 | Ghawar reserves update and revisions (1) | The Oil Drum | Conservative Party plan for Greenhouse Gases in Canada |  |
My Ideal Presidential Candidate on the Environment
Posted by Robert Rapier on May 2, 2007 - 11:15am
I did not get to watch the first debate of the Democratic candidates for president, but I have seen some coverage of it. The Wall Street Journal's Energy Roundup had a write-up on it a couple of days ago:
Leavin’ on Eight Jet Planes…
From the coverage I have seen, the answers to questions on energy and the environment were underwhelming. Let's look at what they did say, and what I wish they would have said.
One good answer that I read was by John Edwards, when asked why gas prices are still rising:
Edwards noted the “extraordinary demand” in the U.S. for gasoline and took the opportunity to state his plan for dealing with climate change. “[W]e ought to cap carbon emissions in the United States. We ought to invest in clean, alternative sources of energy. We ought to invest in carbon sequestration technology, clean-coal technology, a billion dollars at least into making sure we build the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the planet. And we ought to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war; to be willing to conserve,” he said.
He is correct to note that demand has been extraordinary (despite the high prices) and that we have to get serious about conservation. I just hope he is installing solar panels on his 28,000 square foot mansion.
I thought Biden's take was disappointing:
Later, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would require anything “hard” of the American public to fight global warming. “We have to make…the equivalent of…a Manhattan Project,” he replied. But his specific proposals were less revolutionary — capping emissions; requiring that only flex-fuel vehicles be made and sold in the U.S.; requiring 10% of gas station inventory to be E-85 ethanol; funding research on lithium-battery technology.
My biggest disappointment, probably because my expectations were highest, were of Obama's answers:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was asked what he did in his personal life to help the environment. He said he organized people to plant trees on Earth Day. Pressed for a more personal contribution, he said he was teaching his daughters to install energy-saving light bulbs. He then abruptly changed the conversation to revisit an earlier question about terrorism, and that was the end of the debate about energy.
I didn't read any accounts of Hillary Clinton answering any environmental or energy questions, so I can't comment there. But the answers to the questions I did see asked were lame for the most part. The question I would really like to see them all answer is "If every American - in their personal life - used as much energy as you do, would the United States use more or less energy than it does now?"
The Right Answer
Here is how I want to see a presidential candidate answer a question on energy and the environment (and mean it):
"In my household, every day is Earth Day. I am mindful of the energy that I use, and the impact this has on the environment. I have taken a number of steps to reduce my environmental footprint. I am committed to walking the talk.
I take public transportation at every opportunity. I drive a fuel-efficient car, and I car pool. I walk and bike to destinations whenever possible. I live in a modest, fuel-efficient house, and I have installed CFLs throughout my home and office. I choose products that don't contain excess plastic packaging, and I recycle everything I can. I am teaching my children the importance of conservation, and that we as Americans do not have an entitlement to 25% of the world's oil.
The time has come to engage in a very frank discussion on our energy policies. Reducing our energy usage will require sacrifice, but the kind of sacrifice that involves not lives lost in the Middle East, but rather more efficient usage of our resources. I am talking about the kind of sacrifice we see in Europe, where per capita energy consumption is half that of the U.S. Yet despite this "sacrifice", Europeans maintain a high standard of living.
I will ask that all Americans accept personal responsibility for our own energy consumption. It is time to shed the belief that we are going to avoid any sacrifices, because we are not going to run this country on ethanol or biodiesel. It simply can't be done at our current level of energy usage. In the U.S. we currently import 10 million barrels of crude oil a day. That is over 12 barrels of oil imported each year for every man, woman, and child in this country. As your president I am going to pursue policies that will - as a first step - bring our energy consumption more in line with that of the EU. By doing this, we have a realistic chance of reaching energy independence (for now). We owe this to our soldiers risking their lives in Iraq.
Understand that there is no free lunch: These policies are going to increase the cost of your energy. I am going to mitigate this by lowering your income tax rate. This is intended to ease the burden of higher energy costs, while encouraging everyone to become more energy efficient. The intent is not to increase net tax revenues, but rather to discourage excessive consumption. This is the only viable solution I see to the problem at present, and I know that most Americans will accept this sacrifice to avoid more sacrifice of lives to protect our foreign oil interests."
------------------
Then, after the thunderous applause dies down, I thank them for their attention.
But the sad thing is that the average U.S. citizen is so averse to paying more for energy, all they will take away from this is "My gas taxes will be raised if I elect this person." So, maybe you delay that conversation on raising energy prices. But at the very least I want a candidate who walks the talk, and can tell us that if all Americans used oil as they do, there would be no more oil imports. I am looking for someone less like the status quo, who displays the kind of environmental stewardship of someone like Ed Begley, Jr.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
It looks like it will have to break before effective measures will be taken to fix it. Whether the energy system, political system, or financial system breaks down first is a good question. I'd vote for the energy system because the other two are less dependent upon immutable physical facts.
Meanwhile we have the spectacle of the President not being able to say we can't leave Iraq because of the oil - because he said it wasn't about oil. Probably the prospect of the US actually leaving Iraq is as much what is pushing down the dollar as anything else.
The reserve currency of the world is oil, and if the US isn't sitting on the spigot, the global economy will morph into a multi currency, oh no, free enterprise system. The political effect of withdrawal on Iraq will be negligible for Iraq but what has been termed an inflexion point for the world system. Whether or not the President really understands this is a point for the historians.
Expecting presidential hopefuls to say anything meaningful at this stage is almost naive; that said, I have heard more substance than usual - far more - and I can see Al coming in swinging and going for it with his secret weapon, honesty and guts. The others, Gravel aside, seem lacking; or, as I like to put it, have mutable convictions.
Al Gore's secret weapon? His literature on GW will probably be one of the most influential pieces on the topic in the public's eyes. However, one thing really put me off:
A few weeks/months back there was a very extensive post by one of the big guns here at TOD. He forgot to label a single axis on 1 graph out of tens. Somebody about tore his face off! I later flipped through Gore's hit book about the warming of the Earth, and I found a graph about moisture, hurricane intensity and something else. No axes, no units, no legend! It was three colored lines rising exponentially. I'm assuming that Al didn't prepare every picture and graph in that book, but come on. If that doesn't say "appeal to the emotions of the masses," I guess I missed the meat of that great post on human psychology. It's gonna take something big to get the politics out of politics.
(Had to get that out... back to PDE's)
Ed Begley for President.
Yes, I picked up on Obama's response as well. He actually said he was "working on" installing CFLs. How do you "work on" something so simple. It's not like you are trying to get out of Iraq. His response showed he has no clue and really doesn't intend to do much of anything about the problem. Just another "feel good" politician. He also clearly thinks that ethanol is a key component of any energy policy. And he is supposed to be such a brilliant man. Yes, he is brilliant but clueless.
As for Hillary, I heard an interview where she made it clear she has no intention of reducing the speed limit to save energy. She also has given rather weak responses on increasing CAFE standards. I think if you look at her campaign contributions, she is in the pocket of the auto companies.
As you allude to, it is frustrating that Edwards seems to have a real handle on peak oil and global warming. Ironically, he was criticized on one of the news shows for not understanding that refinery shortages were a major causes of high gas prices. It is frustrating because his personal lifestyle is so out of sync with his policy prescriptions.
