Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Parking Lot (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=23137)

SmootSmack 04-07-2008 11:18 PM

Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Continuing our series of discussing the issues this election year and trying to be smarter than just calling candidates "phony hypocrites" this thread's focus is on Energy.

Below are some highlights of each candidate's stance on energy. Vote and discuss

[B]Candidate #1[/B]

-Cap and trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.

-Reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 through measures including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

- A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by removing $50 billion in tax subsidies from the gas an oil industry, to fund investments in alternative energy

- Renewable energy sources generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025; 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030.

- An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards

- A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements

- E-8 forum modeled on G-8

[B]Candidate #2[/B]

- Market-based, cap and trade system to achieve appropriate limits on greenhouse gas emissions as efficiently and effectively as possible.

- Cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent off 2004 levels (I don’t know what the 1990 level is) by 2050.

- Supports the construction of new nuclear power plants, and create economic incentives for communities that host nuclear waste repositories.

- Supports research and development of new energy technologies, including coal gasification and carbon capture

- Supports development of plug-in and battery-powered electric, hybrid fuel-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

- Supports the use of alternative fuels, like ethanol from various crop sources, and biodiesel from wastes. Does not support direct subsidies, but supports government spending on research and development, pilot projects and other initiatives to spur development of products that then can compete in the free market.

[B]Candidate #3[/B]

- Cap and trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

- Some revenue generated will be used to support the development of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements, and help workers affected by the transition

- Develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

- Invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy; accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.

- Double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

- Invest $10 billion per year into Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund, fund will partner with existing investment funds to commercialize promising technologies

- Require that 25 percent of electricity is through renewable sources (solar, wind) by 2025

- Create competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.

saden1 04-07-2008 11:46 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
LOL, off the top of my head I know who candidate 1, 2 and 3 are. I like candidate 1 because their plan is more aggressive (relatively). I also like the fact that candidate 2 wants to commit 150 billion for 10 years.

What I really don't see in any of these plans is the creation of DARPA or NASA like agencies tasked with making us energy independent which is what we really need if we are serious.

SmootSmack 04-07-2008 11:50 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[QUOTE=saden1;438209]LOL, off the top of my head I know who candidate 1, 2 and 3 are. I like candidate 1 because their plan is more aggressive (relatively). I also like the fact that candidate 2 wants to commit $150 for 10 years.

What I really don't see in any of these plans is the creation of DARPA or NASA like agencies tasked with making us energy independent which is what we really need if we are serious.[/QUOTE]

Candidate #1 advocates the creation of a DARPA like agency

SmootSmack 04-08-2008 10:37 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
I sort of thought this thread might generate some discussion. A bit surprised it hasn't really to this point.

Maybe I needed to give it a more provocative title

FRPLG 04-08-2008 10:41 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
We've had like nine posts today. Slowest day I can remember in a long time.

MTK 04-08-2008 10:42 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=SmootSmack;438252][B]I sort of thought this thread might generate some discussion. A bit surprised it hasn't really to this point[/B].

Maybe I needed to give it a more provocative title[/quote]

It requires thinking which goes against the grain of the typical read and (over)react message board mentality.

12thMan 04-08-2008 10:50 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
The problem is, you didn't attach a name beside each candidate's name so people can bash them.

12thMan 04-08-2008 10:56 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Honestely, unless you're familiar with Energy policy, in fine detail, you really can't argue much with either of the three plans.

The key, I think, is which candidate can gather a working coalition to push these initiatives through and produce tangible results. My bet is, whomever is the Dem. nominee will bring on Al Gore and he'll play a significant role in helping shape some of the fine details of this policy. Also, you would have to figure since there's bad blood between Bill Richardson and the Clintons now, I'm not sure how willing he is to work with them on engergy related issues. Just my two cents.

dmek25 04-08-2008 11:36 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=12thMan;438260]The problem is, you didn't attach a name beside each candidate's name so people can bash them.[/quote]
good point. when i first started reading, i thought it would be simple to figure out who is who. right now im not so sure. i like #1, taking the oil companies tax breaks, and turning them into something useful. but, if whomever wins can implement anything close to all 3 of these plans, it will be tons better then the direction the United States is headed right now

12thMan 04-08-2008 12:17 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
The interesting thing with policy is that you can't create it in a vacuum. You can splash all of these "selling points" on your web site all day long, but there are a lot of moving parts which affect how well you're able to immplement something more meaningful.

