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?
You are correct that a high price will reduce demand, if the demand is elastic. But the demand of oil and gas seems to be quite inelastic. For example, there is very little I can do to quickly lower my use of gas.
Artificial restriction of supply by the fed govt (by preventing drilling) is hardly the "free market."
You can choose to conserve or not, that's your choice based on your financial situation and personal beliefs. I and Al Gore choose not to conserve (although I cannot afford to be nearly as profligate as he). I am opposed to govt mandated conservation. Mainly because I don't believe there is any compelling justification.
I believe that we need a comprehensive energy plan, which includes drilling for more oil and natural gas, building many new nuclear plants, building new refineries, building new coal plants, and funding research into alternative energy sources that may actually work. I especially think that researching new battery technology is important.
I am not convinced that wind and solar are any where near ready for prime time, and they are just not reliable enough. The sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow.
Ok,
Want to take a guess on the % increase in the SUV/light truck fleet over that time?
And,
Keeping in mind that more drivers are driving more miles...
Ace doesn't trust my conservative credentials. And Randy doesn't like them. But I agree with much of your post at 4:09. Two objections:
For many individuals, gas consumption may be inelastic. But I don't think this is correct in aggregate. For instance, Amtrack ridership is up significantly in, of all places, Michigan. More people are taking the train between East and West MI instead of driving.
Don't you see national security as a compelling reason for the guv to take steps to reduce petroleum consumption? It did so in WWII, in order to save rubber. And I really am a conservatrive: I think we are once again at war.
So we shouldn't drill for more oil because it will take too long to come on line. But, we should rely on some magic new technology that is apparently right around the corner?
Ditto.
Too bad the American left can't say the same.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html
If you include Nuclear energy, we are currently producing 20% of our capacity with non-carbon emitting energy. That's enough to power the 30 least energy using states. The other 20 states go dark including Tennessee, Gore's home state.
If you don't include Nuclear, 10 more states go dark.
I doubt if 1 in 100,000 cars has 0 carbon emissions. I know of no passenger carrying airplane that has 0 carbon emissions. No train either.
Only if you let me factor in air bags, child seats, crash-cages, improved tires, new materials, anti-lock brakes, and improvements in highways and markings.
None of which has anything to do with CAFE or the claim CAFE increases makes driving safer, reduces fatalities, or "higher CAFE will SAVE lives."
That's about the only possible justification for govt-imposed conservation. But I would be highly skeptical of your motives (i.e., whether you actually believed that) if you didn't also support efforts to increase domestic supply. It's the same reason I don't believe Al Gore -- how can it be so damn important if you don't practice what you preach?
You are just an Gaia-hater. *sucks thumb like a good lubrul*
To achieve Gore's current goal, you would have to shut down 78% of current electricity production (assuming nuclear stays at 20%) and replace it with something else. That's nuts.
why is that? Again, increasing domestic supply won't benefit us at least for another 12 years or so, and yet conservation gives us immediate benefits. One can be in favor of immediate benefits (which dont' cost us a dime and don't harm the environment, and actualy helps it), without being in favor of a dubious long term benefit.
And for countries that don't have access to domestic oil, such a Japan, france, China or Germany, conservation can be supported precisely because there is no domestic supply. What else would you have them do?
"So we shouldn't drill for more oil because it will take too long to come on line. But, we should rely on some magic new technology that is apparently right around the corner?
Fine, drill away. Actually, I don't really have much problem with drilling, since liberals such as Jared Diamond has done extensive research and found that oil companies are actually pretty good on the environmental issues, and much better than in years past. I just don't see where the long term benefits are -- so it takes a few more years to run out of oil. Big deal. And if it delays our investment into alternative energy, then it's actually a bad thing. We've had cheap oil for the last twenty years, and we pissed away the advantage to find a way to gleam ourselves out of this mess.
I too prefer a comprehensive package of energy solutions, as I don't think any one answer is the best or only one. I don't mind a mix of nuclear energy, wind, solar, geothermal and so on. But some people are against them merely because Al Gore is in favor them. And I'm not naive enough to think that we can wean ourselves off oil within the next few years.
But we should start somewhere, and through a combination of gov't standards and incentives, high price of gas, and changes in the way we build our communities, we can do it.
And BTW, we should be doing more to invest in our inner cities, as they are the easiest and most cost effective way to solve our energy issues. The infrastructure of roads and buildings is already there, yet huges swaths of Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities are literally abandoned. Why? By encouraging, throught gov't programs, people and companies to relocate within cities, you would significantlyl drive down the amount of driving in this country.
T Boone Pickens is ready to replace 20% of the country's electrical needs with wind power. So add that to nuclear power, and you have 40%. that's a significant step towards Gore's goal of 100%, so it isn't really all that crazy.
