in-the-sky schemes that won’t work because they can’t. Not really a surprise—utopian dreams that do more harm than good are a pretty intrinsic feature of modern leftism.

It just words, and more words folks. Pander to the believers and other idiots without a thought to will it work and how do we implement it? While all the legal challenges are being discussed in congress for the next 10 years we can be pumping and using new oil now.

There are currently viable alternatives available for implementation on a large scale level. It is possible to supply electricity to every home in American 24/7 with one huge solar thermal plant. This is fact. It can be done. Of course not over night. But like drilling it can ease its way across the country. All that is required is the infrastructure to get it to our homes. Are you telling me that we can put a man on the moon, a working robot on mars etc. But we are not capable of building a transmission grid in the desserts to tie into existing grids. The only obstacle to this beginning is political will. A will that is clouded by fossil fuel influences.

Anything we do at this point is going to take time and will bring no immediate relief from inflated costs. From my standpoint pursuing alternatives has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a responsible and logical direction simply because we can and we should. You are correct in saying that there are many things we can do as individuals and as a nation to conserve energy in the meantime. However I fail to see how putting the emphasis on an expansion of pursuing more of what is ultimately the crux of most of this worlds problems as being responsible when we clearly have better choices.

It is my opinion that republicans are hammering this issue in payment for the financial support of the fossil industry. Quite simply republicans owe them big time. This is a fight to decide which direction is best it is a fight that will ultimately decide which energy source ends up being the big winner. I as you can probably figure out would prefer that cleaner renewable products win out. Simply because in the long run we and the world will be way ahead if we can wean ourselves off a debilitating energy source. If oil wins out alternatives will once again take a back door to oil. Prices will not drop significantly and we can go through this whole process again in a few more years. We have procrastinated too long. It is time to do what is best, not what is easiest.

LO

Your statements are ill informed, totally partisan and lacking credibility. Do the research you will find much that is viable and can be done. That is if we can move beyond oil and find the political will to implement a beginning.

Comment# 258034 was meant to be directed at JimM

Ok, I’m ready to lease the off shore oil to the highest bidder, which will be the Chinese government oil company. We can trade the leases to them for the debt we owe them. The Chinese will get some oil, we will get some oil (they will probably sell most of it to us and save shipping costs by buying Iraqi oil). Our country’s credit rating will go up and the value of our dollar will to.

If refineries haven’t been built, in many years, in the U.S. because of cost prohibitive environmental regulations, one would think that there would be quite a few of them just south the Mexican border if the lack of refineries wasn’t just a red herring. Perhaps the Chinese will build a few there.

Could it be that the great increase in the price of oil is a result of the oil boys seeing the writing on the wall and decided to get thirty years worth of profits in ten?

There are currently viable alternatives available for implementation on a large scale level. It is possible to supply electricity to every home in American 24/7 with one huge solar thermal plant.

That is what we call—in the American vernacular—BULL CRAP. That is, unless by “one huge solar plant” you mean constructing something larger than the state of Pennsylvania.

Yeah, that’s “viable,” all right. Right on!! You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

utopian dreams that do more harm than good are a pretty intrinsic feature of modern leftism.

How hilariously typical!
For how often throughout American history have people on the Right side of the political aisle said the exact same thing to those of us who stand on the Left?

The truth is, the dreams of the Left and our fight to make those dreams a reality are what have always made this country a good, morally upright, and decent place to live.
And naturally, the majority of those struggles, accomplishments and advancements lead by the Left in America have been adamantly opposed by the braying naysayers of the right during the past hundred years.
People on the Left know that the dream, and our ultimate advancement toward environmentally sound energy independence will be a struggle no different than any other fight we have already lead and won before — as those on the right stand by with that perpetual sneer, insisting that our goals are “unrealistic pie-in-the-sky schemes that won’t work because they can’t.”

Yes We Can.
Sure, that may be our presidential candidate’s campaign slogan, but what it also happens to reflect is the mindset of the majority of people who stand on the Left.
In fact, to finish the thought, that should actually read:
Yes we Can. We Always Have Before. Now Just Stand Aside Righties, And We’ll Show You How It’s Done!
:^D

Take a look at the cartoon of a Republican candidate they’ve chosen to hold back American Progress for four more years:
Mr. Dazed and Confused. Good Heavens, is this really the man America wants to lead the country? After the idiotic presidency of George W. Bush? And over someone as intelligent and well spoken as Barack Obama is?

Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I find that really hard to believe.

Here’s another link to a much longer list of liberal accomplishments. Also gives a link to the negative views conservatives held toward that progress.

VV,

I had to laugh at this one…

The Internet

era: 1960’s-present
Not a liberal program per se, but rather a government one, which many equate as the same thing. The internet is a good example of what a government program can do when allowed to work.

It is really an example of how the government taking a hands off approach is a big success, not the other way around. It was after the commercial aspects of the web, along with private inventors, like Cisco and Netscape, started using the fledgling interconnection of computers that gave us what we have today.

And it also is a prime example of where ‘liberals’ get it wrong, by trying to show it as an example of government success.

Oh, and the highway system is another example of the PROPER use of government. Laying a interstate infrastructure supported by user fees. Those using the system are the ones paying for it.

Title II of the Act - entitled the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 - created the Highway Trust Fund as a dedicated source for the Interstate System.

Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, thus satisfying one of President Eisenhower’s primary requirements, namely that the program be self-financing without contributing to the Federal budget deficit.

Rhinehold,

If it weren’t for the government there never would have been an internet. Nobody could have foreseen the impact it would have, and the amount of money to be made from it back in the 60’s. The fact that no private business was successful at creating their own private internet during that timespan proves it. You have to thank the US government working in conjunction with US universities for laying the groundwork for the internet, and the generosity of Sir Tim Berners-Lee for inventing and giving away the world wide web for free.

