someone thinking about a real issue.....
- callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
someone thinking about a real issue.....
Op-Ed Columnist
What 7 Republicans Could Do
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The hour is late, but there is still a sliver of time to pass a serious energy bill out of this Congress. To do so, though, would require President Obama to rustle up votes with a passion that he has failed to exhibit up to now, and, more importantly, it would require at least seven Republican senators to put the national interest above party and politics. Yes, I know that is all unlikely. You can laugh now. But just remember this: If we don’t get a serious energy bill out of this Congress, and Republicans retake the House and Senate, we may not have another shot until the next presidential term or until we get a “perfect storm” — a climate or energy crisis that is awful enough to finally end our debate on these issues but not so awful as to end the world. But, hey, by 2012, China should pretty much own the clean-tech industry and we’ll at least be able to get some good deals on electric cars.
The energy bill now being discussed in the Senate — which would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants — is already watered down just to get 53 or so Democratic votes. But at least it gets us started on ending our addiction to oil and mitigating climate change. Unfortunately, right now it is not clear that a single Republican senator will even vote for this watered-down bill.
That is pathetic. Rather than think seriously about our endless dependence on oil, the G.O.P. has focused its energies on making “climate change” a four-letter word and labeling any Democrat who supports legislation that would in any way raise energy prices to diminish our dependence on oil as a “carbon taxer.”
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats never effectively fought back. They should have said: “O.K., you Republicans don’t believe in global warming? Fine. Forget about global warming. That’s between you and your beach house. How about this? Do you believe in population growth? Do you believe in the American dream? Because, according to the U.N., the world’s population is going to grow from roughly 6.7 billion people today to about 9.2 billion by 2050. And in today’s integrated world, more and more of those 9.2 billion will aspire to, and be able to, live like Americans — with American-size cars, homes and Big Macs. In that world, demand for fossil fuels is going to go through the roof — and all the bad things that go with it.
“If we take that threat seriously now and pass an energy bill that begins to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from the people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry — one China is already leapfrogging us on — clean-tech. Nothing would improve our economic and national security more, yet Republicans won’t lift one finger to make it happen.
“They would rather we send more Americans to fight terrorism in the Middle East, let petro-states hostile to our interests get richer and let China take the lead in the next great global industry than ask Americans to pay a little more for the gas they use or the carbon pollution they put into the air. If OPEC, China and Russia could vote, they would be 100 percent supportive of the Republicans.
“How about we stop honoring our soldiers and our military families and start helping them? Nope. The Republican view of fighting the war on terrorism is that rather than ask all of us to make a small sacrifice to weaken our foes and buttress our troops, we should ask only a few of us to make the ultimate sacrifice. And that’s called being tough?”
It gets worse. As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense Fund, notes: U.S. utility companies today “are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital — but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be. In just one state, Indiana, there are 25 power plants 50 years old or older. The fleet needs to be modernized, and Senate paralysis is keeping it from happening. A recent study from the Peterson Institute projects annual investment in the sector in the next 10 years would rise by 50 percent as a result of climate legislation — an increase of nearly $11 billion a year.” That’s new employment from a private sector stimulus.
Can you imagine how high the stock market would soar and how easy a compromise with Democrats would become if Republicans offered an energy policy consistent with their values and our interests? What if the G.O.P. said: We will support a carbon tax provided one-third of the revenue goes toward cutting corporate taxes, one-third toward cutting payroll taxes for every working American and one-third toward paying down the deficit. The G.O.P. would actually help us get a better energy policy.
Surely there are seven Republican senators who can see this. Aren’t there?
What 7 Republicans Could Do
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The hour is late, but there is still a sliver of time to pass a serious energy bill out of this Congress. To do so, though, would require President Obama to rustle up votes with a passion that he has failed to exhibit up to now, and, more importantly, it would require at least seven Republican senators to put the national interest above party and politics. Yes, I know that is all unlikely. You can laugh now. But just remember this: If we don’t get a serious energy bill out of this Congress, and Republicans retake the House and Senate, we may not have another shot until the next presidential term or until we get a “perfect storm” — a climate or energy crisis that is awful enough to finally end our debate on these issues but not so awful as to end the world. But, hey, by 2012, China should pretty much own the clean-tech industry and we’ll at least be able to get some good deals on electric cars.
