Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News attacks Al Gore’s latest proposal on electric power:
He's a former vice president of the United States, Nobel Prize winner and best-selling author, so the lavish news coverage of Al Gore's latest brainstorm was inevitable. Less understandable is why an idea so irresponsible — in economic terms, in fact, just this side of deranged — attracted so little ridicule.
Gore proposed last week that the United States "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." Not just all new electricity, mind you, which would be challenging enough. But all existing electricity, too.
This would of course require utilities to mothball hundreds of existing power plants as they launched a crash construction program of solar plants, wind farms and transmission lines costing hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars. (To put this in perspective, T. Boone Pickens, another fellow who's caught the wind-power bug, claims on his Web site, "Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20 percent of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.") . . .
He'd inflict monumental utility price hikes on consumers who'd pay for both the shutdown of old plants and construction of the new - with who knows what economic fallout. . . . Stanley Lewandowski, the general manager of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, is one of the few utility officials willing to suggest that the prophet of global warming is strutting about like an emperor without his clothes. "Al Gore's statement of obtaining 100 percent of our power from renewables in 10 years has as much a chance of happening as the sun shining 24 hours a day," Lewandowski quipped. "It's nonsense."
Yet revealing. The idea reflects a shocking indifference to the possible fragility of an economy subjected to a force-fed "transformative" (Gore's word) experience. History rarely is kind to such ambitions, with the most catastrophic example occurring 50 years [ago] in China. That's when Mao Zedong launched his Great Leap Forward — the hare-brained effort to transform that nation into an industrial power within a few years by, among other things, dotting the landscape with backyard furnaces to make steel.
Because he is in no way attempting to shift the debate by taking extreme positions, thus giving Obama cover.
I mean, all liberals want to be dictators anyhow, right? Not like Conservatives.
No, wait; he didn't. And you wonder why many conservatives look at the MSM as shills for the lunatic left.
Fist 3 questions were basically "Won't solving global warming with a plan like yours cost lotsa bucks and create pain and devastate Main Street and raise prices?"
Asking ask why the Democratic Congress had not passed any sweeping energy proposals.
Asking Gore about his house, because it's "on the blogs."
Asking Gore to condemn Hillary Clinton -- who's no longer in the race -- for proposing a gas tax holiday, without so much as mentioning that John McCain is still supporting one.
But he didn't ask about Obama's birth certificate!
What a liberal hack-job!
It's negotiations 101, people. And while it's perfectly valid to critique the plan, the many inevitable cries of "Gore must be cuh-razy!" betray only a lack of political awareness by the speakers.
More seriously, read the IPCC report. The error bars there are striking. First, even if you agree with their error estimates, according to their predictions maintaining the current rate of increase in emissions and reducing emissions back to 1990 levels have no scientifically significant difference in the predicted temperature. In fact, I'm not sure they can predict with certainty that reducing emissions to 1950 levels will help. Second, their error bars are too low given the weak agreement of their models with reality so far. Third, they are using misleading error bars: the standard error bars are either 1sigma (65%) or 2sigma (95%) wide. They are using 90% error bars, I guess trying to create the impression that these are the 2sigma errors.
Note that given the plans of China and India to greatly increase their emissions, the US cutting its power-generation emissions to zero will have little effect on the climate but ruin the US economically.
And on the subject of "too-absurd" -- this idea that one should take (or forgive others for taking) the extreme position so as to "give cover" to the moderates, the kindest thing that can be said about it is that it is ineffectual. Once the bloom is off the Gore rose, any sensible anti-pollution suggestion could be dismissed as the same sort of arrant nonsense as "carbon-free in 10 years".
Coupled with "I invented the Internet" and "Yes, the hurricane in Myanmar was caused by global warming", I think that just the other side of deranged is a possibility.
I don't get it, I was under the impressions that the sun doesn't stop shining, most people just can't see it when the earth turns away from it. Unless of course you're near one of the poles, then you would get approximately 60 days of 24hour sun shining a year. Yes, I understand his intent for the statement, however "it's nonsense" when you really think about it.