Applause to pops!!!

Well I just read that oil is down to $116 a barrel, and without drilling, go figure. The $147 high earlier this year is down to $116 without a special session of Congress to pass asinine repub laws to “fix” the problem, go figure. Supply isnt nor has it been the problem yet the repubs and conservatives wanted more supply to fix the problem of this false crisis. I guess we can now say the Dems lead “do nothing Congress” was right by not falling victim to another false disaster and by them doing nothing we have watched the crisis abate somewhat.

There comes a point in time where the braying naysayers, as VV so accurately describes the repub/conservative followers, will have to come to grips with the reality of the situation. Face it guys oil addiction is a disease which needs to be treated. Your devious plan to open offshore drilling and ANWR to the oil companies will not be successful as it is without merit. The W administrations/oil company energy plan is the past not the future. Why is it so hard for you guys to not see the obvious? The time for alternatives has come, if you cant agree with this cant you at least get out of the way so others can move forward. Instead of blocking progress on EV’s and Hybred’s as well as Wind and Solar power now why not invest in an answer to the nuclear waste problem so that nuclear can move forward in the future? But to continue to hinder progress is only assuring that our energy dollars are going to continue to support terrorism around the world and serve to keep us economically enslaved to the multinationals and China.
Perhaps if the repub/conservatives could look at the energy problem as going to war it would be easier to move forward. By that Im saying that most of you supported Rumsfeld and his “we have to go in with what we have” approach to Iraq, yet when Energy is the subject it seems all things have to be perfect before we can move ahead. Im sure we can all look at the vehicle we drive and realize that it is what it is now because in the early 1900’s someone did something and then others followed until the automobile evolved into what it is today.

I find j2t2’s comments above interesting. He applies a simple answer to a complex equation regarding the movement of world oil prices. Without any recognition of how markets move, including the market in world currencies, why traders react as they do, the EU economy in decline and much more, j2t2 simply says; “I guess we can now say the Dems lead “do nothing Congress” was right by not falling victim to another false disaster and by them doing nothing we have watched the crisis abate somewhat.”

If only j2t2 would apply that same logic to MMGW I would agree.

Conservation of oil products around the world has certainly helped on the demand side of the equation. How much more conservation can be accomplished without a complete failure of the world’s financial structure is not known. To date, the U.S. and much of the world is using less oil without the intervention of lawmakers except for a few instances. So, I agree that when the U.S. congress does nothing it is mostly a good thing.

What I fail to understand is why liberals insist that American’s can not walk and chew gum at the same time. Why must our energy policy lean only in one direction? If abundant renewable energy is the “Holy Grail” one must still have a horse (oil) to seek it.

WE can and should both increase the supply of American oil for all the obvious reasons and continue our search for the new energy renewables in supplies sufficient to meet our growing needs.

High world wide energy costs, among other factors, is a leading cause for economic decline nearly everywhere. Do we really want more decline by refusing to use the resources available to us so we can feel good? Why do we continue to hoard and place off-limits a resource that so many are desperately trying to make obsolete?

Lowering demand and increasing supply is the only logical strategy that will keep the world working at new solutions. Can we not lower our energy costs and also continue the quest for renewable sources? Are American’s not intelligent and strong enough to do both?

I still love this drive to “increase domestic supply” i.e. open up more drilling
when that will not
a) increase domestic supply sooner than 7-10 years
b) increase domestic supply at all as most of it will most likely be sold to foreign markets anyway (look at current Alaskan Crude Oil)
c) increase domestic supply by ANY measurable amount even If and when it were to come on line and come into the market.
More smoke screen, but it makes for a nice chant/mantra/soundbite/talking point — what it doesn’t make is — any sense.

If it weren’t for the government there never would have been an internet. Nobody could have foreseen the impact it would have, and the amount of money to be made from it back in the 60’s. The fact that no private business was successful at creating their own private internet during that timespan proves it. You have to thank the US government working in conjunction with US universities for laying the groundwork for the internet, and the generosity of Sir Tim Berners-Lee for inventing and giving away the world wide web for free.

Bull.

First, you say that no one in the 60s could envision the internet as it is today. That is remarkable that books writting during this time describe just that type of situation.

Cyberpunk stories have also been seen as fictional forecasts of the evolution of the Internet. The virtual world of what is now known as the Internet often appears under various names, including “cyberspace,” “the Wired,” “the Metaverse,” and “the Matrix.” In this context it is important to note that the earliest descriptions of a global communications network came long before the World Wide Web entered popular awareness, though not before traditional science-fiction writers such as Arthur C. Clarke and some social commentators such as James Burke began predicting that such networks would eventually form.

Additionally you say that no private enterprise was successful in creating their own version of the Ineternet which is again wrong. Between several competing visions of the goal of connecting computers were AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, THOUSANDS of BBS systems, other connected networks, etc. It was the fact that the groundwork was laid with public funds, avoiding startup costs for private companies that made using the APRANET attractive for businesses. But other companies were working on doing just that type of thing, the notion that they wouldn’t have done so simply because the publicly funded version is what we ended up using is removing yourself from the reality of how the world works.

Finally, while the initial groundwork of the APRANET was laid down by government for research and military/university use, it was private interprise that made it what it is today instead of a rarely used or known entity. Betweek Tim Berbers-Lee, Cisco, Microsoft, Netscape, Compuserve, AOL, private standards organizations and others, the Internet is a great example of why government is NOT needed. There have been no governmental mandates on how the internet is organized or implenting standards, the users of the internet came together and agreed upon them without the rule of force. In fact, it is why so many internet users are libertarian in their views, because they see day to day that people can get together and interact without having every aspect of that interaction mapped out in oppresive laws. Only in the case of violating rights, such as slander, theft and molestation, does the government get involved in the day to day workings of the Internet.