Sadly, there is not much to choose from amongst the top tier candidates. I think you have to get down to Kucinich to find someone who is closest to walking the talk. He still lives in the same modest house he bought in the 1970s and is a vegan.
None of the candidates have had their "aha!" moment. Many of us, and I include myself, went through a period where we were aware of the energy and environmental problems, but had not not yet connected the dots back to our personal lifestyle.
Having said all that, these candidates, sadly, pretty much reflect the majority of their constituencies. The merit the cluelessness that is rampant throughout America.
Perhaps it is time for TOD readership to begin a campaign to constantly bombard their e-mail addresses with some information.
Do you actually believe that would work? I suspect that Edwards, Obama, and others are lots more clued in on the state of affairs than you imagine. I also suspect they are playing the political game to be elected, not to solve problems. Real statesmen are rare beasts.
They understand what's going on and don't care because these topics - peak oil, resource depletion, climate change - are not what will get them elected. They need to pander to gays on some non-issue, to multiple ethnic minorities on non-issues, and to other special interest groups on non-issues as well. Those are what get them elected, not dealing with real problems.
So by all means start a letter writing campaign. It will have zero impact because these politicians don't care.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
In Australia this federal election year, all the major parties are very strongly playing the Climate Change card, in fact it's arguably the single biggest card that is getting played. It's hard to guess exactly what has caused this - as it certainly wasn't the case at the last election 3 years ago (and remember Kyoto was 1999 - the issue has been in the public eye for a long time, and the science known for much longer before that), although some have speculated that the current drought conditions have made us all personally much more aware of how dependent we are on a stable climate.
Sadly, resource depletion, and specificially increasing oil dependence, hasn't made it on to the radar screens at all.
Hi Grey,
Always good to have a counter-argument. Just as an aside, honestly, I would really like to have your take on a "best case" path/scenario - (note I'm not using the word "solution").
re: "I suspect that Edwards, Obama, and others are lots more clued in on the state of affairs than you imagine."
This gets into psychology. My completely anecdotal experience says that it's about impossible to get a handle on the degree of consciousness of most people, including oneself. In fact, there may be some kind of logical impossibility there. (How do you know if you're unaware/insensitive in a particular situation or wrt to certain events? Only in hindsight.)* "Peak" has got to be one of the biggest challenges.
re: "...politicians don't care...". Well, they might. It's hard to tell.
Here's the thing. Define the "real problem."
(*Sometimes people develop practices to help, (periodic reflection) and that might help. I don't know.)
Second "request". Figure out what it is they do care about. And then address that.
Or, exercise another option. Politicians can be circumvented.
I'd say the combination of peak (oil, coal, gas) plus anthropogenic global warming is bigger yet. I don't see many people, let alone pols, getting their minds around that.
The Oil Drum should collect memberships (5$ lets say), elect a board. You have to be US citizens and eligible to vote in federal election.
The responsibility of the board is to determine a slate of presidential candidates which it will endorse. Shortly before the primaries, the general membership can vote (single transferable vote ballot) on who TOD will endorse.
I don't disagree philosophically with your requirement that the candidate "walk the talk", but I don't see how such a candidate could make it into the presidential sweepstakes. Ed Begley Jr. sounds like a better candidate than the rest of them to me too, but he is completely unelectable in the current political environment. You just don't get to that level in the American political establishment unless you have more mainstream views (unfortunately).
Check out Cap and Share, a variant of cap and trade where:
Fossil fuel prices go up (companies have to buy CO2 permits) but this is offset for the individual by selling your annual entitlement.
Cap and share (Cap and trade with credits delivered per capita) is certainly a potential solution (and holy shit is it better than a prior appropriation system that gives permits to existing polluters), but do you have any idea how much frustration and misunderstanding (and initial rejection) there's going to be at requiring the entire population to take part in one marketplace to redeem their points?
A simple escalating tax on carbon at the most conveniant industrial level, rebated annually on a per-capita level (1 line in a 1040: "Now subtract $5000 from what you owe") seems to be a lot easier.
Must we really dodge the english language so much? Taxes, pseudo-taxes, credits, caps... It has precisely one advantage over a per capita rebated tax, and that's semi-semantic: the government taxes nothing directly, so noone can say the government is raising prices without thinking beyond the limbic level: a good 25% of voters aren't capable of such. Green future, here we come.
So if it helps... I guess I support it. We give out a hundred million '5 tons of carbon' giftcards with tax returns, and retail establishments compete to purchase them at the right price. It's impossible to take away the program in future administrations because people feel entitled to get a few thousand dollars worth of credits at tax day.
One problem though...
Better start it off very conservatively, or you'll face carbon-credits-as-guaranteed-investment syndrome - people convinced that holding onto credits will put their 2 year old through college someday. Big positive feedback there, on a short timescale.
Squalish, credits are only good for a year, so no point in hoarding them. Tearing them up reduces the available CO2 though :) Also, unlike a tax, the cap is guaranteed.
I agree with Professor MacKay of Cambridge. He described using cap-and-trade to eliminate pollution is like selling permits to commit murder as a way to end murder. He suggests a tax on fossil carbon that is high enough to make goods and services which don't use fossil fuels less expensive than those that do.
Hi Thomas
Thanks. I like talking about ideas for action.
Some qs:
1) Who specifically (what entity) do you tax? Do you, for example, tax all oil imports? Coal at the extraction source? Who is taxed?
2) Who collects it and how is it collected?
3) Who spends it?
4) And what do they spend it on?
5) So, is it like a sales tax? So, it's adding on to the sales tax?
6) What about multinational corporations? How do you deal with them?
7) Does this tax apply nationally? So, for eg., oil imports to the US would be taxed higher than imports, say, to Mexico? (i.e., do all gov'ts have to do this for it to work?)
So, does an industry (plastics?) go to Mexico to buy oil, then?
Below are some things that seem necessary/beneficial to me. I don't know if these translate into policy, but I'd welcome your feedback and comments.
A public statement of international intentions to work together in the face of "peak" and GCC. This includes some agreements on technology-sharing. ODP (can we discuss this?)
"True" renewable (wind/solar) installation ASAP, in a distributed-energy system, (combination of grid and local production) specifically with priorities, starting with water purification and transport.
Immediate conservation measures, including enforcing the 65 mph speed limit.
Immediate halt to all highway expansion and farmland loss.
Immediate policies to convert farmland to sustainable/organic farming, along with program funding education of young farmers WRT same.
Population and birth rate - support for full legal rights of women and children, and a cultural move on the part of men to support same. (i.e., visible efforts to stop rape, child abuse, etc.) Not sufficient, but necessary. Nothing else can work if these measures are not in place. BC technology is meaningless if women's rights are restricted.
etc. (urban rail, fix Amtrak, etc.)
Just some thoughts.
JN2 - This approach has relatively major support here in the UK,
with even the Sec. of State for Environment proposing it in public.
The main difference is that here it is generally titled
Tradable Carbon Quotas, or Cap, Allocate & Trade, etc.
I think it's unequalled by any other system I've seen
as a means of engaging every person of voting age
in a national effort to suppress fossil fuel usage,
and of doing so within the national emissions allocation
agreed under the requisite future global Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons.
Regards,
Billhook
Thanks for your reply, Backstop. IIRC, the UK's proposed system is for carbon debit cards where every carbon purchase (buying gas/petrol, paying the utility bill) takes carbon off your card. Very complicated and expensive to administer compared to a once a year tradable certificate, valid for a year.