The energy bill now being discussed in the Senate — which would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants — is already watered down just to get 53 or so Democratic votes. But at least it gets us started on ending our addiction to oil and mitigating climate change. Unfortunately, right now it is not clear that a single Republican senator will even vote for this watered-down bill.
That is pathetic. Rather than think seriously about our endless dependence on oil, the G.O.P. has focused its energies on making “climate change” a four-letter word and labeling any Democrat who supports legislation that would in any way raise energy prices to diminish our dependence on oil as a “carbon taxer.”
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats never effectively fought back. They should have said: “O.K., you Republicans don’t believe in global warming? Fine. Forget about global warming. That’s between you and your beach house. How about this? Do you believe in population growth? Do you believe in the American dream? Because, according to the U.N., the world’s population is going to grow from roughly 6.7 billion people today to about 9.2 billion by 2050. And in today’s integrated world, more and more of those 9.2 billion will aspire to, and be able to, live like Americans — with American-size cars, homes and Big Macs. In that world, demand for fossil fuels is going to go through the roof — and all the bad things that go with it.
“If we take that threat seriously now and pass an energy bill that begins to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from the people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry — one China is already leapfrogging us on — clean-tech. Nothing would improve our economic and national security more, yet Republicans won’t lift one finger to make it happen.
“They would rather we send more Americans to fight terrorism in the Middle East, let petro-states hostile to our interests get richer and let China take the lead in the next great global industry than ask Americans to pay a little more for the gas they use or the carbon pollution they put into the air. If OPEC, China and Russia could vote, they would be 100 percent supportive of the Republicans.
“How about we stop honoring our soldiers and our military families and start helping them? Nope. The Republican view of fighting the war on terrorism is that rather than ask all of us to make a small sacrifice to weaken our foes and buttress our troops, we should ask only a few of us to make the ultimate sacrifice. And that’s called being tough?”
It gets worse. As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense Fund, notes: U.S. utility companies today “are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital — but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be. In just one state, Indiana, there are 25 power plants 50 years old or older. The fleet needs to be modernized, and Senate paralysis is keeping it from happening. A recent study from the Peterson Institute projects annual investment in the sector in the next 10 years would rise by 50 percent as a result of climate legislation — an increase of nearly $11 billion a year.” That’s new employment from a private sector stimulus.
Can you imagine how high the stock market would soar and how easy a compromise with Democrats would become if Republicans offered an energy policy consistent with their values and our interests? What if the G.O.P. said: We will support a carbon tax provided one-third of the revenue goes toward cutting corporate taxes, one-third toward cutting payroll taxes for every working American and one-third toward paying down the deficit. The G.O.P. would actually help us get a better energy policy.
Surely there are seven Republican senators who can see this. Aren’t there?
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
Typical Democrat.
You have never seen a tax that you did not like.
Face it Callmesick, your just another tax loving Demo.
That article is a nice mix of truth and fiction, propaganda for short.
HH
You have never seen a tax that you did not like.
Face it Callmesick, your just another tax loving Demo.
That article is a nice mix of truth and fiction, propaganda for short.
HH
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
I realize they are "renewable" resources and have all the fancy green buzz word connotations associated with them, but tell me slick, have you ever seen a "wind farm" up close?
I have. I helped build a couple of large installations near Big Spring, Texas. I helped haul several big assed cranes out on the tops of some formerly very picturesque mesas. They aren't pretty anymore to anyone except whoever owns that mess. Whitewater Pass out in So Kali is another eye sore of wind farms as well.
I don't have any numbers at the moment to back me up but just how efficient are they without all the "green subsidies"?