I guess those at Intermountain Rural Electric Association who subscribe to the earth-centric universe aren't entirely keen on this kind of "transformative" thinking. Most great ideas start with unrealistic deadlines, but really good pipedreams have a way of making themselves into a reality eventually. It didn't take long for the American space program to achieve its aggressive goal in the 60's, with proper motivation (ie: the cost of gas revolutionizing the automotive industry) I wouldn't go so far as to completely dismiss this.
-Chaymus
Likewise to ejo. Clearly nobody who flies a private jet or has ever ridden in a limousine can possibly have an intelligent opinion on environmental issues. Real environmentalists can only ride bicycles, eat granola and wear clothes woven from hemp.
Jim Lindgren, the poster, doesn't add any analysis or commentary.
I guess maybe I was wrong about this being a law blog. Maybe it's a "copy and paste random ad hominem attacks from insignificant newspapers" blog. At least I know what to expect from Jim Lindgren in the future.
What's he the Lord of? FRE 802?
This is a pretty transparent effort to reframe the debate, folks.
I am willing to concede that difference between Gore and Mao is that the Gore would regard his technological inanity's killing millions of people as a bug and not a feature.
Did Gore happen to mention the costs? Presumably he brought up the benefits.
The only major -positive- benefit that would come from global warming would be if the US came up with solar or wind that was cheap enough and efficient enough to compete with oil and coal on a cost basis, but difficult enough to manufacture that most other countries couldn't manage it. Then we'd make a lot of money selling solar panels/turbines/whatever. That is, however, a hell of a big if...
Yes, your post definitely qualifies for the ad hominem fallacy. And I was way over in my estimates. Al Gore may be a gigantic hypocrite, but it does nothing to prove or disprove his arguments. In fact, most people are quite selfish, so it wouldn't be surprising to me if Gore decides to simply enjoy the benefits of jets or what-have-you and not factor in the externality he imposes on everyone else.
If anything, the "duh, he flies in a jet" people are unwittingly making the case for a carbon tax, since obviously we can't trust Gore to curb his emissions on his own ;)
In that case he would be a Republican.
:ahem:
Energy security is a national security issue. I don't see anyone on the right side of the aisle wringing their hands when we dole out half a billion dollars a year to fund the DoD. Would we really need such a massive footprint in the Middle East if it wasn't for energy interests?
I'm also confused by the complete lack of faith in America. We built the bomb. We sent the first men to the moon. Do you people think America can't become energy independent? Or do you think that relying on energy sources from autocrats and strongmen is good strategy?
He leads the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Dr. Hansen is his chief priest. It has to be a religion since it depends on faith, not evidence.
Mr Lewandowski's failure to understand that the sun does shine 24 hours a day may indicate he could use a refresher course, too.
Furthermore, ever heard of the fallacy of perfection?
Germany is the clear leader in alternative energy R&D, and much further ahead than we are. Sales for wind turbines are backlogged over a year -- they literally cannot make them fast enough for the demand. We are losing out because we refuse to invest in these types of industries.
The No. 2 leader in alternative energy is China. They are spending billions of dollars as well. It is therefore a fallacy to think that if we switch to alternative energy, the rest of the world will still be stuck with oil and coal. In fact, they are speeding *ahead* of us on those fronts. Not to mention the billions they are spending on high speed trains to eliminate (or at least reduce) the use of oil for transportation.
Within a few years, countries such as Germany and China will be selling us their products and services to meet our growing demand for energy, and apparently, most of you are quite happy with that situation.
For me, however, I would prefer that we spend more money in R&D, as Gore suggests, so that we can develop our own industry and sell those products to the world, instead of the other way around.
What are the downsides for trying to reach this goal? And that does not mean discussing whether global warming is man's fault or not.
The facts are that there is a limited supply of fossil fuels and to not plan for the future is sillier than worrying that "fragility of the market". Excuse me, in the face of the new junk bond crisis, i.e. sub prime mortgage securitization, and the already crushing effect of $100+/bbl oil, you are going to rant about how an aspirational goal is going to disrupt our lives.