Well, until recently when they have decided to block behavior it doesn’t approve of… And further bolsters my point.

Rhinehold -

Gotta call you on this one. What books were written in the 60’s (or even the 70’s) that envisioned the internet as it is today?

And I just wish they’d poll likely voters on how McCain would do against Paris Hilton. I really, REALLY wish they would….

Come to think of it, with few exceptions (notably her fellow celeb Ah-nold), I can’t think of any Republicans who would to a better job as Commander-in-Chief than she would!

Yes, that comment’s probably beneath the dignity of this forum…but I just HAD to throw it out there….

Glenn Contrarian, keep throwing out the nonsense and we’ll keep reading it for chuckles. I wonder how many liberals in love with John Edwards are faring today as the news of his infidelity is being released on all the broadcasts.

OH, well, one more name to scratch from Barry’s VP list. I look forward to hearing the defense of Edward’s actions by the left-wing liberal talking heads. Frankly, I always thought Edwards was a sleezy ambulance-chasing scum-bag and once again I have been vindicated.

Rhinehold,

Without the government and universities doing the research, and finally agreeing upon a network standard, the internet would not exist today. Many technologies start out as government funded university research because businesses can’t see the potential, or aren’t willing to spend the money on something that might not pay off. It wasn’t until all the hard work of inventing and establishing a standard network protocol was finished, that it was opened up to the private ISP’s you mentioned. Many of those ISP’s had been around for more than a decade prior to the release of the WWW, with very limited success among the computer geek culture, but they all came after most of the networking research had already been done in the previous two decades. And it wasn’t until they opened their networks to the government/university created internet that they started to really take off.

the ‘metaverse’ was described in detail in 1981 with the mention of avatars and virtual reality, which was built upon already written descriptions of worldwide computer systems appearing in science fiction in the years before. Arthur C Clark, for example is one such writer that had discussed it in the 50s and 60s. He was more famous for actually inventing the idea of a satellite system providing communications, a bit ahead of his time to say the least.

Most references to them were as ‘set pieces’ in short stories and novels, I’ll see if I can find a consise list for your perusal, but the fact that virtual reality networks, including the term avatar, was thought of in the last 70s and published in 1981 should help enlighten you about science fiction writers and the vision that they, and others, have about the future.

In fact, a quick listing of things that Science Fiction thought of before they were invented can be seen here:http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2008/06/from-aliens-to-atom-bombs-scie.html

Jim T,
Early in the primaries I supported Edwards. It is disappointing, no doubt. He had an affair, and he lied about it. There’s a good possibility he fathered a child with the other woman. He should not be considered as a VP. No question.

Do you apply the same moral standard to McCain?
When his first wife, a model, had a bad car accident, she was severely injured. McCain cheated on her. He divorced her and married a blonde bimbo heiress.

Who is worse? Edwards, who cheated, lied, and probably fathered a child with his mistress? Or McCain, who cheated, and divorced his crippled wife in her time of need in order to marry a pretty heiress?

Glenn Contarian:

Come to think of it, with few exceptions (notably her fellow celeb Ah-nold), I can’t think of any Republicans who would to a better job as Commander-in-Chief than she would!

Yes, that comment’s probably beneath the dignity of this forum…but I just HAD to throw it out there….

I wouldn’t worry too much about dignity, Glenn. Especially not after seeing McSame’s latest television attack ad.

Aside from the base desperation and blatant dishonesty of the ad, it’s more than a little bit humorous to listen to an old geezer worth 100-300 million, who has been flying around the country in his Liquor Heiress wife’s private jet, who owns eight mansions, and who has been sporting 520.00 limited edition Ferragamo calfskin loafers on the campaign trail, using the word “grand” on Obama and telling us he approved that ad.
Rather than become president, McCain needs his own TV show: Life Styles of the Rich and Hypocritical, yet Transparently Jealous and Mean Spirited.

Btw, here’s the Obama campaign’s response (emphasis mine):

This ad is a lie, and it’s part of the old, tired politics of a party in Washington that has run out of ideas and run out of steam. Even though a host of independent, nonpartisan organizations have said this attack isn’t true, Senator McCain continues to lie about Senator Obama’s plan to give 95% of all families a tax cut of $1,000, and not raise taxes for those making under $250,000 a single dime. The reason so many families are hurting today is because we’ve had eight years of failed Bush policies that Senator McCain wants to continue for another four, and that’s what Barack Obama will change as President.”

PS. Thanks for making your points, Pops Mcgee. I appreciate you doing so since I’m not really interested in having an argument with Rhinehold about the history of the internet.
PPS. Go ahead, Rhinehold. Laugh your head off for all anyone cares. The simple truth is, Republicans (or your own party, the Libertarians) have no list of similar progress or accomplishments achieved that they can point to.

Rhinehold -

The first instance of which I’m aware of anyone describing anything like cyberspace is the one who first coined the term - William Gibson. I’m sure someone probably did think of it - perhaps Von Neumann or any of those who were working on the original ARPANET, but as far as being in popular fiction, I’m not aware of any before the late 70’s.

Yes, Clarke (whom I’ve always admired since he teamed up with Kubrick for 2001: A Space Odyssey) was the first to envision global communications via satellite…but that does not compare to global access to written information via a computer network.

But this is all just splitting hairs (and I do love discussing history) and I hold myself responsible for diverting the discussion away from this particular forum thread. Thanks for the knowledge and the link.

with very limited success among the computer geek culture

Now I know you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Compuserve wasn’t successful among the computer geek culture?

Interesting….