What else is in that magic bill that may keep the evil Republicans from jumping on the wind wagon? The current administration doesn't appear to want us the USA to be independent of the mid-east oil cartels. I understood that with Bush/Cheney but not this bunch of turds. Seems to me if they want to get even with the BIG oil then go home grown and get the prices DOWN. That would hurt the BIG oil players more than anything.
That's not what they want even though they say it is. They're in it just as deep as those two assholes Bush and Cheney. The difference is Bush/Cheney are after the big bucks. The present bunch of turds is intent on castrating this country.
I have. I helped build a couple of large installations near Big Spring, Texas. I helped haul several big assed cranes out on the tops of some formerly very picturesque mesas. They aren't pretty anymore to anyone except whoever owns that mess. Whitewater Pass out in So Kali is another eye sore of wind farms as well.
I don't have any numbers at the moment to back me up but just how efficient are they without all the "green subsidies"?
What else is in that magic bill that may keep the evil Republicans from jumping on the wind wagon? The current administration doesn't appear to want us the USA to be independent of the mid-east oil cartels. I understood that with Bush/Cheney but not this bunch of turds. Seems to me if they want to get even with the BIG oil then go home grown and get the prices DOWN. That would hurt the BIG oil players more than anything.
That's not what they want even though they say it is. They're in it just as deep as those two assholes Bush and Cheney. The difference is Bush/Cheney are after the big bucks. The present bunch of turds is intent on castrating this country.
-
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:09 pm
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
so ugly lol...keep all the beautiful refineries and storage, the enchanting coal-fired plants
a smaller foray into wind farming in one region in ontario also had residents opposed claiming not only the eyesore
, but also "danger to birds" et al
not only china, but several other countries have been investing in the tech early on, and only those who have the respurces to do so but do not will reap just reward...
i only wish kanada would get going on it more than we have..we already produce oil surplus to our needs, should get on the next wave of power industry as deep as possible, sell our entire oil output to schlub countries still heavily oil dependent (not that the gov wouldnt waste that much more money it made as a result anyhow
)
a smaller foray into wind farming in one region in ontario also had residents opposed claiming not only the eyesore


not only china, but several other countries have been investing in the tech early on, and only those who have the respurces to do so but do not will reap just reward...
i only wish kanada would get going on it more than we have..we already produce oil surplus to our needs, should get on the next wave of power industry as deep as possible, sell our entire oil output to schlub countries still heavily oil dependent (not that the gov wouldnt waste that much more money it made as a result anyhow


Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
Pure drivel.....mark me down for not giving a shit about this problem at the moment....it's sort of like making the decision to paint your house or pay the mortgage....when you have no job.
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
Hey Daii,
You Canadiens may have a surplus of oil, but where does your gasoline come from?
We've already got refineries fucking up the landscape, mainly because the NIMBY ( not in my backyard ) fuckers back East and up NAWTH didn't want to be bothered.
I hope they put a bunch of those wind sucking farms near you so you can enjoy the racket from that GREEN energy. LOL
You Canadiens may have a surplus of oil, but where does your gasoline come from?
We've already got refineries fucking up the landscape, mainly because the NIMBY ( not in my backyard ) fuckers back East and up NAWTH didn't want to be bothered.
I hope they put a bunch of those wind sucking farms near you so you can enjoy the racket from that GREEN energy. LOL
- callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
I have seen them, and agree with the aesthetics. I also wonder about effects on bird life. They are considering them along the VA coast.Wullie wrote:I realize they are "renewable" resources and have all the fancy green buzz word connotations associated with them, but tell me slick, have you ever seen a "wind farm" up close?
I have. I helped build a couple of large installations near Big Spring, Texas. I helped haul several big assed cranes out on the tops of some formerly very picturesque mesas. They aren't pretty anymore to anyone except whoever owns that mess. Whitewater Pass out in So Kali is another eye sore of wind farms as well.
efficient? Pretty much so. Cheap? Not really. The problem is, as the author stated, that we have to start moving in that direction. Oil will run out. The numbers make that a given, sooner than most think. If we don't start perfecting the alternatives, someone else will.....likely China or India.I don't have any numbers at the moment to back me up but just how efficient are they without all the "green subsidies"?