For instance, candidate #3, plans to invest $200 Bil in clean energy. Now that sounds noble. Two hundred billion dollars! But a portion of those funds will hopefully be generated in revenue from the private sector. That's going to require a lot of working together, negotiating, and compromising. Essentially, he or she will be taking incentives from big Oil and coal companies to pull this off.

saden1 04-08-2008 12:27 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.

12thMan 04-08-2008 12:29 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=saden1;438294]Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.[/quote]


Now, now, now..Saden. We can't go bashing the candidates around here:)

Actually, candidate 1 and 3 are pretty similiar.

Schneed10 04-08-2008 12:30 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=saden1;438294]Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.[/quote]

Because it doesn't involve spending massive amounts of tax dollars or placing unfair financial burdens on the energy industry (25% of all power from renewable sources???).

saden1 04-08-2008 12:45 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=Schneed10;438296]Because it doesn't involve spending massive amounts of tax dollars or placing unfair financial burdens on the energy industry (25% of all power from renewable sources???).[/quote]

Energy independence is a lofty goal and we need to think big! If you don't make a large investment and make serious commitment nothing will change (money back guaranteed). Oil and Energy companies will simply keep doing what they are doing which obviously isn't working. I mean, these guys have no real vested interest in doing anything because every three months they have to do a conference call and answer to their investors to tell them what they have made for them not what they have spent on behalf of the nation. I think the government needs to lead the way and candidate 2's plan has no serious provisions in his plan in that regard. It's insulting.

Monkeydad 04-08-2008 01:23 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
#1 and #3 are very similar, which may tell us who they belong to. ;)

The one point I see missing from all three plans however is oil independence. We DO have massive resources of our own to tap into: ANWR, Utah/Colorado, Wyoming, offshore of Florida and California...enough to last us decades if we'd use only our own reserves. Updating refineries and building new ones of long overdue but impossible thanks to environmental and bureaucratic restrictions.

We do need to research alternatives, but in the meantime we have our own oil that we can use much cheaper without any foreign political strings attached. Of course, it will take us about 10 years before we have any actual fuel from these reserves, but that is all the more reason to begin drilling for it NOW.

jsarno 04-08-2008 01:35 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
There is something to like about all 3, however, the candidate that I would most like to see is the one that says NO MORE OIL. (yes, we all know I am a Bush advocate, but I don't have to like EVERYTHING about his tenure do I?)
It's time to stop using oil 100%, and we need to make a plan to stop it NOW. Corn is my alternative, and no one seems to be making that a priority.
I love the wind and solar energy idea for homes etc...if we put more money towards research in those departments, we could maximize the energy they give us.
All this kind of reminds me of Monsters Inc. They needed screams and they were barely making the energy needs, then they found out that laughter was the better solution. Right now, oil is screams, and corn / solar / wind is laughter. We just have to learn to harness it.

Monkeydad 04-08-2008 02:00 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=jsarno;438320]
It's time to stop using oil 100%, and we need to make a plan to stop it NOW. [B]Corn is my alternative, and no one seems to be making that a priority. [/B]
[/quote]

There are valid reasons why.

Aside from driving food costs through the roof (not only the corn, but a lower supply of feed for animals being raised for beef, chicken, etc will cause all meat prices to skyrocket), read this:

[url=http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3578]The Oil Drum | Ethanol Fuel is not so Green[/url]


If you like the idea of breathing in poisonous, flammable cyanide gas, support ethanol.

[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16708609?dopt=AbstractPlus][The role of ethanol in complex poisonings with ca...[Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2006 Jan-Mar] - PubMed Result[/url]

Also, ethanol can't be transported by pipeline like gasoline. Water contamination is a big risk. It will all need to be transported by trucks. There's a huge increase in transportation costs and pollution. This is also crushing ethanol producers' profits because of the high transportation costs. If they're not profiting, they won't make it just to feel better inside.

Ethanol is less efficient than our current fuel. It's not a viable solution.

12thMan 04-08-2008 02:26 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=Buster;438325]There are valid reasons why.

Aside from driving food costs through the roof (not only the corn, but a lower supply of feed for animals being raised for beef, chicken, etc will cause all meat prices to skyrocket), read this:

[URL="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3578"]The Oil Drum | Ethanol Fuel is not so Green[/URL]


If you like the idea of breathing in poisonous, flammable cyanide gas, support ethanol.