Many technologies start out as government funded university research because businesses can’t see the potential, or aren’t willing to spend the money on something that might not pay off.

That is sometimes the case today, definately. But to say that it wouldn’t have been invented because Government didn’t fund it is ignorant of the reality of how the world works. It takes individuals, these people can be working for the government, working on their own or working for private industry. It happens with our without government funding, contrary to your opinion.

Yes, when the ARPANET removed their restrictions to private businesses in the early 1990s, they jumped on it. But business was developing alternatives long before and they were successful. They could just not compete with the massing funding that WE paid for (by force) so they didn’t have to. But they would have because they obviously had seen the benefit (as did science fiction writers, et al) and WERE developing them. If the internet had stayed private, we would still have a worldwide connection of computers because it was inevitable. The shape and nature of that environment will remain unknown, it could have been better, it could have been worse. But there are a lot of industries that would debate you on your initial statement AND that they needed the government…

VV -

“Rather than become president, McCain needs his own TV show: Life Styles of the Rich and Hypocritical, yet Transparently Jealous and Mean Spirited.”

LOL! (and very true considering what he publicly called his wife)

The simple truth is, Republicans (or your own party, the Libertarians) have no list of similar progress or accomplishments achieved that they can point to.

yeah, they (republicans) only have things like ending slavery, civil rights legislation, ending the cold war, etc…

And us old Libertarians, just sitting around defending human rights and liberty and being one of the largest block of swing voters in every election… Well, we are only a generation old, if you ignore the fact that the Democratic Party, pre the progresive takeover in the 1930s (after the attack on the supreme court got them to destroy the Constitution), were libertarians themselves…

Sure, believe what you want, if it makes you feel better about yourself somehow.

Do we REALLY care of Edwards had an affair? Sure, it’s a crappy thing to do, but he’s also a human being living through a very stressful situation who proved to everyone that no one is perfect. Seems to me like we should be giving him a bit of a break…

But, the Democrats will fall in line and block him from being at the convention, partisanship is more important than principle I suppose.

Is a person’s private life private or not? Please make up your minds. We already know the Republicans are hypocritical wags who like to stick their noses into everyone’s else business and judge them unfairly, I had thought that the Democrats were somehow different. I keep getting reminded that they aren’t often enough though, I suppose.

phx8:

Early in the primaries I supported Edwards.

Me too. Damn it.

It is disappointing, no doubt.

Yes, Disappointing, and Sad As Hell. I feel absolutely terrible for Elizabeth Edwards.
Maybe this is why Obama has talked about using Elizabeth to work with him on healthcare, and conspicuously left out mentioning her husband as someone who would play a role in his administration?

He had an affair, and he lied about it.

Idiot. And then he runs for the presidency, knowingly jeopardizing our chance that a Democrat can win in November. This fact pisses me off no end.

He should not be considered as a VP. No question.

Do you apply the same moral standard to McCain?

Of course the GOP hasn’t and won’t apply the same standards to members of their own party. They never have, and they obviously have no conscience about that fact.

Rhinehold,

“with very limited success among the computer geek culture only.”

Outside of computer geeks in the 80’s and early 90’s most people had never heard of compuserve or AOL.

Maybe some business could have come along at some point and created a network comparable to the internet in its success, but it would have required alot of foresight, and the willingness to spend billions of dollars on something there wasn’t really a large demand for.

Let’s say the internet was never opened to the public. Would we have a network similar to it in its success, and at the same level of usage today, or would we be 10 years, maybe 20 years behind where we are now without the government and universities getting things started?

Rhinehold,

“with very limited success among the computer geek culture only.”

Outside of computer geeks in the 80’s and early 90’s most people had never heard of compuserve or AOL.

Maybe some business could have come along at some point and created a network comparable to the internet in its success, but it would have required alot of foresight, and the willingness to spend billions of dollars on something there wasn’t really a large demand for.

Let’s say the internet was never opened to the public. Would we have a network similar to it in its success, and at the same level of usage today, or would we be 10 years, maybe 20 years behind where we are now without the government and universities getting things started?

BTW, I appear to have forgotten to include the name of the book in 1981 that predated Gibson on a virtual reality (contrary to popular opinion, Gibson did not describe the internet, he described an advanced version that had already been discussed previously that created a virtual visual world inside). The name of the book was True Names.

Heck, Philip K Dick references large video and computer networks (albeit a little rougly) in the mid 70s, used mostly for police spying, but the general idea is the same.

but it would have required alot of foresight, and the willingness to spend billions of dollars on something there wasn’t really a large demand for.

No, even if I were to agree with your premise the Government didn’t have that foresight either. It was a single person having a single simple idea and putting it out there for people to notice before it was a success. Had HTML and the Mosaic browser not been developed and used there was NO way that a large clunky network like the Internet would have had large general appeal. In fact, Compuserve was a much more successful network system than the ARPANET until the web browser was developed and pages started appearing on the internet. The internet was seen as a geek playground, real business was done on Compuserve.

Let’s say the internet was never opened to the public. Would we have a network similar to it in its success, and at the same level of usage today, or would we be 10 years, maybe 20 years behind where we are now without the government and universities getting things started?

I don’t think it was opening it to the public itself that made it popular but what private enterprise DID with it when it was available that made it popular. So yeah, it would still have happened (and was happening) once the right applications were developed for whatever network was created. Sooner, later, better, worse, those are things we can’t say for sure, only speculate. But we can say for sure that it would have been popular…

Apparently you don’t remember a company called AOL that had lots of general users using email, long before the Internet was available to them?