Enjoy the view (with all the ostriches) from a few feet under the ground
Uh, I think you meant to say half a TRILLION. And it's no doubt much more than that when you include these wars we are in.
But you are correct on several points. Our R&D on alternative energy is much further behind than even that of China (I think we are about number 12 or so on the list).
I think the logic of many conservatives, though, is that wind and solar energy has long been associated with environmentalists, and that means liberals. Anything liberal is bad and should be avoided. Ergo, we should avoid all wind and solar energy. To do otherwise would be an admission that liberals were right all along, and that is something conservatives just will not swallow. They would rather the US keeping pumping billions to the middle east, and fall behind the rest of the world than admit that much. Such is the high cost of ideology.
What exactly is the point of citing a columnist for the Rocky Mountain News, who can't tell the difference between Al Gore and Mao Zedong, on this topic?
This is a guy who's idea of an unbiased well-informed authority is utility company flack who thinks the sun isn't shining because it's dark in Colorado.
Come on Lindgren. You can do better than this.
In the early 90s, the US gov't supports, through a combination of regulations, funding and research, higher CAFE standards for all automobiles. In addition, they do the same for research on electric cars, hydrogen cars and other forms of non-oil based transportation. It costs us collectively $10 billion. or maybe $100 billion. Who cares?
Today, our cars enjoy high fuel efficiency. We use less oil. We export that technology to places like China and India, which helps our trade imbalance with them. They are using less oil.
Comes 2008 and guess what? There isn't as great a demand worldwide or domestically for oil, and so prices have not risen nearly as high. Therefore, we have *saved* ourselves billions of dollars that is not leaving the country to oil rich states, AND our technology is further ahead, AND the US is the leader for alternative energy, which helps our economy along.
Here's another hypo: In the early 90s, we tax gas rather high. That tax goes directly towards altervative forms of transit -- railroads, subways, that sort of thing. So when the oil prices rise, people have many forms of transportation to get around without filling up at the gas station.
Why didn't we do those things? Oh that's right -- nothing, but *nothing* is more important than have taxes as low as possible, and the gov't should never ever do anything to interfere with the free market.
Yeah, worked great, didn't it?
NIMBYs piss me off, regardless of political stripe. The ones that push for alternative energy and then block efforts to put up wind turbines because it will spoil the view have a special place in hell reserved for them.
Randy R. - thanks for the correction. I was thinking 500 billion and it came out wrong.
This is a major opportunity for the US. We can either lead the world in the development of alternative energy or we can rely on century old sources. I much prefer the carrot to the stick on issues like this, so it would be better if the government would offer incentives and grants for R&D and adoption.
But I guess conservatives don't think the US is up to the challenge. So much for American exceptionalism, we should just keep funding the nations that want to do us harm.
And if that's what conservatives think, then they have been proven wrong time and time again. If we never invested in R&D without gov't support, our country would still be stuck in the victorian age while all the others have surged ahead.
The moon program is a great example of this -- only the gov't could have funded all that R&D, and yet it created enormous benefits for the economy and expanded our knowledge tremendously. The practical benefits are so large, you just can't compute them.
I bet you wouldn't have any NIMBY issues if they decided to put one in your backyard, right?
Actually, my little hypo proves my point. It certainly WOULD have been cost effective and efficient to have invested in conservation, higher fuel standards and R&D into alternatives throughout the 90s. Do you doubt that? So why didn't the market do so when it could have?
the answer, of course, is that the market looks only to short term gains, not long term issues. Contrary to conservatives rigid ideology, the free market does not solve all our problems. Unless you consider $4 a gallon of gas as a some sort of solution....
But what would the benefits have been if private individuals had expended those same resources on the things that were important to them? You can't focus only on the benefits and not on the cost any more than you can do the reverse.
Agreed. But that hasn't stopped the Congress and President from giving incentives for development to the oil industry. See, e.g., here. To whom such benefits should flow certainly should be up for debate.
In fact, there is no resistance here at all to developing new forms of energy. There is also not so much resistance to government-funded basic science research into alternative forms of energy. There is great resistance to replacing existing forms of energy with other forms which are far more expensive, given that the value of the benefits is smaller than the costs.