Politico.com is accepting questions until the end of today which will be asked to the republican candidates during a 30 second speed round in tomorrow's GOP presidential candidates debate.
There are currently 31 questions in the energy category and a few of them address PO. Please spend a minute to add a question about PO here - http://www.politico.com/debate/askquestion.html.
Remember that this is a 30 second speed round. This question will not make the final cut since it cannot be answered in 30 seconds...
Vote for the top questions as well. Thanks!
So far this is the top ranked Energy question:
We really are doomed.
Actually, Amory Loving just testified before congress that we can completely do away with our dependence on oil, all oil. However, I am afraid of the alternatives if we truly decided to end on use of oil, given the proclivities of this crowd.
In any event, their answer would be no, hell no.
Amory Loving for President then !
Did he use his famous 'whale story'
from
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/energizer/
People like Mr. Loving, love analogies because they can avoid all the naughty little details.
Are you sure about Lovins avoiding the details? His books and articles are nothing, if not detailed, to the point of ad nauseum. You may disagree with him, but his research and analyses are detailed and exhaustive. His big emphasis is on conservation; we have not even begun to mine the conservation that is possible.
I'm not sure, I've only read limited statements and interviews. I thought his big thing was technological efficiency and alternatives. Both of which, at least from what I've read, he has not explored the ramifications of pushing technological efficiency while maintaining the structural inefficiencies of society nor the details on alternative energy that would lead to his assertion that oil fields will run out of customers like whale oil. Now, that will actually happen some day, but not under the conditions that Lovings implies (IMHO).
I think you need to read some of his books. Start with the book "Natural Capitalism". I agree that in the vehicle area, for example, he has emphasized fuel efficiency over land use. I think this is because he does not think it is realistic to be transforming our cities and towns in the time frame required. I think we should tranform our cities by doing things like making them walkable or even car free. Having said that, as hard as it is, I think it would be more politically viable to focus on efficiency for now.
Short of an atom bomb or a major 7 or 8 level volcano, I don't think there is any hope of doing much about structural inefficiencies.
Here's how Natural Capitalism begins
He goes on to say how this book will show us the way...
Didn't we fall for this back at the 30's World Fair?
I have to hope for, and work toward something better.
Well, read the whole book; there's a lot of good stuff in there.
One problem I do have, however, is his belief that hydrogen can be a significant part of the solution. But, by no means,is it all about fanciful solutions like hydrogen. On the other hand, Lovins is a brilliant physicist; I am not. So who know; perhaps hydrogen will be a signicant part of our future.
I think cities could still be a lot more peaceful with NEVs and a lot more walking,bicyling, and electric mass transit.
Regardless, the vision is valid. We should envision a future substantially without oil. It is just that Lovins thinks that future can come much more quickly than most people.
Hi dino,
re: "he has not explored the ramifications of pushing technological efficiency while maintaining the structural inefficiencies of society"
Exactly.
Amory is also the source of the oft-quoted "The Stone Age didn't end because people ran out of stones..."
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8245/8245specialties.html
(Combustible stones - my favorite kind.)
There's still a little time... hit the "I Like This Question" button - http://dyn.politico.com/debate/showquestions.cfm?page=1&sb=mp&cd=0&tp=5&...
Compact fluorescent bulbs have two significant drawbacks. First, they can't be put on a dimmer. Second, they either don't fit or look ridiculous in designer light fixtures, such as the globe and chandelier fixtures found in almost every house and apartment. Replacing the large installed base of these throughout North America would be resource-inefficient and, to most home decorators, unaesthetic.
My hope is that solid state lighting comes of age before incandescent bulbs get regulated out of existence.
Actually, CFLs are made in both globe and candelabra form factors. I have the globe versions. They look just fine.
They CAN be dimmed (at the cost of noise), or, better, they can be multisegmented. Fit five 4W modules to a bulb with individual e-ballasts, and turn on only as many as you need.
So what if they look ridiculous to an aesthetic raised on incandescents? So did incandescents to those raised on candles. They do, for the most part, fit. They're drop-in replacements. That's the only reason we have CFLs, rather than less complicated tube flouros.
The fact is that the large installed base of incandescents across north america are already replaced every thousand hours or so of lighting. Noone's going to break into your house to take them away. Dimming fixtures you might want to replace if you still want light. LEDs are expensive and inefficient compared to CFLs, but not THAT expensive if you want to keep a multi-thousand-dollar chandelier you like.
Good points.
I've changed all bulbs to CFL, EXCEPT those that I use on dimmer, which is maybe 1 in 15. Those on dimmer do have the advantage of using power in direct proportion to the amount you have it dimmed, AND it can vastly extend the life of the bulb(s), giving it two environmental advantages, reduced energy and material use. Lights that were always 'dimmed' up to full got changed out to CFLs when that usage was realised.
My preferred housing for CFL's is in Paper Diffusers, like Japanese 'Box' lanterns, or Chinaball lanterns. Soft, Attractive and very effective quality of light for the power used.
Solid State: I have homebuilts, but you can now purchase things like Undercounter Strips that are LED-based. I don't like the Cool-coloring in that application, so mine are strips of White (Blue-ish) and parallel strips of Yellow LEDS to make the mix closer to the 'Warm White' one expects. Check out www.superbrightleds.com for a fun variety of AC and DC Lights to play with!
The aesthetics of new lighting technologies do take a little work to figure out, but not a ton.
Bob Fiske
Really it would be far more productive to focus on better home insulation, power correction of transformers, better building codes, net metering among many other things than this silly campaign against a light bulb.
Here's a link to my testimony today on Maine's LD1655 - An Act to Improve Home and Commercial Energy Efficiency.
One energy auditor testified about finding every nightmare one can imagine routinely and constantly in newly built expensive homes. The local utility testified about how they have been pushing standards for 25 years (not hard, I know). A log cabin manufacturer asked to be included in the standards, not excluded.
After my testimony I did get what I thought was an insightful question: whether or not we could make this change gradually.
cfm in Gray, ME
CFM;
Thanks for presenting these ideas in Augusta today (yesterday).. sounded good, and with a little luck, convinced some of them to look a little deeper into it.
I think Beth Edmonds is aware of it.. don't know who else might be, or what actions out in the public might inspire their thinking of policies or even pronouncements that could be awakening our caffiene-doped populace..
But Thanks nonetheless!
Bob Fiske
Good suggestions, but they all are complementary, not competing measures.. They're all part of the mix. Don't assume that the light bulb is the only solution these people are worried about, but when you address the topic, you may as well get into some detail.
If all you hear is talk about changing to CFL's, you must be listening to the MSM and Politicians. Not the most accurate measure.. but Silly? No. When you have new lights that can save you 75% in energy consumed over the incandescents, it's not silly at all. It's one pretty decent BB, and it's a simple enough starting point to get people thinking about consumption and taking their first steps.
I replaced a fridge in an apartment 2 yrs ago, and the tenant said their electric bill was down by half.
Bob Fiske
Thats not true. I calculated the cost of changing windows on my standard house and got to a energy savings of a W per $ invested, and that was the same for changing to CFLs (a few W/$ actually).
So it is really as efficient to change lightbulbs as fixing modern windows to your house. As you probably have the 100$ for the lightbulbs, but maybe not the 10000$ for the windows you could start today with the lightbulbs!