Then why aren’t we on the compuserve network right now instead of the world wide web? It was a researcher (Tim Berners-Lee) working at a European government funded research center (CERN) who developed html and the world wide web and gave it away for free that lead to the internet as we know it. Mosaic was built upon his ideas, and those guys went on to form Netscape, and the bull rush of the tech bubble began. Where would we be if Time Berners-Lee wasn’t able to spend time doing the government funded research for CERN throughout the 80’s? Would the internet be where it is today, or would it still be a bunch of small networks for computer geeks?

Jim M -

At least Edwards’ illicit affair (and every Dem illicit affair I can think of since Barney Frank back in the 90’s) was with the OPPOSITE gender…unlike those of several Republicans in recent years. And how many scandals have we seen among the holier-than-thou televangelists who rail against those evil, evil Democrats? In fact, there’s an investigation into fraud going on right now against several televangelists including Benny Hinn, who I understand is the one that started the “Hillary’s the antichrist” thing (and inadvertently started the Conservative tradition of attacking the candidate’s wife (which they continue to do with Michelle Obama)).

And if you’ll think about it, other than offending someone’s high-and-mighty sensibilities, do affairs really mean someone is unable to govern? If so, then we’ve had a LOT of presidents who were unable to govern….

Glenn & VV,
It’s up to John & Elizabeth Edwards to work out their marriage between themselves. But like you said, VV, the condemnable thing is that Edwards concealed this while running for president. If it had come out in late November, it would have handed the presidency to McCain.

I don’t like to even imagine how bad off the country would be if McCain were handed the election. Another four years like the eight we’ve just experienced? Shudder.

Correction: if it had come out in late October…

LO-
It’s funny how your argument comes to the same conclusion: we can’t rely on renewables.

Two points on photovoltaics: one, they’re constantly improving. The technology that’s used to engineer them is directly related to the technology we make our microchips with, and improvements in engineering for one have yielded improvements in the other. There will be new photovoltaics that make use of infra-red radiation as well pretty soon, and that will yield even more power.

Two, neither technology has to be all in one place. You can distribute them thousands, if not millions of rooftops that are otherwise just absorbing solar radiation and having winds pass by passively. Distributed generation will help bring down costs for consumers.

The figure I’ve heard regarding surface area necessary to replace the fossil fuels is one tenth of one percent. That’s a small sacrifice.

As for manufacturing the solar panels and windmills? Solar panels tend to last some time. While traditional generators have tons of moving parts, Solar panels just sit there and work by absorption. And once they start working, you really don’t have to pay too much for them, while regular generators constantly eat up literal trainloads of coal, which as a consequence will grow rarer and more expensive.

On the subject of windmills, as I understand it, they’re building larger windmills that have more power generating capability. There are ideas on the table for raising them even further, where winds are both higher and more constant.

And have you considered fuel cells for the home? There are tons of ideas out there, and just a casual perusal of today’s technology magazines yield much in the way of possiblities.

But while we’re talking pie-in-the-sky, let me be plain with you: this will not be painless, nor effortless in every way. No such transition ever is. The longer we wait, though, to make this inevitable transition, the more expensive, difficult, and painful it will become, and the higher the chance that we’ll trip up and experience an economic collapse on its account. Already, Americans are feeling the pain from our failure to increase fuel efficiency during the last decade or two. I’ve read about the technology, and trust me when I say, we’ve had the technology to do better than we have been doing for quite some time now.

The real problem is getting the cost of manufacture down, and that takes a certain degree of production. As the market picks up on it, though, it gets cheaper. This has already happened with solar panels. If you look on the street, you’re likely to see a solar panel on streetlights and other electricity dependent remote devices.

jlw-
The oil companies used to have more oil refineries going, but then they consolidated under the Bush administration, and they shut down plants. Aren’t you glad Bush was so enthusiastic about giving them what they wanted?

Rhinehold-
It’s one thing to write about such things, but to get them working as a business model, much less a reality, is a much more difficult thing. Government has its role to play.

One part of that role is making sure that intellectual property is properly regulated. It can serve to help enforce patents, but it can also discourage frivolous patents, and help arrange the framework for IP sharing, so that innovation doesn’t grind to a halt in either a free for all or a gridlocked patent grab.

Another part of that role is generating knowledge for public consumption by funding research. Many important innovations have first been funded by the government. No doubt, private innovation is a cornerstone of science and research in business, but if all the good innovations are private, it bogs down the rate of diffusion of knowledge, as companies jealously guard their advances.

And yet another part is doing research and making expeditions that private enterprise just doesn’t have the money or the guaranteed profit to attempt. It’s a good reason to lament the failure of this nation to step beyond low Earth orbit in manned spaceflight. We’ve found many uses for rare elements here on earth, but of course, being rare, they are both expensive and hard to find. This mainly happens because most of the heavy elements sunk to the core. However, among some asteroids, we can easily find more of some element than we have ever mined on earth.

What we’re looking for here is a paradigm shift. Some may have seen it coming, but nobody will have fully understood it before it comes. It won’t always be easy, but it may represent, as time goes on, our only real alternative for continuing a decent way of life, sometimes even our species’ survival.

phx8 -

You and VV are absolutely right. Edwards very nearly did screw the country by hiding his illicit affair while running for president.

I was reading too quickly and missed that in your posts as I began to type my last post here.

However much I may feel that what goes on with a family behind closed doors is nobody’s business, running for president while hiding an illicit affair when that affair could sink his whole party’s chances is blatantly irresponsible and removes him from any further consideration for POTUS or VP at any time now or in the future.

“And if you’ll think about it, other than offending someone’s high-and-mighty sensibilities, do affairs really mean someone is unable to govern? If so, then we’ve had a LOT of presidents who were unable to govern….”
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 8, 2008 05:11 PM

Glenn, I actually agree with you on this. Illicit sexual affairs don’t mean someone is unable to govern. Lying about it says much more. I’ll take a horney President any day over one who lies.