If I gave you the power to shift several trillion dollars in the US budget, would spending all that money on a small reduction in carbon emissions would be the best use of the money? Say we already have a coal-burning power plant. The billions required to replace it with a nuclear plant (let's ignore even more expensive ideas like wind energy) could also be used to provide health care to the poor, or spent on breast cancer research. Do you believe in our ability to predict the climate to such an extent that you can assign a significant positive benefit to this replacement?
Well the USSR is who we were competing against, so what would have happened if sat back and said, "You know, going to the moon is too hard and the government shouldn't be wasting money on this. Let private industry figure it out."
Come on people, if Abu Dhabi has the stones to try it, don't you think we can too? Or is America not up to the challenge?
As for investing in R&D there's nothing wrong with that, but you'd be hard pressed to argue the government doesn't do enough of that already. Not to mention the companies, find an efficient way to produce energy and you will be the next Bill Gates.
There is zero chance for alternative forms of energy being developed or discovered as long as Democrats are in the majority in Congress. Even less of a chance if the president is a Democrat. They have killed every reasonable proposal to move in the direction of energy independence.
I am pretty sure that a lot of (most?) liberals do.
Our government-funded R&D may be that far down the list, but you have to leave off the amazingly large private-sector funding to get that number. You know, the same private sector that's starting to put out solar cells made by printing with an inkjet-style machine, or any of the other giant list of projects that are currently underway (and giving good results).
Here's a little trivia for you: where is the largest solar power station in the world?
It's very understandable. The people agreeing with him and cheering him on are just as ignorant about economics as he is.
Except nobody is clamoring to put a nuclear reactor in anyone's back yard.
Want to take one guess as to why you're raising such silly points?
In the early 90s, the US gov't supports, through a combination of regulations, funding and research, higher CAFE standards for all automobiles
Um, you do realize that the more MPG people get the more they will drive, right? That is, when something becomes cheaper, highway miles, the more people use it.
You're just as ignorant as any garden variety leftist on these issues.
Unreal.
Um, wake me up when leftist environmentalists and politicans stop fighting the development of new power plants, offshore drilling, and opening up ANWR.
You people are a joke.
Back in reality, Gore's plan calls for getting about 20% of our energy from nuclear. Try knowing what you're talking about next time.
You can't name a single conservative who has ever argued the market "solves all our problems."
What is fascinating about your running commentary of ignorance is the left has been arguing for higher gas prices for years to reduce demand which allegedly will save mother gaia.
Now that we're here, you kids are pretending to want to lower gas prices. Why?
You're all hypocrites and liars. That's why.
The attack on hypocrisy is valid. When an idea's biggest supporter shows so much evidence that he doesn't even believe in his own idea, why should anybody else?
Um, so you admit you want higher gas prices, right?
What about nuclear power? Are you going to pretend leftists are opposed to new nuclear reactors? New coal plants?
when it involves destroying major ecosystems that have been largely untouched.
You can't name one, nor can you name a single instance when this has ever happened in America.
Please tell me you think that ANWR is a "major ecosystem"
Please.
Oh, and here is what happens when we continue to listen to economically illiterate leftists:
Perhaps they think that. But if they do they're wrong.
There are at least two problems. The first is that the private investors have to be able to capture the benefits. If they are widespread and freely available then lots of the incentive is gone. That's why we have patents, to take just one example of govt involvement in the market.
The second is risk. Even if something is likely to be profitable, the risks may be too high for private investors.
It's like a cult.
This is actually funny because Gore is a hypocrite too.
So are all of you.
What I find amusing is that you are so invested in this issue emotionally that you simply can't answer the questions. In fact, it's just like a religion to you.
Just as I said.
But Al Gore, who's the actual person under discussion here, is all in favor of more nuclear power.
Well, you be the judge;
I'm just going to list all the reasons why we shouldn't use it, mind you!
Gore's plan calls for getting about 20% of our energy from nuclear.
Which is less than we get now.