Cheers
The other points are valid, building codes would cheaply increase energy saved probably. ie many W/$ invested.
Certainly. I think its main usefulness is as a concrete exercise, to let people experience that they can do something to save energy and find out that they can survive it.
"Those people FRIGHTEN me!"
— Sen. Gravel
I still don't think there's a political solution on the horizon for the US. At least those Democrats didn't demand that a law be passed to lower the price of gasoline!
Most of the EU countries are also in a fix. Even autocratic regimes, such as China, as utterly clueless.
Don't forget there's also the first Republican 'debate' coming Thursday night where we will learn that the solution to energy problems is drilling in ANWR (and also Anwar Province, Iraq) with some tax cuts for petro corporates and credits for exploration thrown in.
Oh well . . .
Don't forget there's also the first Republican 'debate' coming Thursday night where we will learn that the solution to energy problems is drilling in ANWR (and also Anwar Province, Iraq) with some tax cuts for petro corporates and credits for exploration thrown in.
I have little use for the Republican nonsense about the universal goodness of tax cuts [without spending cuts] and the feasiblity of somehow drilling our way out of this situation.
The only position more clueless is the Democratic party line where the answer is to not drill for oil, tax the domestic production of oil, decrease the use of coal and [until recently at least] do everything possible to stop the construction of nuclear power plants.
Peak oil is going to be a serious matter, but IMO the biggest risk of a long term calamity comes from Government.
To paraphrase an old quip [Will Rodgers?]: "In the long run the people get the government they deserve ... and I'm afraid the people of the U.S.A. are about to get that Government."
HI R,
Interesting comments. Some qs:
re: "The only position more clueless is the Democratic party line where the answer is to not drill for oil, tax the domestic production of oil, decrease the use of coal and [until recently at least] do everything possible to stop the construction of nuclear power plants."
So, you don't like "...drilling our way out of this..."
And you don't like "...not drill..."
What do you suggest?
re: "...the biggest risk of a long term calamity comes from Government."
What do you see the risk as being?
Are you counting the invasion of Iraq?
Or, do you mean strictly WRT domestic policies - ?
My idea is to make the case that we need the resources we have now to do some things to make "post" more liveable. Example, wind/solar.
Likewise, I see it as disingenuous or dishonest (at least, questionable, ethically speaking) to do anything without an open and honest statement of the motivation for any policy, i.e., the real problem - a declining resource base and little time to act. And a lot we can do, if we see a choice.
The standard Republican mantra is drill, drill drill. No need to change anything else. The market will provide more oil ... if it is not impeded by Government.
The market may provide substitutes for oil, but it probably won't yield significantly more oil. If the Government does not get in the way, the tail of the oil production curve can be managed. I am anticipating a poorly structure tax that will kill small scale production in the U.S. which still yields millions of bbls per day. I am not certain how of if it will be perpetrated, but I have no faith in this Congress.
Other examples of potential Government stupidity resulting in less net oil / other useful form of energy:
1.) Corn ethanol
2.) Allotments to retailers [vastly corrupt and inefficient]tried in the seventies with disasterous results.
3.) Carbon taxes on coal -- just when we need it for at least transition purposes.
4.) Not in my backyard moves against wind, nukes and probably against solar by estically / eco conscious types [which operate through government action]
"My idea is to make the case that we need the resources we have now to do some things to make "post" more liveable. Example, wind/solar.
Likewise, I see it as disingenuous or dishonest (at least, questionable, ethically speaking) to do anything without an open and honest statement of the motivation for any policy, i.e., the real problem - a declining resource base and little time to act. And a lot we can do, if we see a choice."
No argument from me.
Lots of silver BBs out there. We'll need them all.
The current system has to totally collapse before it can be fixed. With the current system no one can get elected even for dogcatcher without massive financial contributions from foreign lobbies, special interests, super wealthy hedge fund masters and major corporations.
It has to collapse from external forces because the demographics have been diluted to an extent where the unity necessary to achieve change from within by political means is no longer possible.
By the time one of them gets to the White House it makes no real difference who it is, because by then he will belong to the same puppet masters. The American people just think they have a election when in reality they have a elaborate circus production.
Nevada Solar One is 64MW of new solar thermal power scheduled to come online this year and the only steampunk solar thermal plant built since the 1980's, because apparently it is more "expensive" than NG and coal generation.
Spiderman is well.. everyone knows Spiderman.
As a group, we're not all that smart. History shows that usually doesn't work out all that well for a species.
Hi rohar1
I like this. I see a lot of potential in presenting this contrast.
Now, if you can figure out a way to sell tickets to "Nevada Solar One", followed by the DVD - I think you're on to something. Honestly.
I've really had it with the republocrats. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of bad choices. I don't care who they put up. Further, since we decided to stop getting TV a few years ago, I'm not even going to be listening to the BS and spin. I'm voting third party.
"I'm not even going to be listening to the BS and spin. I'm not voting."
Same difference - you're refusing to have an affect on who actually wins, by picking a candidate that you don't believe can win; You do this to make a statement, but that's what many who don't vote claim to do as well.
First, get the quote right - I am voting - just not for the Dems or Reps. Further, I've voted in presidential elections for close to 50 years so I think I probably have more experience divining how things pan out in reality than you.
Actually, I am having an effect on the election. If enough people are as pissed off as I am and don't vote for the lesser evil, one of the major parties is going to take it big time; perhaps, both of them. As long as people feel the need to vote for a potential winner in spite of root beliefs than all is lost because change will never come.
I would further remind you that the US is a Republic not a "democracy." But this has been lost on many people.
I'll toss out some of my issues: gun control, illegal immigration, nanny state, deficit spending, attempts to usurp states rights by the feds, war on drugs, 60% of the workers working for a gov agency..Aw, shit, it isn't worth the effort to list more.
To throw a little more fuel on the fire, I belong to the Peace and Freedom Party in CA.
As long as you're presented with what we have socially decided is the equivalent of a run-off (candidate X is polling at 5%), you have an opportunity to influence the election between the candidate with a 48 share and a candidate with a 49 share. In well-functioning republics that havn't fallen to the two-party system, either proportional represention is the rule, and/or there are numerous local-interest parties which never achieve a majority, but always have a chance of vaulting above the others to lead, where forming coalitions is a necessity and real political debate and negotiation happens with every other vote.
Your post before led me to believe that you were voting for "anybody else." That you have a party picked out that matches your interests nets you some respect from me over that position, but it's still a nonentity in influencing the future of the country.
Reach behind your left ear and rip out that tendril. Oh party droog, cast off your pod and be free!
I could just as well say that the choice between the major Dem and major ReThug candidates won't influence the future of the country (US).
cfm in Gray, ME
The first time that happened, we got Bush in Florida. I agree that the Dems are way less than I would prefer, but I would rather we try four years with a Democratic president to see if we can get some progress on energy and the environment. No, I will never be satisfied. There is no candidate that will ever reflect my views. But voting for a third party loser candidate just isn't going to get us anywhere.
The elections aren't about winning. It's about putting forward your honest and true conviction. Let the politicians do the compromising, that's what they do. (Admittedly, the particulars of the voting system need a cleanup; that's no excuse for apathy either.)
And as if on cue, the sidebar quote says:
“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
When you're dead in a ditch, they mourn you if theres anyone left to mourn, and in the end, forget you.