As much as I think Edwards was unfit to be president it certainly isn’t because he had an affair that he at least conducted away from his home and family. Clinton couldn’t even keeps his pecker off the payrole at home. Both lied about it and Edwards has had his political career ended while for Clinton it was a resume enhancer. Go figure.

Jim M -

You called Clinton’s affair a ‘resume enhancer’?

Hm. He was dragged through impeachment proceedings, castigated in the press, howled about all over the airwaves by the Con attack pack (not to mention what it did to his marriage)…and you call it a resume enhancer.

See what we did about a president who had an affair.

BY THAT YARDSTICK, then, what should we do with a president who quite literally lied us into an aggressive war against international law and the Geneva Convention, cost us over 4,000 American lives, and tens of thousands (by the most conservative estimates) of innocent Iraqi lives…not to mention our worldwide loss of prestige and influence and a further loss of hundreds of billions of dollars spent there instead of here?

Simple - we’ll do absolutely nothing. Why? Because the conservatives say, “It’s all done and over with, let it go already!”

Jim M.-
The trouble with so gleefully talking about Edwards’ infidelities is that your candidate is married to the woman that McCain cheated on his disabled wife with. I’d say those who try to set themselves up as superior parties of morality are typically setting themselves up to be humbled.

Glenn,

Clinton didn’t get it because he had an affair or that he lied about it. Well, yeah he did anger a lot of people when he wagged his finger and then we found out he was lying through his teeth. But the real issue was his perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Denying someone a fair trial because you lie under oath is a pretty despicible thing, especially when it was a law you signed into effect…

LO

My claims are not fictitious, I tempted to post links backing my claims this morning. There was some sort of problem so they did not get posted. You are mixing up photovoltaic solar panels with non photovoltaic solar thermal heating plants. The key difference is the word thermal. These plants use freznel mirrors to concentrate heat from the sun on water moving through pipelines to storage tanks. From these storage tanks the steam is led to above ground turbine towers. Such plants are currently in use in the southwest where there are only a few cloudy days a year. Underground storage tanks contain enough steam to power the plants overnight. It has been determined that one plant 72 miles on a side would be capable of providing electricity to every home in the US 24/7 at a rate commensurate with today rates. It is possible that the cost could be a bit more initially but in the long run they are estimated to be cheaper than current methods. There are no fossil fuels used in this process. The only obstacle at the moment is congress and the influence of big oil.

I am too lazy at the moment to re-post the links. If you are truly interested just google “solar thermal power”. NPR also has quite an array of interesting topics on the matter.

Stephen,

I agree with much of what you said about government protecting IP and blocking monopolies. Can’t have a free market when fraud, theft and monopolistic practices are in place. I am even not too concerned about funding the development of new technologies, I only have a problem with how those funds are collected. Collecting on income is immoral IMO, placing a usery fee or tax on a good or service makes more sense to me. I just have a problem with foricbly taking money from someone to give it to someone else, seems wrong to me.

But we have to be careful and this is why I think we have gone too far. If the government starts getting their hands into too many things, they push private enterprise out of the way because they don’t have to earn a profit and have unlimited wealth raising at their hands. Government should be providing protection and oversight to for profit and non for profit organizations, encouraging the type of discoveries we see all of the time from private industry. Think the telephone, microchip, transistors, organic photovoltaics (www.konarka.com), etc…

Here is Obama’s latest TV ad that came out just today.
Contrast this ad with the link I put up earlier, which was the TV ad that McCain came out with today.
There is simply no contest here, folks.
Obama is talking about substantive issues (in this case alternative energy, and the new jobs that will be created) and his ideas and vision for America. McCain is pushing fear and prejudice of Obama, and nothing else — in three consecutive television ads, and counting. I guess because he’s got nothing to say on any issue of any real importance?

The talking heads on TV keep implying that Obama maybe acting too much like he’s already our president, and is therefore “too confident, too arrogant”, but looking at the enormous differences between these ads only points up the fact that putting confidence in Obama’s ability to lead this nation is entirely justified. While McCain’s trashy attacks are clearly geared to the nutjob End Timers, and some of those Sturgis Biker dudes, and the trailer park crowd in general: truly a series of campaign ads as completely empty of substance as any we are ever likely to see.

Of course, it’s only August, but for now, it looks like Swiftboating and character assassination is the only ammo Rove and Company have got.

I wonder if that will actually work in 2008 the way it worked back in 2004…

Good replies Stephen, and Glenn.

Rick, I’ve been reading a lot on the subject of photovoltaics lately — very exciting, and rapidly developing. The technology you’re describing here is indeed already capable of furnishing a large percentage of our energy needs.
I also agree that all we’re really lacking is the kind of leadership that doesn’t put Big Oil and their yearly record-breaking profits before the needs of American citizens.

The Obama ad looks like the first 30 seconds of one of those videos a huge multi-national corporation would produce to show at a shareholder’s meeting. Or one of those Archer Daniels Midland ads before the Lehrer Report on PBS. If you’ve ever seen such a video, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

It’s not badly produced (it’s actually pretty slick) but it’s incredibly bland.

On substance, it’s sort of silly. Hands that do one thing can also do something else? I suppose that’s true, but it’s not really the government’s or Obama’s job to decide what we do with our hands. The things discussed in that ad are the business of private industry, not the government. We don’t live in the Soviet Union where the central government comes up with five-year plans and decides what direction industry should be taking. I’d add this one to the script: “Hands that go into American’s pockets are hands that need to be slapped! Hands off America, Barack Obama!”

VV,

So, why no outrage for the profits that the movie industry is making now? They are a lot higher percentage than teh oil companies are making and I think energy is more important than entertainment, don’t you think?