A venture capitalist (who is far from a liberal) who invests in alternative energy companies recently told me that 10 square miles of solar panels can supply the entire US with electricity. Don't know if that's true, but even if its' only partly true, then solar can probably supply another 20%. Now we are up to 60%, more than half way to the goal. It's not that improbable.
The off-shore issue is tougher, since states often object when it's their shore. So I wouldn't impose drilling on, say, the West Coast of Florida. Didn't Jeb Bush oppose that? If so, what can I say?
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive."
"The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.
Which conservation measures are you talking about that are immediately available and don't cost a dime? Higher CAFE standards? Nope. Light rail? Nope. Move closer to work? Nope. I guess I could have skipped my beach vacation and stayed home this year.
If Japan, Germany, etc. want to conserve, so be it. That's really none of my business.
I am against the ones that are way more expensive than fossil fuels and not reliable enough (wind, solar).
I'm glad to see you admit you like higher gas prices. I assume you are not a politician, so you can get away with that.
so let's stop the name calling and find solutions that will work, shall we?
As for conservation, there are tons of things that you can do immediately that will reduce the need for electricity in your house and your office. There are many books devoted to this subject. Simply replacing your light bulbs with higher efficiency ones can work -- if everyone did it, we can reduce the number of new coal fired or oil plants significantly.
"If Japan, Germany, etc. want to conserve, so be it. That's really none of my business."
It should be! They are competing for oil and coal as much as any other country, and therefore if they conserve, it will reduce demand, and that reduces the price. Furthermore, if they develop technology which reduces the need for coal or oil (which they are), that too will have a significant impact upon us. We live in one global market, and what happens in any country directly affects our country. Failure to recognize this simple fact is what has lead us to this problem.
"To achieve Gore's current goal, you would have to shut down 78% of current electricity production (assuming nuclear stays at 20%) and replace it with something else. That's nuts."
T Boone Pickens is ready to replace 20% of the country's
electrical needs with wind power. So add that to nuclear power, and you have 40%. that's a significant step towards Gore's goal of 100%, so it isn't really all that crazy.
A venture capitalist (who is far from a liberal) who invests in alternative energy companies recently told me that 10 square miles of solar panels can supply the entire US with electricity. Don't know if that's true, but even if its' only partly true, then solar can probably supply another 20%. Now we are up to 60%, more than half way to the goal. It's not that improbable.
I should have kept the "in 10 years" qualifier. Given enough time, anything can be done. I think it is a stretch to say that "T Boone Pickens is ready to replace 20% of the country's electrical needs with wind power." T. Boone Pickens thinks it can be done, if someone comes up with a few hundred billion dollars. I think NIMBYism will make wind power on that scale unfeasible. But the Scientific American article on solar sounds interesting. A friend of mine, (like me) extremely conservative and (unlike me) a loyal Republican, just went to work for a solar company and is pretty excited about it.
"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."
I don't either, but Gore is quoted as wanting to replace carbon emitting generators within ten years! I don't see how we could build that many reactors in ten years. So what's left? I think the potential for wind power is well-- overblown. In any case an extra 19 cents/kWh seems to me like a plausible number for the cost of converting. But I want to emphasize that we don't have the capital to do the conversion. The whole US is maxed out on debt both public and private. We might have built new generating capacity instead of all those residential house so even the poor could have "the American dream" of owning a house. If any one thinks I'm wrong on this then tell me where the capital is going to come from.
You have a nasty habit of citing text from external sources without providing a link. This makes it easier for you to mislead and distort.
To support the above claim, you pasted in the following text:
You are using this data to make the argument that SUVs are cutting fatalities. But you don't want to bother telling us where you got the data, because you would prefer us to not notice that the original source takes a different perspective. You grabbed your text from here. That page is a summary of a GAO report (pdf). The report says this:
This is the same point hoosier made: fatalities are down for lots of different reasons.
You like to exaggerate, obfuscate, and oversimplify. Yes, heavy vehicles create more safety for the occupant (as a general rule), but they create less safety for whatever/whoever they run into. They are also less efficient, in general.
And the extra safety for the occupant tends to go away if the heavy vehicle is a truck/SUV, rather than a car, due to the enhanced rollover risk.
There are complicated tradeoffs in balancing speed, weight, utility, efficiency and safety. Low speed limits enhance safety and efficiency, but impair utility. All these decisions are compromises. When you claim (for example) that CAFE will inevitably increase fatalities, you're just proving that you're an ideologue. Likewise when you claim that CAFE will do "nothing but exacerbate" demand for oil.
Probably so, but you don't know by how much. And what's more important is that total gallons used will decrease.