I'd differ. I think the current administration is trying, desperately, to get the nation focused on rebuilding domestic innovation and technology, along with manufacturing. I really don't see anyone wishing to harm the country, especially in light of the damage the nation is currently doing to itself by clinging to a dying energy source.What else is in that magic bill that may keep the evil Republicans from jumping on the wind wagon? The current administration doesn't appear to want us the USA to be independent of the mid-east oil cartels. I understood that with Bush/Cheney but not this bunch of turds. Seems to me if they want to get even with the BIG oil then go home grown and get the prices DOWN. That would hurt the BIG oil players more than anything.
That's not what they want even though they say it is. They're in it just as deep as those two assholes Bush and Cheney. The difference is Bush/Cheney are after the big bucks. The present bunch of turds is intent on castrating this country.
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
Slick, what is it you don't understand about the poorer folks in this country....now, especially now...they can't afford your "clean dream"....what you are not pointing out is this, the type of energy you are pushing is four times more expensive than what we currently use. Further, the infrastructure (electrical grid) in this country will not be able to handle that much electricity....what's the deal Slick, did you buy a bunch of that "dreamer stock"? It would cost a few trillion bucks, just to sort out the infrastructure, not to mention, all the hot air it would take....to make the "clean dream" come true.......
Old Pudfark sez: " If anything, go nuclear "
Old Pudfark sez: " If anything, go nuclear "
-
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:09 pm
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
and its only getting more expensive to get started, all the timePudfark wrote:the type of energy you are pushing is four times more expensive than what we currently use.
the value will be in the long run with reduced manufacturing, maintenance, and administration costs, not to mention a fraction of released pollutants, and thats only for raw manufacturing, actal operation yields negligble to no waste product
high time you set about improving it anyhow, again, at least in light of ever-increasing costsPudfark wrote:Further, the infrastructure (electrical grid) in this country will not be able to handle that much electricity.... It would cost a few trillion bucks, just to sort out the infrastructure"
you arent likely to recall the 03 blackout due to region, but that was in large part due to an already-obsolete (or obsolescent, at best) national energy grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003
"New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who formerly headed the Department of Energy, in a live television interview 2 hours into the blackout characterized the United States as "a superpower with a third-world electricity grid." In Europe, this statement was published accompanied with comparisons highlighting the tighter, safer and better interconnected European electricity network (though it would suffer a similar blackout six weeks later)."
bear in mind, the later euro blackout was due to storms that could have affected any energy grid...the US/Kan blackout was too much demand from an inadequate grid
"In the ensuing days, critics focused on the role of electricity market deregulation for the inadequate state of the electric power transmission grid, claiming that deregulation laws and electricity market mechanisms have failed to provide market participants with sufficient incentives to construct new transmission lines and maintain system security"
so. take a hit now, and support a future that promises to deliver your partial needs at least, with low enviro impact, in a self-sustaining industry that has plenty of export potential
or just cheap out now and continue with oil as major energy source, and dont complain in 40 years when you guys are buying even more Kanadian power, and even importing from places unthinkable today
smart.
nuclear is an option that should be excercised of course, however it also has its own "vices", although nothing major or insurmountable, but is only a component of a more effecient, cheaper, integrated power grid that includes several other viable non-fossil-fuel solutions. this includes retaining a small portion of oil/coal firing plants of a higher-than-current technology

-
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:09 pm
Re: someone thinking about a real issue.....
edumacate urselfs then, this has been going on for some time over a good chunk of the planet, with minimal if any impact of wildlife. perhaps if most sites were not surveyed for environmental impact, tempered with proximity to transforming/transmission facilities and reasonable site access, i could see a concern for wildlife, for clearing a large swathe of land for a wind farm...but that doesnt generally happen, certainly not on a large scalecallmeslick wrote: I also wonder about effects on bird life.
perhaps we should take down power/phone lines, shut down airports, highways, railroads, cease residential/industrial/commercial development entirely...after all, its all about the birds....