[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16708609?dopt=AbstractPlus"][The role of ethanol in complex poisonings with ca...[Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2006 Jan-Mar] - PubMed Result[/URL]

Also, ethanol can't be transported by pipeline like gasoline. Water contamination is a big risk. It will all need to be transported by trucks. There's a huge increase in transportation costs and pollution. This is also crushing ethanol producers' profits because of the high transportation costs. If they're not profiting, they won't make it just to feel better inside.

Ethanol is less efficient than our current fuel. It's not a viable solution.[/quote]


That's the thing, people, not everyone, think that Ethanol will solve our energy woes, when in fact, as you've pointed out Buster, it's not as effiecient as our current fuel. From what I understand, which is from a pretty reliable source, it costs a helluva lot of money to convert corn to into actual fuel. So the ultimate tradeoff really isn't as feasible as it's being touted.

BleedBurgundy 04-08-2008 03:18 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Clearly you people have not seen the thread about using water as fuel... lol.

TheMalcolmConnection 04-08-2008 03:32 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
I like number one solely for the strict measures to increase fuel efficiency. While I love the idea of alternative fuel sources, we're stuck with oil for the foreseeable future. I'm pissed already that while we can "govern" a car at 130 miles per hour, we couldn't suddenly govern a car at 75 (within the speed limits of most or all states).

Why would that be such a problem? Instantly, less gas is used and miles per gallon goes up.

MTK 04-08-2008 03:32 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Corn is turning out to be a very poor fuel alternative.

FRPLG 04-08-2008 03:41 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Corn has been become a political tool, a proverbial third rail and ultimately it is a joke. It is things like "corn as fuel" which make me want to fire every politician we have. The use of corn in the relatively small amounts that we utilize now is already seriously straining the food markets. It is supposed to be an answer? It's not even close and that argument doesn't even get into the points about it sucking as a fuel anyways.

Schneed10 04-08-2008 03:42 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=Mattyk72;438352]Corn is turning out to be a very poor fuel alternative.[/quote]

It is, however, great for cleaning the colon!

FRPLG 04-08-2008 03:45 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
On another note. I mentioned this in the "Water as fuel thread":

I don't understand why we have to legislate big oil companies into this. Why can't we simply make it very worth their while to develop other sources? I think it is slightly naive to think we can simply leave big oil in the lurch and expect a new solution any time soon. To do this quickly and as effectively as possible it seems to me the answers need to come from big oil themselves. Make it a good business decision for them and they'll lead the way. And if they are leading the way then we'll probably get better answers than some bureaucratic crap solution based on a fairly tale like corn.

12thMan 04-08-2008 03:53 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=FRPLG;438360]On another note. I mentioned this in the "Water as fuel thread":

I don't understand why we have to legislate big oil companies into this. Why can't we simply make it very worth their while to develop other sources? I think it is slightly naive to think we can simply leave big oil in the lurch and expect a new solution any time soon. To do this quickly and as effectively as possible it seems to me the answers need to come from big oil themselves. Make it a good business decision for them and they'll lead the way. And if they are leading the way then we'll probably get better answers than some bureaucratic crap solution based on a fairly tale like corn.[/quote]

You've basically nailed this whole energy argument down in one post.

Who and how can we get big Oil to bring solutions to the table when their profits are just fine the way they are?

Schneed10 04-08-2008 04:09 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=12thMan;438362]You've basically nailed this whole energy argument down in one post.

Who and how can we get big Oil to bring solutions to the table when their profits are just fine the way they are?[/quote]

By incenting them to invest in other fuel sources, diversifying their product portfolio. As great as oil is doing for them right now, that may not always be the case, and they know this. If they've got another product that they can make money off of, the market risk that big oil's shareholders currently must assume will be partly assuaged by the presence of another basket to hold their financial eggs.

FRPLG 04-08-2008 04:13 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[QUOTE=12thMan;438362]You've basically nailed this whole energy argument down in one post.

Who and how can we get big Oil to bring solutions to the table when their profits are just fine the way they are?[/QUOTE]

They key is to obviously make their profits better in some way. There has to be a serious carrot for them. Big oil isn't evil, they have no emotions other than a desire for more money. Make it so they can make more money with alternate fuels and that's what will happen. And quickly. With a big enough carrot I bet we could be 50% alternate fuels in 10 years. But it will need to be a serious carrot. And one that weakens barriers to entry within the energy market. If some mid level company can figue out a way to make hydrogen work and has the capacity to market it and sell it then big oil will have to follow suit. Just throwing hydrogen out there as an example.