Um, he is a hypocrite. They are ineffective;
The operations reflect a new consciousness about climate change, but scientists and environmental watchdogs say that the carbon trading actually may be producing little of real value to the environment.
He purchases carbon offsets from himself too.
I don't even own a car and get around exclusively by bike and public transit
And then what?
You and the people you vote for are still not publicly announcing that higher gas prices are what you have always wanted.
The oil companies have 70 million out of 90 million leased acres of land that are untapped in the US. Why do they need more? As to new power plants, I'm all for it. Instead of using coal fired, why don't we try something new? Nuclear is fine, so are alternative sources. You know, stuff that is renewable like wind, hydro, solar, etc.
Backwards ass Middle Eastern thugocracies are moving to alternative energy, yet for some reason conservatives in the US don't think we can do it. Why is your opinion of America so low?
Huh?
Gore is a hypocrite. Period.
If the situation were is as dire as he says, he'd act differently. End of discussion.
If I am reading this data correctly, we are currently getting about 19% of our energy from nuclear. That's one hell of an ambitious plan Al has.
"how about al gore flies a private jet, therefore it must not be as dire a situation as he lets on while cashing those carbon offset checks? is that good enough? those darn knuckle draggers also recently took footage of the chauffeur driven limos and suv's outside one of his events-is that unsporting as well?
Yes, your post definitely qualifies for the ad hominem fallacy. "
But it DOESN'T. Look at the argument: ~~Gore must not think the situation is not as bad as Gore makes it out to be. Look at how he himself consumes.~~
Not lock-up and say goodnight proof. But mcertainly not a fallacy. Probably more an impeachment credibility, which is fair.
Randy R.--I like your hypothetical, and it isn't too late. I know I'm in for it on a blog with lots of libertarians, but higher CAFE standards are vital to a sound energy policy. The problem? The GOP won't push for them. And Democrats will do so only until Michigan starts to balk: Witness Kerry going back on his policy of raising CAFE when he campaigned in Detroit.
Gore may or may not be a loon. I have no way of knowing. But if he is really just overstating things for strategic bargaining purposes, he's making a huge mistake. We cannot get to carbon-neutral energy consumption in the foreseeable future. But a mixed-energy economy IS possible in the coming decade-or-so.
If cars still use gas, but are much more efficient, this will be a HUGE step toward cleaner air AND less dependence on imported energy. We can cut coal burning, but only iof we are willing to build nuclear plants. Wind and solar can help, but I don't know of anyone serious who thinks that we'll get more than 10% of our energy from those sources. Geothermal is promising, but not in the near-term.
Gore could be advocating such a policy. But, as with so many other issues over his career, he's gone off in a bit of an eccentric direction. I'm not condemning him. But I don't think he's helping as much as he could.
Newsflash: these sources can not replace our current energy infrastructure.
That aside, I am not the one opposed to it.
Windfarms:
Democrats opposed.
Nuclear:
Democrats &Leftists Opposed
More Oil:
Democrats &Leftists Opposed
You have no point. As you can see, the party you vote for opposes these things.
Why do people keep saying this?
If there were a government mandate to put 2 gallons of milk into a container that had to be priced at a the cost of a gallon, do you think milk would be conserved? Would we need to produce more milk, or less?
Can I just point out that a desire to implement alternative energy is not equivalent to a desire to implement alternative energy in the stupidest way possible.
Seriously, you don't need to drop a wind turbine right in the middle of pristine landscape, even if you do favor turbines generally. It's just a dopey game of political gotcha.
You don't live in the Midwest, do you?
I would LOVE to be able to get rid of my car. I don't even LIKE cars. But how else can you get from Indianapolis to Detroit and back in a day? It sucks that it's like that. But it IS like that.
How 'bout, you know, stuff that is reliable? I much prefer it if, when I flip the switch, the lights reliably come on.
Hydro doesn't count, because the greens are opposed to that.
Pickens is obviously a lying, deranged liberal.
1996
2,485,848
2,561,695
2,631,522
2,691,056
2,746,925
2,797,287
2,855,508
2,890,450
2,964,788
2006
2,989,807
Notice anything there?