The only thing more expensive than doing the conversion is not doing the conversion.
Anyway, it's a terrific irony that the people who generally oppose this sort of thing are the same group who added about $5 trillion to the national debt and told us that "deficits don't matter." In other words, passing our kids a huge Chinese credit-card bill is fine when the purpose is tax cuts for the rich, and fighting an unnecessary war, but not when the purpose is investing in energy independence.
If it's technologically unfeasible to produce any oil at all from (e.g.) ANWR before 2020 if we were to start drilling right now, how the hell can it be possible to convert ca. 80% of the country's entire energy production to non-emitting sources even sooner than that? I mean, I have as much respect for American ingenuity as the next gal, but . . .
It's what Reagan would have said.
True, at least according to every report I've ever seen on it.
"how the hell can it be possible to convert ca. 80% of the country's entire energy production to non-emitting sources even sooner than that?"
I don't know. But that is apples and oranges. What I do know is that Scientific American thinks replacing all oil with solar is possible within a few decades. They might be wrong, but unless you have something better, that's what I'll go with.
"If T.Boone were selling used cars instead of renewable energy, would you really be interested in buying from him?"
I don't know. All I know is that Pickens was a major funder of the Swift Boat ads that undermined Kerry, he is the darling of Fox News all last week, his Republican and conservatives bonafides are unshakable, and yet he believes that wind power is the future of America. We have had several people here say that liberals and enviros are always liars and hypocrites.
So -- either Pickens is a liar and a hypocrite, in which case he should be an embarrasement to conservatives, or he is telling what he believes is the truth, in which case he is supporting liberals and enviros on this matter. Which is it?
Thanks for the info! I find that when people start calling everyone else liars, hypocrites, stupid, etc, and refuse to answer questions but rather respond by name calling, such as Ace has done, they usually the ones who are the the least reliable for information.
I think it's the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News factor. Studies have shown that regular viewers and listeners of these channels *believe* that they are highly informed about a subject when in fact they are among the least informed.
This is not news.
T Boone Pickens is ready to replace 20% of the country's electrical needs with wind power. So add that to nuclear power, and you have 40%. that's a significant step towards Gore's goal of 100%, so it isn't really all that crazy.
But nuclear is already included in the other 22% And you can't double it in 10 years.
A venture capitalist (who is far from a liberal) who invests in alternative energy companies recently told me that 10 square miles of solar panels can supply the entire US with electricity. Don't know if that's true, but even if its' only partly true, then solar can probably supply another 20%. Now we are up to 60%, more than half way to the goal. It's not that improbable.
You heard wrong, or your friend doesn't know much about solar power.
Look at the table at the link somebody posted. Replacing all fossil fuels with "Other Renewables" in ten years is crazy, ignorant, and/or not to be taken seriously.
I certainly believe in conservation, and the benefits of alternative energy, but before we start spending trillions of dollars shouldn't there be even a little actual scientific evidence that global warming is actually caused by CO2 before going off the deep end? But instead of actual evidence you get supposedly scientific papers that argue against using actual data and instead use manufactured proxies because it more closely fits what they want to see:
Let's go where the science takes us, but let's use real science with real data.
Are you joking? Pickens thinks he can make a pile, that is the only reason he is doing this. If he thought he could make money mining shale oil, he would be doing that.
"The only thing more expensive than doing the conversion is not doing the conversion."
Nice slogan, but it doesn't answer the question I posed. Where does the capital come from?
"Anyway, ... who generally oppose this sort of thing ... who added about $5 trillion to the national debt and told us that "deficits don't matter."
You're ranting. I never said deficits don't matter, far from it.
Sarcastro:
"... it's what Reagan would have said."
I'm not say saying do nothing; I'm saying don't do that because it won't work. And I gave the reasons why I think it won't work.
Here is what will work: The Fischer-Tropsch process. A proven way to convert coal to synthetic oil. Germany ran its whole WWII using it. South Africa uses it. The US Air Force currently uses it to get jet fuel. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal than any other country in the world. For electricity reactors will work. The waste disposal is a non-problem,if you can "burn up" the Actinides (the nasty stuff that's left over in the fuel rods) with a high neutron flux. In other words reprocess. France does it. Japan does it.
I'm offering solutions, not insults and slogans. Of course the major problem with Fischer-Tropsch is the carbon emission. So now the question becomes how expensive is it to do that? Compare and contrast to solar. Or you could not take so AGW so seriously.
Now I'm hoping for rip-roaring nuke plant construction, which is the only thing that will revive our moribund steel industry.
Build their own navies and let them protect their own oil supplies while we wean ourselves off of oil from the ME. Of course, the prospect of Japan protecting their own oil supplies makes some people nervous. Wonder why? Couldn't be because of anything that's happened in the past...