I don't expect anything more.
The Democrats in Florida -- and nationally -- lost more voters to the Republicans than to any third party, or than to the third parties combined, IIRC.
More Democrats bled away from the Democratic Party to the vote Republican than to the Greens or to other third parties.
Reagan Democrats, Dixiecrats, conservative Democrats, NRA Democrats, Roman Catholic Democrats, Conservative Evangelical Democrats (Ohio) -- these Democrats were certainly much more comfortable with Bush than with Gore.
What other Democrats defected to the Republican Party in 2,000 and in 2,004? Enough, I guess.
Illegal and unethical interference in voting, via Diebold and the computerized pre-election voter de-registration campaign that denied many people the right to vote, also hurt the Democrats. My guess is that this hurt them worse than defections to third parties as well. Many traditional Democratic voters were denied the right to vote -- mostly poor black folks in strongly Democratic areas.
I just want to point out that the noise created about Nader as a spoiler is just that: noise. The Democrats ran a poor campaign and then *conceded* that they lost an election that they did not, IMHO, lose. Then they scapegoated Nader and the Greens in order to avoid taking responsibility for this.
The Republicans and Democrats are simply not about what they claim to be about.
The solution to our phony democracy is not less democracy, but more.
First, there is something more important than energy or the environment. Individual freedom! And every one of the candidates I have studied so far has designs on using the “Necessity of the Moment” to curtail or continuously degrade individual freedom. Without freedom, life isn’t worth living.
That said, in the arena of energy there is only one long term source of enough energy for the people in the USA and the World to live high quality lives and that is nuclear fusion – And the only current source of that energy is our sun.
We don’t have enough surface area on this planet to provide the level of energy we need from solar energy and that leaves us the only logical solution to begin collecting solar energy in space, condensing it and sending it down to earth to be utilized as electrical energy and converted into liquid/gaseous fuels or liquid hydrocarbons for manufacturing.
When you look at how difficult it is to drill and extract oil from deep-water wells and other inhospitable climates, space is much easier. High pressures at sea bottom require that all work be done with remote control devices. High corrosion factors like those plaguing the Thunder Horse platform due to deep ocean floor conditions increase the difficulty of getting deep-water oil.
In space you only have a 14.7 psi pressure differential to deal with and man can work out there as has been proven on things like the Hubbell telescope repairs.
There are high costs involved in lifting mass out of this gravity well, but they are no greater than the costs of deep water drilling. And there are no hurricanes out in space!
I would like to see just one politician think and talk about a time period longer than the term of office that they are running for!
In 50 years most of the oil is going to be gone and if we have not made the move to utilize space technology to provide for our energy before then we will, I am afraid, have blown the only window of opportunity to make this move.
As a citizen, I would not mind putting up with some short-term hardship as long as there is a plan and opportunity for things to not only improve, but get much better than they are now in terms of energy availability and costs. And living forever with minimum amounts of energy is never going to be acceptable to me or most Americans.
I would also like to hear at least one politician talk about increasing the quality of and decreasing the quantity of the population (US and Global) [fewer, but smarter, healthier, better educated, better motivated,etc...] – And how they would go about accomplishing this (Hint: don’t expect them to get elected ).
Jon Kutz
Growth in Quality is Good;
Growth in Quantity is Bad
What?
Just to get back-of-the-envelope on your ass: We consume around 15 terawatts as a species.
With 10% efficient solar panels, that's about 150,000 square kilometers of sunny land. Call it 6x as much for a reasonable load and infrastructure factor. So we need approximately 1 Sahara Desert worth of solar panels spread over the world, costing at $1/watt (which is claimed for CIGS panels), 60 trillion dollars, at current levels of technology.
Do you really think that's impossible for humanity?
It currently costs about $20k per kilogram to launch into geostat orbit, mostly in raw hydrocarbon cost. Let's take the simplest technology: mirrors. Let's assume you can accurately focus the space mirrors onto boilers on the ground. Let's assume that your boilers on the ground are 20% efficient. You need about half the solar exposure of mirrors that the ground-based PV approach does: 75k square kilometers. At a 45 degree angle (to maximize exposure), that's 106k square kilometers of mirror area. Let's say you build it out of Kapton at a paltry 12 grams per square meter:
You need 1.2 million metric tons launched into space just for the mirror material.
That's 25 trillion dollars right there, in launch costs. Without counting the boilers, the control equipment, the tensioning equipment/superstructure, the propulsion of the craft against solar wind, the replacement of the craft when hit with meteorites, or any of the electrical gear necessary to get the job done on the ground. There is every reason to believe that these costs would dwarf the cost of the mirror materials. Anything that costs more than 12 grams per square meter? Well, you can multiply.
In reality:
You won't be able to tension a hell of a lot of plastic very tightly for an accurate focus, period.
You won't be able to create any superstructure with solid backing to preserve focus, because of launch costs, period.
You won't be able to protect against micrometeorites, which will shred your scheme with great prejudice, and in all liklihood, cause enough debris in total to prevent us from ever escaping the gravity well again.
False. Most of the cost is custom hardware. The delta-V to geosync is approximately the same as to escape (11 km/sec); at 285 seconds Isp for kerosene/oxygen, it takes a mass-ratio of about 51:1. Double this to account for weight of discarded stages, and we get about 100:1. The O:F ratio is about 2.4:1, so less than 30% of the total propellant is fuel.
A gallon of diesel is 7.67 pounds. If it costs $3/gallon, that's roughly $0.40/pound. 30 pounds of fuel per pound to geosync is only $12/pound of payload. Hydrocarbon fuel is the second cheapest element of a space launch, behind only liquid oxygen.
If you don't mind launching your payload in very small packages, lasers can do the job much more cheaply than hydrocarbons. The payload goes at the apex of a shallow cone of ice (perhaps opacified with dye or carbon black). The cone is spun up for stability and then launched with an airgun. As it rises it becomes the target for laser pulses which vaporize thin layers of ice off the back, propelling it by reaction (no nozzle is needed because the steam layers are thin compared to the diameter). The center of thrust is changed to precess the spinning ice block to direct it into orbit; once there, the payload and any remaining ice is captured by a powered spacecraft. Transport from LEO to geosync can be done by ion drive. Voila, a system which is considerably more efficient because of the lower mass ratio (not limited by the energy of chemical fuels) and needs no hydrocarbons at all (can run on nuclear energy).
Go no further. The Sun is not a point source and its output cannot be so focused. End of scenario.
The recent production of gram quantities of multi-walled carbon nanotubes suggests that geosynchronous skyhooks may be feasible soon. This would allow shipment of payload directly to geosync under electric power.
Micrometeoroids do not "shred" thin films. They vaporize tiny sections of them; the kapton thermal blankets on the LDEF satellite proved this. The films had numerous holes from meteoroid impacts, but the surfaces below were unscathed. Had the films been shredded as you suggest, anything in the way of the debris would either be marked or coated with residue.
I can think of much worse hazards than a slow-moving cloud of microscopic plastic film fragments.
Engineer,
The skyhook or space elevator (whole other bolg with equal spectrum of naysayers to disciples) could fix all these peak oil problems. Everybody here laughs at technofixes but a swarm of geosyncronous solar collecters (photovoltaic) sending microwaves at rectenna arrangements in areas outside populations centers would work. The sats could even send more power toward different areas based on demand. Once we get one elevator working that is. PV would work a lot better without the cataract of the atmosphere and 12 hours of night.
peace
You're preaching to the choir; I still have my L5 Society space-colony posters. It sure does make one wistful, though.