SmootSmack 04-08-2008 04:18 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Should I go ahead and name the candidates now?

12thMan 04-08-2008 04:21 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=Schneed10;438373]By incenting them to invest in other fuel sources, diversifying their product portfolio. As great as oil is doing for them right now, that may not always be the case, and they know this. If they've got another product that they can make money off of, the market risk that big oil's shareholders currently must assume will be partly assuaged by the presence of another basket to hold their financial eggs.[/quote]

You're right, and this has been part of the on going dialogue behind the scenes. I think once this election get's settled, it's all about reaching a happy medium with big Oil, the consumer, and the environment.

Truth is most of these proposals won't be fully implemented before 2030 anyway. So before we even get out the gate, we shouldn't get our hopes up too high.

FRPLG 04-08-2008 04:26 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
I am no economic expert on this stuff. I have a college level understanding of economics and zero targeted understanding of the energy market but I think in general what I'd do is:

- First off I'd abolish any current tax break that oil companies get. Let's start with a clean slate.

- Identify a reasonable timeline for becoming oil independent. This will require understanding what oil reserves we have and how long they would last us at certain levels of usage. The idea here is to figure out at what point we can raise the proverbial middle finger to the middle east and say "Hey, were good now. We've got enough to last us 50 years in reserve". I am guessing that would mean we'd need to reduce our oil usage to approximately 2% of what we use today. I have no idea how realistic that is. Or whether it is realistic at all. I suppose there will always be a need for oil at some level no matter what.

- Construct a roadmap to oil independence. This will be hard since we have no real solid idea what the key to oil independence is. Maybe it is corn or hydrogen. Maybe biodiesel. Maybe a mixture. Probably a mixture. But we need to be reasonable. How long would it take us if we started today with full funding to overhaul our infrastructure? Once we uinderstand what generally needs to be done we can figure out how long it would take and how it can be done.

- Structure an incentive to big oil to follow the roadmap or even outperform it. If we figure out we can be 50% oil independent in 10 years then structure a tax incentive, A MASSIVE ONE, over the next ten years that forces them from a busniess perspective to get it done. Then slowly reduce the tax incentive over the next however many years it will take to be 100% independent. At the end, the old oil infrastructure will be gone and we'll using whatever else we have. Then we can start simply taxing the hell out oil comsumption to inhibit any type of revival.

All it takes is for everyone to be honest and reasonable. We simply can't ram this down big oil's throat at the expense of their profits and expect it to work. The reason they have so much influence is because they have money and they will do every thing they can do to keep their money and influence. The only reasonable way to get them to go along is to make it more proftiable to NOT USE OIL as a source.

firstdown 04-08-2008 04:39 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=jsarno;438320]There is something to like about all 3, however, the candidate that I would most like to see is the one that says NO MORE OIL. (yes, we all know I am a Bush advocate, but I don't have to like EVERYTHING about his tenure do I?)
It's time to stop using oil 100%, and we need to make a plan to stop it NOW. Corn is my alternative, and no one seems to be making that a priority.
I love the wind and solar energy idea for homes etc...if we put more money towards research in those departments, we could maximize the energy they give us.
All this kind of reminds me of Monsters Inc. They needed screams and they were barely making the energy needs, then they found out that laughter was the better solution. Right now, oil is screams, and corn / solar / wind is laughter. We just have to learn to harness it.[/quote]
Well if you read what allot of experts say about corn is that we burn more energy producing a gallon of ethanol. Also with the fields needed to grow corn we will cause more green house gases by clearing land.

firstdown 04-08-2008 04:44 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=SmootSmack;438382]Should I go ahead and name the candidates now?[/quote]
I'll try:
1 Hillary
2 McCain
3 Obama

12thMan 04-08-2008 04:48 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=FRPLG;438385]I am no economic expert on this stuff. I have a college level understanding of economics and zero targeted understanding of the energy market but I think in general what I'd do is:

- First off I'd abolish any current tax break that oil companies get. Let's start with a clean slate.

- Identify a reasonable timeline for becoming oil independent. This will require understanding what oil reserves we have and how long they would last us at certain levels of usage. The idea here is to figure out at what point we can raise the proverbial middle finger to the middle east and say "Hey, were good now. We've got enough to last us 50 years in reserve". I am guessing that would mean we'd need to reduce our oil usage to approximately 2% of what we use today. I have no idea how realistic that is. Or whether it is realistic at all. I suppose there will always be a need for oil at some level no matter what.