Hilarious bluster.
Al Gore has said "global warming" threatens the continuation of our species.
Al Gore uses the most fuel inefficient mode of transportation ever invented, the private jet, to globe trot around the world to tell you to use less energy.
Al Gore is lying.
I'm lactose-intolerant. But it isn't a valid comparison, so I'm not sure it matters.
a) lowering the cost of oil
b) lowering the amount of money that flows to middle eastern states and other oil rich countries like Libya and Venezuala
c) insuring abundent low cost energy for the US
d) and doing this all without any governmental support whatsoever.
(Remember now, cars run on gas, not nuclear energy, so just building more nuclear plants isn't going to do much for filling up the tank)
Strawman much?
Who on the right has said we shouldn't have any wind powered energy?
Um, because you say so?
Or are you denying the basic economic princilple that when you make something cheaper - that is cost per mile - miles driven will increase (More fuel efficient vehicles would make driving them cheaper. Which would lead to more driving)
yet, the stats you show us show that even without an increase in fuel efficiency (in fact, average fuel efficiency has gone down in the 90s), people drive more.
Why are you lying to us?
And how do his windmills put gas in my car? Cause that's where most of the $700 billion is going -- not to electricity generation. So unless you are also going to add in the cost of replacing every vehicle in America with an electric vehicle, that was one giant non sequitur.
Produce more oil; use alternative mainly nuclear, forms of energy.
lowering the amount of money that flows to middle eastern states and other oil rich countries like Libya and Venezuala
Produce more oil; use alternative mainly nuclear, forms of energy. Also worth noting, the US imports more oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela than all "Persian" countries combined.
insuring abundent low cost energy for the US
I'm not God nor do I think the government can "insure" this. But your a statist so of course it's a silly question.
and doing this all without any governmental support whatsoever
Who said the government had no role, I mean none, to play in our energy policy again?
Al Gore is calling for more alternative energy, including wind energy. You have called him a lier and a hypocrite to saying that.
So now are you suggesting that Al Gore is right, and that we SHOULD be switching to wind energy?
Why are you acting like a flipflopping liberal?
You aren't too bright.
People are going to drive more anyway. The point is, our demand for oil is going up, not down. Not in the near future. CAFE will do nothing but exacerbate this(and lead to more highway fatalities) so why would we raise CAFE standards?
Because almost all of that land has no actual oil under it.
You see, when you sign a lease to look for oil, you get a giant area to go looking in. So out of that 90 million acres, a few tens of thousands of those MIGHT have significant amounts of accessible oil under them - and most of the rest have either none at all, or none that's financially worth extracting.
...and no, you usually can't go looking first, then pay for only the areas that may have oil, especially when it's government land.
Someone pointed out that, if you compare the ANWR to a football field, the area they want to drill in is the relative size of a postage stamp.
Hilarious:
That is not what you said. If you can't see the difference, that is not my problem.
Taking extreme positions is about as beneficial to constructive debate as responding with sarcasm in lieu of substance.
First, even if we start drilling for more oil now, it won't come on line until at least 2020. Then, it won't affect the cost of oil much, only less than two dollars a barrel. So your 'solution' does nothing for lowering the cost of oil either in the short term or the long term.
And, as I pointed out earlier, and as Virginian notes, nuclear energy does not fill up the gas tank. So that's no help at all.
Got any other solutions to our transportation needs, or is that it?
Well, that is the most significant reason. But you may be new to VC, so I'll let it slide.
But let's also keep in mind that milk is a perishable. That one's ability to consume milk and to consume gas won't be affected by the same limits. That consumption of extra milk will often consumption of extra gas, but not vice-versa. That people have different volitional limits on the amount of milk and gas they consume.
Etc.
I just have not seen a good milk-to-gasoline-consumption- index table. So I'm left thinking that the matter is not as simple as your camparison makes it out to be.
No, he isn't.
Otherwise, I'm all for wind energy and solar where appropriate and not mandated by the government.
I'm also for producing more oil in the domestic US (ANWR, Shale) and offshore.
I'm for building more nuclear reactors, coal fired plants, and conservation.