Everybody here laughs at technofixes but a swarm of geosyncronous solar collecters (photovoltaic) sending microwaves at rectenna arrangements in areas outside populations centers would work.
And do you have the numbers showing the added heat to the Earth's envelope is not a consideration?
Yes I do,
3 8 and 11
17 and 33 are pending research.
Slow moving until you try to get through them at a few kilometers a second for an orbital swing. The point was that such a giant structure will be hit again and again and again, from different angles, at different impact velocities, in different directions. A complex structure like that under a barrage of chaotic particles moving quickly has trouble. What happens when the superstructure gets hit, and you have things launched into orbit around the support beams? Supposedly, the earth gets hit with a nuclear-sized blast about once a year from a meteorite detonating in the upper atmosphere. Smaller impacts happen all the time.
How do you protect hundreds of thousands of square kilometers from impacts? What happens when they come in almost parallel to the sheet and do actually tear it? What happens when the superstructure is hit and becomes a secondary debris cloud, orbiting around the rest of the superstructure?
Non-point sources can be focused quite well, just not on an infinitesimal dot. Ask the kid with the magnifying glass and the anthill. If you care to do the math on how big a boiler would have to be... my envelope ran out of space.
My point was that thin film mirrors are the simplest, lightest options, I'm ignoring most of the supporting infrastructure, and they cost 25 trillion in launch costs.
Do you agree at least that escaping the gravity well, while a fun project in itself, isn't the easiest way to a 100% renewable energy future?
A parabolic reflector system produces an image.
192 miles.
And the only practical way to use them is to do the conversion on orbit and transmit power to the ground as microwaves. Thin PV is simpler to make in bulk than thermal engines, and the downlink works the same.
I don't expect to see these things in my lifetime, but that's different from saying they wouldn't work.
First, there is something more important than energy or the environment. Individual freedom! And every one of the candidates I have studied so far has designs on using the “Necessity of the Moment” to curtail or continuously degrade individual freedom. Without freedom, life isn’t worth living.
I find your ideas intriguing and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
What back issues discusses responsibility for choices?
That said, in the arena of energy there is only one long term source of enough energy for the people in the USA and the World to live high quality lives and that is nuclear fusion – And the only current source of that energy is our sun.
Just energy? What about water quality, minerals, the level of toxins in the environment - don't they lead to a higher or lower quality of life?
We don’t have enough surface area on this planet to provide the level of energy we need from solar energy
Show your math.
and that leaves us the only logical solution to begin collecting solar energy in space, condensing it and sending it down to earth to be utilized as electrical energy and converted into liquid/gaseous fuels or liquid hydrocarbons for manufacturing.
Show how this idea does not add heat into the biosphere of the Earth and become a global warming issue.
And there are no hurricanes out in space!
Snark
Our allies in Saudi Arabia would like to point out the lack of Hurricanes in the good Kingdom.
UnSnark
I would like to see just one politician think and talk about a time period longer than the term of office that they are running for!
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
As a citizen, I would not mind putting up with some short-term hardship as long as there is a plan and opportunity for things to not only improve, but get much better than they are now in terms of energy availability and costs.
Yet this would be an issue with respect to Personal Freedom.
How ya feeling about the charges VS results mentioned here?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/23677
Still comfortable with the hardship of paying them bills?
And living forever with minimum amounts of energy is never going to be acceptable to me or most Americans.
Many Americans life with minimal amounts of energy. Are you sure your gripe isn't that the cost of energy is rising to be more in line with the actual costs? If you think living with a low energy budget is Un-American.....what are you doing to help the poor who are already there? How about the gent who posts here about how he pedals about Minneapolis and does home repairs - are you working to have his Un-American ways corrected?
Ahhhh, freedom and responsibility - the constant harping theme of my elite high school's theology classes - over and over and over and over you don't get one without the other.
When there is much less to go around, what kind of choices will we make? I think that's the back issue with Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor"?
cfm in Gray, ME
Because of my work (Television) I have had an opportunity to meet two of these candidates and speak with them mano y mano for a short time.
Last year it was Biden - he cornered me after coming off stage to get my reaction to his appearance on the show - I quickly steered the conversation towards energy policy and peak oil, and was very disappointed in his responses - they seemed the typical DC politician's response to the question - ethanol and hydrogen - when pressed on eroi he admitted there were problems with both, when I asked him how we would generate hydrogen he threw out wind solar and nukes (I actually agree that these are the most promising silver bb's, but question their use in the energy-losing proposition of making hydrogen rather than just using the electricity) - overall I rated his understanding and preparedness for peak oil and related issues as poor, and I will say that he felt like a slippery politician, ready to give pat answers and adapting to his audience as he went along.
This last Friday I met Dennis Kucinich and was able to speak to him prior to his appearance on the same show - as well as after in a more casual setting. We spoke about his resolution for impeachment of the Vice President more than anything else, but when questioned on energy policy he seemed very aware of peak oil, aware that the US was facing serious problems with the peak (and how it combines with global warming) - and refreshingly aware of the various silver bb's that would (hopefully if we are headed off that cliff too fast) work - electrification and expansion of rail, wind, tidal and solar were all brought up. Dennis struck me as far less a "politician" - far more willing to say something unpopular but needed - he seems earnest and genuine - I was impressed - the realist in me is sad he doesn't seem to have a chance in hell of winning, but I liked his stance on energy issues and liked him as a man.
as a post script for the Chimp That Drives - Dennis wins the Relative Fitness game by a mile, at 60, about 5'3" tops, he has a beautiful young wife - over 6', model good-looks - and they seem very very fond of one another, and not afraid of any political ramifications of showing it publicly
as the (show) season goes on, I will probably have an opportunity to meet more of those running, and hopefully speak with them in person about peak oil and it's ramifications
MacD;
I met Kucinich in similar circumstances, and found his ideas useful and well-thought out. I refuse to get caught up in the 'unelectable' stuff. I focus on the people I can believe in. Dennis had just announced his candidacy, and he and his wife both took questions after the taping, during a reception. She spoke eloquently on Environmental issues. I made the initial mistake of seeing her looks and her years and falling back on old stereotypes about politicians. I was glad to have that small-mindedness tossed back in my face.
Open up a Can on them, Dennis!
Bob Fiske
I didn't get a chance to speak to Mrs Kucinich, but if she is smart and informed as well as lovely, then my comment to The Chimp stands even higher, Dennis is winning the relative fitness game....
As a candidate, Kucinich is closest to ideal for me, as a realist, I need a candidate who can beat the other side (like the former mayor who likes to put on dresses) - not sure Dennis is that candidate
but at the very least I hope Dennis can add to the debate...
I was a delegate to the 2004 State Democratic convention. Kucinich came close to winning the majority of the delegates. There is nothing strategically wrong with supporting him this early. The hope would be that this would encourage the higher tier candidates to tack a bit to Kucinich's positions.
I am glad that Kucinich is in the race. Without Gravel and Kucinich, we would have to just endure endless bromides from here until election day. Kucinich enriches the race and shows what is possible.