- Construct a roadmap to oil independence. This will be hard since we have no real solid idea what the key to oil independence is. Maybe it is corn or hydrogen. Maybe biodiesel. Maybe a mixture. Probably a mixture. But we need to be reasonable. How long would it take us if we started today with full funding to overhaul our infrastructure? Once we uinderstand what generally needs to be done we can figure out how long it would take and how it can be done.

- Structure an incentive to big oil to follow the roadmap or even outperform it. If we figure out we can be 50% oil independent in 10 years then structure a tax incentive, A MASSIVE ONE, over the next ten years that forces them from a busniess perspective to get it done. Then slowly reduce the tax incentive over the next however many years it will take to be 100% independent. At the end, the old oil infrastructure will be gone and we'll using whatever else we have. Then we can start simply taxing the hell out oil comsumption to inhibit any type of revival.

All it takes is for everyone to be honest and reasonable. We simply can't ram this down big oil's throat at the expense of their profits and expect it to work. The reason they have so much influence is because they have money and they will do every thing they can do to keep their money and influence. The only reasonable way to get them to go along is to make it more proftiable to NOT USE OIL as a source.[/quote]

This is pretty good stuff. By the way, I'm even less of expert than you are. If that makes sense? Anyway...

As far as tax breaks are concerned, US corporations have the highest, or at the very least, second highest taxation in the world. So I'm sure any tax breaks would be welcomed by big Oil in that regard.

As far as timelines go, I know candidate #3 (wink*wink) thinks it will take well into the year 2030 before we'll see any significant changes in our dependence on oil and OPEC producing nations.

SmootSmack 04-08-2008 04:53 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[QUOTE=firstdown;438391]I'll try:
1 Hillary
2 McCain
3 Obama[/QUOTE]

Well, that wasn't really my question, but I guess the answer then is yes I should. And yes you're right.

1=Hillary Clinton
2=John McCain
3=Barack Obama

Again, the points I listed does not cover the full range of their agenda but their major points. I gathered this from various sources, including their own official sites.

Overall, I tend to be a McCain guy but if Energy was a major issue for me I don't know that he would be my guy. For one thing he makes hardly any mention of it on his own site which tells me it's not a huge priority for him (could be wrong though) and his solutions were somewhat vague. He spoke more about the will and creativity of the American people to solve this problem, without much in terms of actual plans and benchmarks.

saden1 04-08-2008 06:32 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[quote=SmootSmack;438395]Well, that wasn't really my question, but I guess the answer then is yes I should. And yes you're right.

1=Hillary Clinton
2=John McCain
3=Barack Obama

Again, the points I listed does not cover the full range of their agenda but their major points. I gathered this from various sources, including their own official sites.

Overall, I tend to be a McCain guy but if Energy was a major issue for me I don't know that he would be my guy. For one thing he makes hardly any mention of it on his own site which tells me it's not a huge priority for him (could be wrong though) and [B]his solutions were somewhat vague[/B]. He spoke more about the will and creativity of the American people to solve this problem, [B]without much in terms of actual plans and benchmarks.[/B][/quote]

And that's why I called his plan a joke. Where is the substance I ask?

The Goat 04-08-2008 11:48 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Alright, I'll admit off the bat I voted for Clinton. Cap and trade is probably the only thing that will really reduce pollution quickly and effectively (aside from an actual tax on pollution which will never happen because tax is an f'ing four letter word in America).

But here's what I would really like to throw at the fan. We've all heard politicians (especially conservatives) say that renewable/green sources of energy are not cost effective compared to oil. Like the average cost per unit of energy is lower for oil and coal than wind, solar etc. etc. What about this: if a person is honest enough to acknowledge that a huge amount of the federal budget goes toward securing or exploring for oil (in order for big oil to gain access) is it really cheaper than green energy.

For example, people from Alan Greenspan to Toni Zinni (both avowed Republicans by the way) have been big enough to admit Iraq is about oil one way or another. Most people I know who are honest admit this as well. So... the cost so far is at least half a trillion and most experts say the final cost will be several trillion. Shouldn't that count as a bottom line cost per barrel of oil? I don't see why not.

Relating this theory back to the poll, it's exactly the reason why I could never vote for McCain. Aside from what he says today the guy has voted against almost every alternative energy program and constantly voted for Big Oil right-offs and subsidies. I know he says otherwise but I've seen vote tallies on votesmart and other public sites. McCain is clearly the Big Oil candidate in this election, but I have a sick feeling nobody is going to get that.