Really? People are going to drive more anyway. But what you said earlier is that raising fuel efficiency standards causes people to drive more, and you even came up with a milk in the gallon example. So are you lying now, or lying before?
If people are going to drive more regardless, then certainly it makes sense to increase fuel efficiency, right? You can't be so dumb to argue otherwise, would you? And how exactly does raising these standards lead to more accidents? Or do you just make things up to fit your ideology?
And if we implement Kyoto tomorrow, we won't see the slightest bit of difference in global temperature for the next 30 years.
You make that argument all the time, right? You oppose Kyoto, right?
Otherwise, if we had started drilling in ANWR in 1996, when Republicans in Congress proposed it, we would have oil coming online now.
Then, it won't affect the cost of oil much, only less than two dollars a barrel.
Where do you hide your crystal ball?
Otherwise, who cares? We need more oil. Now.
Got any other solutions to our transportation needs, or is that it?
You mean other than producing more oil?
nuclear energy does not fill up the gas tank
And neither does wind.
I didn't say accidents, I said "fatalities"
Can you read?
But what you said earlier is that raising fuel efficiency standards causes people to drive more
You do realize increases in mileage driven can come about faster?
That is possible, right?
Are you really this stupid or is this a parody?
Can you go look up the word "exacerbate" and get back to us?
You mean other than drilling for more, right?
Terrific! And how does building nuclear reactors and coal fired plants help us fill our gas tanks? News flash: It doesn't.
Conservation? But you are against raising fuel efficienty standards. Raising them, according to you make people drive more. Your stats show that keeping them status quo or lowering the average makes people drive more too. In fact, as you state, people are going to drive more anyway (unless, presumably gas gets so expensive it forces conservation).
So I guess you are in favor of raising the price of gas to force conservation on people. But No! That's what the hypocritical environmentalists have always wanted! Are you secretly a hypocritical lying environmentalist now?
I didn't say accidents, I said "fatalities"
Can you read? "
I have an idea. Instead of just insulting people, why don't you anwer the question. How exactly does raising these standard lead to more accidents and/or fatalities?
The city, no.
The protocol, yes.
Mind you, from the author of:
Or do you just make things up to fit your ideology?
Parody.
So we produce more oil just magically! Just snap your fingers and boom!
ANWR estimates:
A couple feet below my glass eye.
(Rimshot)
Um, how many times can I tell you, we need to produce more oil. It's underground. We drill the ground and bring it up.
Otherwise, you do realize oil helps to heat and power homes, right?
If we had an alternative source to help do those things we'd use less oil. You can understand this concept, right?
Well, Virginian, one of the best ways to encourage conservation is to price something very high. It's called 'the free market', and it's something conservatives usually like, except when they don't. Ace says he's in favor of conservation, but I presume he doens't want gov't enforced conservation, and would bet neither do you.
So how will you encourage conservation without high prices or gov't internvention? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be conserving oil and gas? Again, if you have a better solution, let's hear, but I haven't heard anything excxept ad hominen attacks against Al Gore, liberals and enviros.
Randy R. is a liberal.
I'm a conservative.
So what is MY goal for oil prices?
How about this:
Instead of commenting on a topic about which you are comically ignorant you do some reading to familiarize yourself with it and come back?
Watch it, Randy, or I'll add "homos" to that list! Grr!
Of course. That's why this topic is so funny. They pretend to care about the price of gas but then go on to say:
even if we start drilling for more oil now, it won't come on line until at least 2020
Okay, Ace. So when will we actually get the oil for consumption if we start drilling now? Every report I've read says about 2020. If you have another date, please cite to it.
So oil is used for heating homes. Great (BTW, that's the first time you said that on this board.) But considering the fact that cars soak up a huge percentage of oil, that won't really help us on that, now will it? And what do we do when even our oil runs out?
Oh that's right. That's another generations problem. leave it to conservatives to push the debt and all other problems on to someone else's plate.
But you still won't answer any questions -- you just keep calling me dumb. At this point, I can only state that you pull information out of your butt and the facts be damned. Just like most conservatives.