Glad to hear someone else who likes Kucinich! It really bothers me that someone like him (not good-looking, no real money behind him but intelligent and aware) doesn't seem to stand a chance. Would Lincoln have been elected if TV had been around when he was running?
I've always been a fan of Kucinich since he came on the scene. Extremely well informed and willing to do unpopular (but right) things. Unfortunately in America, those are two things which make you unelectable.
I don't have high expectations for Obama; He seems like a nice fellow, but I consider it a fluke that he's in the Senate so young.
Regarding the Right Answer, I think it is too much to expect a presidential candidate to live like Ed Begley, Jr.
It would be nice if they made some effort to be efficient, but their homes are not PassivHausen - they are set up like offices, with extra rooms and facilities for the aides that advise them.
They don't bike or ride transit because they'd get harassed by the press if not killed outright by some loony - instead they are ferried around in limos or SUVs by large, silent men with guns.
What about Bloomberg? Isn't it true that he rides the subway to work? I agree, however, that once you declare for the presidency, that is probably not an option.
Why do we not get RR's ideal candidate, or Ed Begley, Jr.?
First, presidential candidates are really courting big money and big business. This is a fascist process for selecting leadership. This is Corporatism, not Democracy.
Second, the American people are carefully groomed to have an outrageous material appetite, an infinite sense of entitlement, and an absurd, fact-denying sense of victimization.
This way the American people are malleable and can be made to lust for what cannot satisfy, to lash out hatefully at others when they feel unsatisified, and to fear everyone who does not toe the corporatist line.
RR, if we work for cultural transformation, especially at the local level and in nonpolitical ways, I wonder if we will see candidates like tyour ideal candidate begin to emerge.
My dad was one of the foot soldiers of the Relgious Right as a fundamentalist pastor. Back when people were mocking the fundamentalist Christians in the 60's and 70's, he was out there "winning souls" (and voters?) one person at a time, and then building small communities to further spread and develop those fundamentalist values. Now many of those fundamentalists are disillusioned, but it is too late. They are used and despised by TPTB.
However, tranformation must be local and grassroots as well as political. The Establishment will co-opt and use any real movement for change. Those who are economic winners now will become losers if we make changes to address the real problems of climate Change and Peak Oil, and they know it.
The real political strategy of Democrats and Republicans seems to be to maintain US military hegemony as protection for the Corporatist racketeers. The political process hides the ugly "Kill Off" strategy for surviving resource shortages and the demands of increasingly hostile and extreme climate changes.
No conspiracy is needed for this too happen: just enough people who think alike in positions of power. What Supreme Court Justice Douglas called "The Establishment."
This was an extremely good comment among many in this thread. Thought experiment: ask yourself what else politicians are not allowed to talk about. For me, it would be the 750 military bases maintained by our Empire throughout the world. Another would be the permanent bases we've established in Iraq. Any other ideas?
Any other ideas?
How about:
The money in the US of a is loaned into existence via banks charging interest,
The Quron says interest is a no-no.
Thus - the threat of radical islam isn't 'gonna keeel ya - death to America' but is a dagger right at the heart of the money system.
Is that the kinda thing you were looking for?
I don't think that a tax neutral policy is likely to do much. If you are relying on costs to rein in oil use, then it has to hurt, to use more. If energy cost rise, and your ideal president cuts income tax, to compensate, then the overall effect will be to continue using at least the same quantity of oil, because the overall cost is the same.
For me (though I'm not an American), the ideal candidate will have the courage to say that an unsustainable lifestyle is one that must end. What a sustainable lifestyle entails would then have to be laid out (Heinberg's sustainability principles are a good starting point). The ideal candidate would put forward policies to move toward sustainability, over time. Such policies would have to include an end to growth.
We all know that the ideal candidate will never get elected.
Tony
But the marginal utility will not be.
People tend to buy things on the margin. The difference in utility between zero and one winter coats is big, the difference between one and two is much smaller. If the price of winter coats goes up, people who would otherwise buy two for different occasions are likely to cut back to one.
The USA uses roughly 200 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel per year. If the price was increased $3/gallon by taxes (a rough doubling), this would yield $600 billion/year (at first). The public reaction can be predicted by what happened post-Katrina: people cut back on trips, and even slowed down. They aimed toward more efficient vehicles, both to buy and to use (driving the beater econobox instead of the new SUV). A tax would be a permanent incentive to change behavior.
A commuter driving 11,000 miles/year in a 27.5 MPG car uses 400 gallons/year. An extra $3/gallon would cost him $1200/year, but a Prius driver (burning ~240 gallons/year @ 46 MPG) would pay only ~$720 extra, saving $480/year. $480 is sufficient to pay 14% interest on an extra $3300 in cost on a car. Toyota has brought the cost premium of a hybrid down to about $2000, so the effect would be to allow the hybrid buyer to pay for the hybrid drivetrain and an extra $1300 in creature comforts with his fuel savings. Lower interest rates increase the relative attractiveness of the hybrid.
Only growth of certain things. Population and environmental impact, certainly (just deport our illegal aliens and US population would drop at least 4%). But technologies like PV and bioplastics can turn resources we currently waste into more energy and products than we'd probably ever want. We can have amazing growth in many things, including energy use, so long as they involve living lighter on the land.
In terms of people's reaction to higher fuel tax, you are talking hypothetically. You can see that it might have such and such an effect but I think the reality will be very different, if personal taxes are reduced to compensate. I think you're right that fuel use would probably go down, to begin with, but I reckon most people wouldn't be looking to buy new hybrids; that would be impossible, anyway (both in building the cars and recycling/discarding existing cars). But, if the compensation is right, the cutbacks would simply result in people having more cash in their pockets. What is that likely to lead to?
As for growth being consistent with sustainability, I think you need to consider just what resources such growth would need. If the economy grows, if economic activity rises, if people do more things, own more stuff, resource use of all sorts will have to rise, including energy. I think it is self delusion to think that growth can continue without using resources beyond their renewal rate (which, in some cases, is effectively 0).
Tony
Why would it be impossible? You've given no reason for it to be. I'd expect a multi-faceted response:
None of this actually needs hybrids.
On average, the amount of money would be the same. However, every change which used less fuel would leave more of that money in their pockets, and the relative affordability of activities with less embodied energy would increase.
I think you need to stop defining "resources" so narrowly. If I can digest straw with a bug which produces chemical components of long-lasting waterproof polymer, and use that to laminate more straw into strong insulated building panels with foamed polymer cores, I've just transformed an agricultural byproduct into a replacement for lumber and insulation. The resource just got bigger while the impact got smaller. With a small enough impact, six billion people on the earth is not a problem.
Because it takes 12-15 years to replace the fleet. Unless all cars offered from now on are high efficiency vehicles, it would take some multiple of the fleet turnaround time to get everyone on significantly more efficient vehicles. In the meantime the problem got worse. Not only that but every time you trade in your car, you expect someone else to buy it. This is why it's impossible to make a significant impact, through efficient vehicles, in a timely manner. And new cars take energy to build
So you're assuming that the extra money would go into activities with less embodied energy, rather than into activities with the same embodied energy, including simply starting to drive a bit more, again. Seems like a big assumption to me.
And you've removed nutrients and organic matter from the topsoil. That will have to be replaced with something else. As will the other uses to which that straw was previously put.