SmootSmack 04-08-2008 11:58 PM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
Incidentally, here is how each of the candidates has voted on Energy issues over the past few years (thanks to [url]http://www.ontheissues.org[/url])

[B]Hillary Clinton[/B]
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)

[B]John McCain[/B]
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Sponsored bill for greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)

[B]Barack Obama[/B]
Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas. (Apr 2005)
Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)

djnemo65 04-09-2008 12:00 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
I don't think people adequately understand the paucity of oil that remains in this world. If you are familiar with peak oil theory (which isn't so much a theory as a geoligical fact) then you know oil will reach a peak point of production after which the quality of oil will be reduced and it will be increasingly more difficult to extract. Increasing oil consumption in the developing world, particularily in China but really everywhere, is only quickening this inevitability. Now some argue that oil production peaked last year, but when it peaks is really irrelevant. What matters is that it will.

That means that at some point we are going to face a major day of reckoning, since not only transportation but the world's entire industrial infrastructure is predicated on access to relatively cheap oil. My point is that a major technological project is needed to avert what will likely be an extremely unstable period, as the world's 3 powers - Europe, America, China, and their respective allies - fight over the remaining scraps.

I think all 3 candidates fall short in doing enough on this and I wish someone would speak to the people honestly about the poisonous effect that increased consumption in a world of declining oil production will have on the stability of the global economic system.

FRPLG 04-09-2008 12:01 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[QUOTE=The Goat;438502]But here's what I would really like to throw at the fan. We've all heard politicians (especially conservatives) say that renewable/green sources of energy are not cost effective compared to oil. Like the average cost per unit of energy is lower for oil and coal than wind, solar etc. etc. What about this: if a person is honest enough to acknowledge that a huge amount of the federal budget goes toward securing or exploring for oil (in order for big oil to gain access) is it really cheaper than green energy.

For example, people from Alan Greenspan to Toni Zinni (both avowed Republicans by the way) have been big enough to admit Iraq is about oil one way or another. Most people I know who are honest admit this as well. So... the cost so far is at least half a trillion and most experts say the final cost will be several trillion. Shouldn't that count as a bottom line cost per barrel of oil? I don't see why not.
[/quote]

I suspect we don't agree on much but I completely get what you're saying here. Unfortunately this is the kind of extended thinking that most Americans seem to not grasp. Or at least it is the type of thinking that never gets into the media cycle because media types don't think we understand it and politicians think we're even dumber than that.

[quote]
Relating this theory back to the poll, it's exactly the reason why I could never vote for McCain. Aside from what he says today the guy has voted against almost every alternative energy program and constantly voted for Big Oil right-offs and subsidies. I know he says otherwise but I've seen vote tallies on votesmart and other public sites. McCain is clearly the Big Oil candidate in this election, but I have a sick feeling nobody is going to get that.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to know what a "Big Oil candidate" is though. If it means you think he thinks Big Oil is probably the best driver then I agree with him and don't care if he is a Big Oil candidate. On the other hand if it means to leave Big Oil alone and let it happen normally then I say fugetaboutit! We can incentivise it to happen and make it worth it to them. Win/win baby.

FRPLG 04-09-2008 12:05 AM

Re: Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy
 
[QUOTE=djnemo65;438507]I don't think people adequately understand the paucity of oil that remains in this world. If you are familiar with peak oil theory (which isn't so much a theory as a geoligical fact) then you know oil will reach a peak point of production after which the quality of oil will be reduced and it will be increasingly more difficult to extract. Increasing oil consumption in the developing world, particularily in China but really everywhere, is only quickening this inevitability. Now some argue that oil production peaked last year, but when it peaks is really irrelevant. What matters is that it will.

That means that at some point we are going to face a major day of reckoning, since not only transportation but the world's entire industrial infrastructure is predicated on access to relatively cheap oil. My point is that a major technological project is needed to avert what will likely be an extremely unstable period, as the world's 3 powers - Europe, America, China, and their respective allies - fight over the remaining scraps.

I think all 3 candidates fall short in doing enough on this and I wish someone would speak to the people honestly about the poisonous effect that increased consumption in a world of declining oil production will have on the stability of the global economic system.[/QUOTE]Theoretically though economics would say that as thise "day of reckoning" approaches the costs of oil will become untenable driving a major movement towards alternative fuel.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.10950 seconds with 8 queries