It's funny that you can not even imagine anything being encouraged except through government fiat.
After saying:
if we start drilling now? Every report I've read says about 2020.
Please, get coherent.
But you still won't answer any questions
I'm posting facts &figures. You are asking dumb questions.
Oh that's right. That's another generations problem
Again, I'm all for wind energy and solar where appropriate and not mandated by the government.
I'm also for producing more oil in the domestic US (ANWR, Shale) and offshore.
I'm for building more nuclear reactors, coal fired plants, and conservation.
Starting today.
Since when is national security the sole realm of private industry?
No, he's made silly comments that can't be substantiated.
He's also an Obama voter.
The problem is that smaller cars are still on the road with SUVs. Which are killers. In the long run, higher CAFE will SAVE lives
So we ban SUV's?
Or we just make all cars smaller?
What about tractor trailers, we ban those so they hit no small cars?
Your claims are false &idiotic.
I see. The ONLY way to increase fuel efficiency is to lower the weight? That is indeed comical. What a lack of faith in our ability to produce new technology! Here's a thought, then, why don't you eat more french fries, and then you can put on another 100 pounds, and then your car will be much safer.
Huh?
Who is talking about national security and "sole realms" again?
So if an Obama voter says two plus two equals four, he MUST be lying!
So Abu Dhabi announces a high profile gimmick of a completely green city, and you fall for it. Because it is all about gimmicks, like Gore's proposal.
This is what Abu Dhabi is really doing about greenhouse gas production:
And Australia is going to sell the coal to Abu Dhabi and probably use some of the money for some green gimmcks of their own.
I see. The ONLY way to increase fuel efficiency is to lower the weight?
As of now, yes. Name another way to do this, now.
Not in 10 years, because remember that is not good enough, but now.
What a lack of faith in our ability to produce new technology!
And what if the automakers can't produce any change until 2020!??? WHAT THEN?
You do see a pattern here, right?
You ask silly questions, they are answered with facts, then you go on to raise more silly questions.
You must enjoy looking silly.
No, he's made silly comments that can't be substantiated
Evidence?
He's also an Obama voter.
No one's perfect.
So we ban SUV's?
Or we just make all cars smaller?
What about tractor trailers, we ban those so they hit no small cars?
No. But they won't last forever.
We make cars smaller on average, yes.
Tractor-trailers? I want roads safer. There's no way to make them safe.
Your claims are false &idiotic.
What else would you expect from a dumb conservative like me?
Most all of the replacement will need to come from solar which costs from 12 to 34 cents per kWh according to this reference. Currently coal fired electricity generation costs about 4 cents per kWh. I'll use that number for all non-renewables just to make things easier. I'll use the mid point of 23 cents for solar. That means the extra cost is 19 cents for a total of $569 billion or more than half a trillion dollars per year. And that's just for electrical generation. I'm assuming that the capital costs of the solar get amortized into the price. We would still have to come up with those capital costs somehow. More borrowing? From who?
Even if we were willing to pay that much to convert to renewable electricity generation, we still need liquid fuels to run our transportation system. How does he propose to do that? Sorry Mr. Gore batteries won't do it because the best and most expensive batteries only have 1/20 the energy density of gasoline by weight.
In short as a simple calculation shows Gore's plan is unworkable on two levels. These are the kind of questions a competent press should present to him. But they don't understand much either.
This is the evidence:
In the long run, higher CAFE will SAVE lives
That claim can not be substantiated.
We make cars smaller on average, yes
Great. We reduce consumer choices, becasue well, you say so. Remember, it won't decrease any demand for oil or gas.
from a dumb conservative like me?
If you're a conservative I'm the King of Djibouti.
No wonder Djibouti's economy is in the tank, what with it's king wasting time debating me and Randy and all.
A. Zarkov--I can't see how this works without substantial build-up of nuclear. And unless Gore has completely freed himself from his previous base of support, he will not be advocating that. But nuclear is the only thing that makes sense. Or are we goona burn much more coal in order tom generate the electricity needed to produce the biofuels and hydrogen that will (hehe) clean our air?