Intereting I haven’t heard Obama decry these profits and call for a windfall tax for them…

And if the economy is really that bad, how are they making so much discretionary funds? The rich seeing a lot of movies over and over again?

Rhinehold-
On the first points, the trouble is, many have conflated “free market” with “unregulated market”. With such sensibilities, even the slightest of government constraints can be made into an interference with the free market system.

These have been the justification for repealing and rolling back laws that once prevented things like Enron, this Mortgage Crisis, and other debacles from occuring. It gets to where even if the industries prove entirely incompetent at policing themselves, we’re supposed to sit back and watch these things happen.

The truth is, not every value that matters in an economy is a financial one. Not every important economic phenomena can be dealt with in strictly financial terms. There are real world priorities that we should and sometimes must face that are not always favorable to participants of the free market or even the market itself.

Market oriented philosophies over-emphasize both the reality of the markets and their value for decision making. The market doesn’t deliver up a fair value for anything, just a value. The advantage of a market system is the speed with which that value is arrived at. That speed, though, relies on people properly understanding the problem. If they don’t, then you will see “corrections” all over the place.

Individual judgment goes further than any faith in the market. In fact, “market forces”, when they do work, are merely a bunch of people imitating somebody else’s good ideas if they can. However, if the industry as a whole is resistant to certain changes, even despite the necessity of those changes, how does the market compensate for that? Sometimes, to put a bad practice to an end, a big damn foot has to be put down. Americans should have the right to do that, and not merely wait for what might be an unwilling market to do what’s necessary.

Rhinehold-
Nobody forces you to buy that DVD go see that movie, go download that album on I-Tunes. The video game you buy of your own free will.

Nobody who owns a car, though, can avoid having to pay for gas. Huge profits aren’t the problem. The problem is, those profits are undermining people’s economic ability to survive. They’re coming at the expense of people being able to get to work, go out and buy things.

Compared to other industries, the oil industry actually works on a very small profit margin.

Their large profits are only the result of high demand for oil in the global market—which is largely the result of developing economies requiring huge amounts of oil which they didn’t previously. All of the many, many, Congressional investigations have found this to be exactly the case… despite the din of accusations about supposed price gouging by politicians who are either ignorant of the basic economics behind oil or who grandstanding for their equally ignorant constituents.

A 7.4% profit margin is actually very small. Very few of us work—or would work—in industries with smaller profit margins than that if the sheer volume of sales were not as high as they are for oil.

Oil companies are making a greater profit than they used to for exactly the same reason Coca-Cola would make huge profits if there was a sudden and insatiable worldwide appetite for Coke. And Coke’s profit margin, incidentally, is 21.08%. Nearly three times greater than any oil company’s.

Also, as a further illustration, the Microsoft corporation works on a 26% profit margin.

Aren’t computer operating systems and software just as necessary to the modern world and American economy as oil?

Seems so, but for some reason, we hear absolutely nothing about Bill Gate’s “obscene profits” and the need for “windfall taxes” to punish Microsoft and other technology companies for profiting as a result of filling consumer needs.

LO,
MS faces constant lawsuits intended to break up their monopoly. If you not hearing anything about MS, you’re not paying attention.

The great difference between MS and the multinationals of Big Oil is that Big Oil involves land. It involves drilling for the natural resource where ever it is found, and shipping the oil from where it it found, to the market where it will be used.

Many countries do not want their oil exploited by foreign multinationals, or consumed in foreign lands. That means the military needs to force the issue…

By the way, good comment on the most recent Obama add, and a possible counter add for McCain. Obama is trying to keep his hands clean with his advertisements. It’s admirable. But will it work? Can a candidate win the presidency by taking the high road & addressing issues, and more or less ignoring the negative advertisements produced by McCain?

I think McCain’s adds are ham fisted and over the top, and assume people are stupid. His add aired during the Olympics is a real downer. It just comes across as mean and sneering and not very believable. But, what the hey, fooling the American public… never mind.

I see that some conservatives on this forum thread are busy taking up for those poor, disadvantaged oil conglomerates.

Sure wish they’d show the same compassion for the dead and wounded and all the other innocent victims of this illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq that we’re continuing to wage.

“Compared to other industries, the oil industry actually works on a very small profit margin.”

Compared to other industries, regardless of their profit margin, the oil industry is actually subsidized by the federal government.

Rocky

LO-
If you do the math from your percentage, the quarterly earnings of ExxonMobil come to about 148 billion. multiply that by four, and you get a rough estimate of yearly earnings of about 600 billion dollars. Which is to say, ExxonMobil is taking almost two thirds of a trillion dollars out of the world’s economy, the bulk of which is likely coming from our pockets.

There will come a point not long from now where such expenditure becomes more necessary than it is cheap. We’re already on the edge of that happening. As it is, the amount of money people are forced to use to fill up the gas tank merely for necessary travel is going higher and higher. Screw gas tax holidays. The real gas tax is all we have to pay to fill up a tank.

There is no economic happy ending to the story of our dependence on oil, and we’re not going to break that dependence by just getting more enthusiastic about getting oil from our own shores, which won’t gain us much supply in a short enough time anyways.

There’s no reason for optimism with oil in the long term, even if oil costs turn out to be a partly a ghost in the machine of the speculation markets. Whatever supply we have left is limited, and the only thing making some exploration more economical is that oil has become expensive enough to justify it. But that can’t last forever. Sooner or later, people will say “screw it.” Or they’ll try. If they can only try, what then? Do our cars become vehicles just for special occasions? Does America’s freedom of transportation become a thing of the past? Do our communities and economic units collapse to suit the new average travelling distances.