So will any growth simply use that bigger resource? If so, growth is happening through increased resource use, which is unsustainable. 6 billion people aren't going to be supported by transforming their mulch, compost materials, animal bedding and food into insulation panels. I agree that 6 billion people (assuming a .5 billion die off and no more population growth) won't be a problem, but only if we move to sustainable lifestyles. Do you see that happening any time soon?
These career politicians have BOTCHED UP this country in the name of self serving more than i can remember or ever realized. Big business is running the show here, ie. illegal immigration. Cheap labor. Just remember these politicians are doing everything they can to serve themselves. Not the country. It's all about power! As long as they can remain in power!
Republicans and Democrats are nothing more than the same snake, with a different title.
It's time to get behind someone who is not afraid to do the right thing, regardless of how dirty or nasty it gets. Perhaps independant is the way to go! I don't know who that may be though! I have not done any reasearch!
I have never seen such a worthless Senate, they are really lameduck! Congress is not much better. If this is not a bought out house and senate, then i don't know how more clear I can make of it. I can't prove they are bought out, it's just a hunch! If they were not bought out, we might see things differently.
Immigration: The prez and senate muchless congress can't come to an agreement. Why not let the USA vote to annex Mexico? Make it another state, seal the southern border of mexico, abolish the PESO, print every thing in English only, no spanish, no german,french,russian,chinese and all the other languages. English only!
At some point in time, a politician will have to come to the conclusion that some dirty work will have to be done, and that a politician can't be all things to all people.
I don't have all the answers, i am too busy making ends meet. comments?
Thunderous applause?
I see you realize you are fantasizing since you recognize the "sad thing".
Instead of fantasizing about the election of Ed Begley, Jr why not push for workable plans and proposals that acknowledge the "sad fact" of the nature of the voting majority.
Build cleaner non-fossil fuel energy. More nuclear power.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/05/ipcc-draft-recommends-more-nucl...
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report suggests solutions to mitigate climate change, such as capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants, shifting to renewable forms of energy and more use of nuclear power.
The Europeans who you hold up as a model get 30% electricity from nuclear power.
=====
also, the whole pitch is wrong. It is not about sacrifice.
It is about making the US better.
A more efficient house is a better house.
Work with Walmart, Lowe's and Home Depot and their suppliers to adjust what is provided and how easy it is to install.
Work with the home developers.
Make transit better and enable companies to have better and expanded commuter check programs. Adjust commuter checks with some kind of EZpasscommuter card. Also in places like the SF Bay area- step in and unify the transit systems.
Make industrial motors more efficient with superconducting engines. Make a plan for the rapid conversion to maximally efficient industrial best practices.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/follow-up-superconducting-motor...
Adjust the tax system and home residences to have Timeshared primary residences. Look at ways to enable people to swap to residences near where they work (Monday-Friday).
Look at research and policies to enable more (but productive and efficient) remote work and satellite offices.
Find better ways that work.
===============================
http://advancednano.blogspot.com
Or tax the hell out of carbon based energy sources, and allow the cards to play themselves out. Allow state and local governments to make those initiatives, and follow through on the most successful ones. Allow private industry to be pulled by people wanting to save energy, and subsidize the most effective upgrades. Allow a local demand for mass transit to arrive, and match it strongly with federal funds.
There are a million different programs that could potentially save energy. I don't think anyone has faith in Congress to spot most of them, or even get the biggest ones perfect. Look at hydrogen & ethanol.
Hi S,
Thanks and could you possibly expand on this?
re: "Or tax the hell out of carbon based energy sources..."
Could you possibly check out my qs above, along the lines of
1) Who taxes?
2) Who pays?
3) What is the tax spent on and who spends it?
etc.
Edwards also hugely pandered to Detroit last week, with his bashing S. Korea’s “cylinder tax” as alleged justification to oppose a free trade bill.
First, we have our own “gas guzzler” tax; Seoul’s just happens to be a lot more stringent.
Second, pandering of this sort labels Edwards as “just another politician.”
Our gas guzzler tax, unfortunately, doesn't even apply to SUVs and trucks. Arguably, our tax has actually made things worse as it encouraged auto companies to promote SUVs and trucks. Having said that, Edwards should have done the Koreans one better by proposing even more stringent standards.
If you think the Democrats are bad, try the Republicans.
I did not watch but read (in the NYT) the transcript of the Republican candidates debate that was held last night. It was pitiful spectacle. Because it was held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library questions were posed full of obligatory paeans to the scam artist actor made a president (you know, city on the hill american can do platitudinous blather, etc). Mostly it was about Iraq, the WoT, Iran, abortion, stem-cell research, religion, blah blah blah.
Energy was mentioned briefly by one candidate (Huckabee?). Climate Change wasn't broached at all. The whole format, the TV talking heads moderation and questions asked made for an utter farce of political discourse.
Other than Ron Paul, these dead men walking empty suits bozos are scary.
The debate made me realize that the end of our national nighmare won't necessarily occur with the end of Bush's term.
But equally unfortunate is the fact that the chief moderator, Chirs Mathews appparently lives in a world where abortion, stem cell research, moral values, marriage, and bellicosity totally trump the issues of the environment, peak oil, and global warming.
There was one question related to global warming. One of the citizen questioners on the internet asked one of the candidates if he had seen the film "Invconvienent Truth". While he said, no I was surprised that he supported efforts to combat global warming because these efforts would also simultaneously address energy security issues.
Some of those people who are not ready to fully embrace the science of climate change are willing to address it anyway because of the side benefits of cutting energy use which may or may not have anything to do with climate change. Bartlett, the peak oil expert in congress, pretty much takes this position. He says he will leave the science to the scientists but we should get off oil anyway. If we can help the climate, so much the better.
Sorry, Robert, I normally find your post enlightening and rational but your presidential candidate’s answer is the same irrelevant, rubbish as the rest of the political cartel that controls the US.
a) For example, the last sentence
“…and I know that most Americans will accept this sacrifice to avoid more sacrifice of lives to protect our foreign oil interests." Is based on a falsehood: - when did Iraqi oil become “OUR foreign oil interests”. Iraqi oil belongs to Iraqi and if US troops seek to pillage that oil can anyone be surprised that Iraqis object and strongly. Indeed the phrase is self-contradictory.: if the oil interests are foreign, they cannot be simultaneous American.
Why not say instead “much reduced oil consumption in the United States will end our need for aggressive wars and occupation of other sovereign states, actions that cost much blood, oil, and gold for us and them.”
b) . “I am talking about the kind of sacrifice we see in Europe, where per capita energy consumption is half that of the U.S. Yet despite this "sacrifice", Europeans maintain a high standard of living.” This is only a small part of the story. Why not add
“Europeans are making further sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions with a target of 60% reduction by mid 21st century while we Americans, in our selfishness, are already destroying parts of their countries. To match European targets, US production of atmospheric pollution must drop by 50% soon and then by a further 60 % and that will still leave a 75% risk that together we shall destroy most life on this planet. Running such risks is an unforgivable assault on all mankind. Therefore with a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, the US must agree to the Kyoto treaty and to a strengthened Kyoto and to the recommendations of the UN International Panel on Climate Change. The challenge is global in scope and we, as the most guilty, must respond in co-operation with out fellow men, not in isolationist apathy”
c) If you agree with the above comments but also believe that it would be political suicide for any Presidential candidate to make them, the conclusion is that the US political system is so corrupted that there is no hope.