If anything, the call to conservation is about preserving our way of life as much as possible against the inevitable rising costs of oil and other fossil fuels. We can pretend like the reckoning hasn’t already started, but the fact is, we’re already a little bit late. If the government had led on this, trouble and cost could have been saved.

I am curious about the logic of checking tire pressure as a replacement for oil exploration. Does this assume that all tires in America are low? Does your oil change facility check yours? Isn’t a tire that you have to constantly check the pressure… defective?

Rhinehold:
1984 by Orson Wells had two way communication through a monitor screen. Big brother had monitors all over the place.

Carbon in hydrocarbon fuels originated in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide at one time. Vicious polar bears displaced the gentle mastodon in the arctic. Elephants don’t eat seals….Let’s make the world a rain forest!

VV

Thanks for acknowledging my response on the solar thermal possibilities. It is rare that any on the conservative side ever respond to the reality when it is presented as argument for alternatives over oil. I guess the revelation leaves no room for argument. In all honesty I sometimes find myself dumbfounded in wonderment as to why we as a nation of innovators would rather argue over practical solutions than implement them. Especially when they are just sitting there in the open waiting to be taken advantage of. As I understand it the main obstacle is infrastructure to move it around the country. No one can convince me that we are not capable of building that infrastructure. It is procrastination by way of wealthy influence that has not allowed us to proceed. I can not imagine a better time to begin the process.

Kruser

You are acting incredibly naive. No one has stated that checking tire pressure will replace drilling or the need for alternatives. It is merely one of the little things that if done regularly and on a large scale will have a big impact on the amount of fuel we as a nation burn on a daily basis.

It is something that would be effective immediately. The idea has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It is fact that exists in reality and is a step that responsible people who are concerned about saving a few bucks can do on their own. It is something that I and I am sure many others have done on their own for years. Not only does it save fuel but it makes your tires wear longer. I think for all you blowhards who are attempting to turn this simple statement into an inflammatory negative, perhaps a bit of common sense is in order.

I know that oil and cars are sacred subjects among Americans, but it is kinda silly to blame oil companies for the prices when most of the cost comes from crude, which most of them no longer own.

It is also silly the way people pretend to be victims when the prices rise. Drive less. That works to save money.

It would be better if people walked more anyway. So many fat people. Maybe we can make a law against that.

phx8

But, what the hey, fooling the American public… never mind.

Fooling the American public has become a favorite past time of our politicians. They bank on gull abilities. Nobody uses the gullible tool better than republicans. When you have nothing but failed policy to back up an agenda, the creation of confusion among the gullible is a viable campaign tactic. After all a misinformed supporter is better than an informed non supporter at the polling booth.

RickIL

There are two types of power plants, base load and peak power. The base load keep the grid steady by producing a constant determined amount, night and day. Peak plants are fired up for peak load times such as hot afternoons etc.
Solar and wind are not viable because there is little application without vast amounts of storage for calm, cloudy days and also nights. Another problem is transmission to the heavily populated areas. Hot windy areas generally have little for population density.
Nuclear power and coal operate the base load twenty four seven, near consumers, with little problem. It isn’t a matter of price per kilowatt but keeping power readily availiable for consumers.
Thermal solar may be more effective and cheaper than other alternatives but the major foundational problems are glossed over as being slight.

Kruser-
I’m sure they have some kind of statistic they’re going by, maybe a survey answer or something. But the point is, there are ways to increase supply that we can employ right now, and see the benefits of right now. And if you’re not using gas, you’re not having to pay for it.

You treat climate change as if it’s some big party. I guess that’s what you get for listening to people who have a vested interest in confusing people about fossil fuels so they don’t shift to other energy sources.

Truth is, we don’t know what kind of world will result, but it won’t be the one our civilizations and even ourselves were adapted to for all these years.

But even if that never happened, there would be yet another adaptation that fossil fuels will require in order to rely on them continually, and that would be the adaptation to its rising cost and dwindling supply.

We have the chance to kill two birds with one stone: switch to energy choices that are sustainable in the long run, and avoid what problematic side effects of using fossil fuel we would be faced with, continuing that dependence on oil.

Jack-
Drive less. Great suggestion as long as you have that option.

Why are we having to continually adjust our lives to this industry? Isn’t it time the energy companies adjusted to us? That our society quit kidding itself and start considering energy policy like adults?

The decay of societies often begin with the reliance on easy but unsustainable practices. Efforts meant to promote survival and growth do not necessarily reach that goal. The Romans, trying to grow as much grain as possible, silted up their harbors with the dirt from deforestation. The Mesopotamians ruined much of their growing lands unwittingly, when their irrigation practices, through evaporation. left salts in the soil.

We, unlike many societies in history, have the capability to look at what we’re doing and catch mistakes others might not have been able to. There are societies that have learned to live stably in environments, like the Japanese with their forests and the Icelanders with their farming practices, even after they screwed things up the first time around.

I would agree that we need to be more efficient about how we move things and from where. At the same time, though, we need to be more efficient about what we move it with. We need to be compounding one efficiency on another. But that can’t be done by market forces alone, even assisted by taxation.

“1984 by Orson Wells” LOL, thanks for the laugh.

RickIL, the tire pressure thing assumes that a large percentage of drivers are kinda dumb, but maybe they are. I always bought oversize tires, and overinflated them when carrying extra weight. I guess a lot of people don’t understand something that basic.

“So many fat people. Maybe we can make a law against that.” ITA, besides anything else, they occupy too much space.

On the Romans and grain, they mostly just got it from Egpyt. Almost everything that came to Rome had to go through the port of Puteoli, in the bay of Naples, and was transshipped from there on smaller vessels, or overland on the Appian Way, creating an extra expense to keep the capitol where Jupiter wanted it to be. Later Constantine had a better idea, but it required changing their religion a little.