The point being that it ain't as simple as "We gotta get off oil." We will not do so in our lifetimes regardless. Even if all of the back and forth about renewable and nuclear and coal and crude oil plays out so that we don't primarily fuel ourselves on oil, oil is still used for other purposes.
There are certainly good national security reasons for ditching ME oil (just ask the Japanese about what lengths a nation will got to to protect its oil supplies, and they are curiously just as dependent on foreign oil now as they were 70 yrs ago), but they can be directly addressed by drilling now and sucking it up for the next 10 yrs. (which we wouldn't necessarily have to do if the Admin of which Al Gore was a prominent member had taken action 10 yrs. ago). Keep your eye on the heart of the matter. It's not about national security. It's about getting off of carbon-based fuels entirely. And for reasons that appear to this scientist to be unfounded. It is possible that the very future of the human race is at stake. But I have yet to see any convincing evidence that it is. And the people who are mosty loudly claiming that the science is settled (and that people who deny it should be tried for crimes against humanity, for God's sake!!!!) are in fact NOT acting as though that is the case. Feel free to follow them off of that cliff. The people who educated me in both engineering and science taught me better than that.
I don't know. But that is apples and oranges.
It is indeed. If you were to tell me that you had a parcel of land in New York State, and twelve years from now you'd be harvesting apples on it, I think I'd be inclined to believe you. If you told me that within ten years, four out of five oranges consumed in the United States would be grown in New York — well, perhaps I wouldn't.
At minimum, if I were to believe the latter claim, I'd have to assume that you meant to sink truly awesome amounts of money into the project. Or that part of the plan involved US orange consumption dropping rather precipitously. Possibly, of course, both.
Now, the Scientific American vision doesn't seem to me impossible, because 40 years is a hell of a long time in technological terms. But you will notice that SA allowed itself more than four times as much time as Gore allows us.
You're joking right? I mean, have you ever been to South Philly? It isn't a big "mystery" as to why people are fleeing the inner cities.
I've answered every single question you posed.
All of them, without exception.
I'm calling you ignorant because you are. That's a fact as demonstrated by your silly premises and continued dim questioning.
Finally, I find it funny you would actually say this while evading direct questions posed to you.
I did no such thing.
When you claim (for example) that CAFE will inevitably increase fatalities, you're just proving that you're an ideologue.
NO, I'm citing from 2 different studies backing up my claim.
You're name calling.
Want to take a guess as to why?
And what's more important is that total gallons used will decrease.
Absurd claim which you can not substantiate.
Why?
You're a silly ideologue.
Laugh out loud funny.
Mind you, from the author of:
Project much?
My issue with Gore and which causes me to question what he says carefully (even more than I would someone else) is that his past statements on a variety of issues do not engender confidence in him as a leader. It did not as potential leader of the United States in 2000, and it does not as a leader of an environmental movement in 2008.
He often comes across as a walking sound bite, and especially in this issue. He seems to talk down to people, and has for some time. This does not mean his ideas are not valid, but rightly or wrongly, it is going to cause me and I suspect others to be very skeptical of his ideas.
I agree with others - do not underestimate the power of NIMBY. No matter what the project or what the benefit, there are going to be people who object. That's just part of the living in a society. But there does seem to be a fairly regular and consistent group of folks that are against windmills, nuclear, drilling for natural gas, etc where I live. It seems to be the same people who object. Is this the case throughout the U.S? Who knows...
You can't name a single prominent conservative or elected Republican who has ever said "deficits don't matter."
In fact, I distinctly remember the Democrats killing the BBA in the Senate in 1997. So again, you're projecting.
While I agree with your overall point, I don't think this is entirely accurate. The dead bomber crews that tried to hit Ploesti would probably agree (the ones who survived their raids might also agree).
We could cut off (or out) his nuts...
The obvious place: all of us.
And an obviously good place to start is to stop burning money in an unnecessary war on the other side of the planet. It's funny how the GOP is in favor of nation-building as long as the nation is someone else's.
I didn't say you said it. I said people who generally oppose this sort of thing said it. At the top of that list is Cheney and the party he's been running.
Your idea of answering a question is to copy and paste text without telling us where you got it, because you don't want anyone to notice that the context says something contrary to what you're claiming.
Then it must have been an entirely different ace who said this, in the context of talking about reduced fatalities:
If that sentence had some other purpose (aside from making the argument that SUVs are cutting fatalities), you should tell us what it is.
Your idea of "citing … studies" is to paste in a chunk of text without telling us where it came from. You pasted in some text here, but you would prefer that we didn't realize you got it from here, because that columnist also says some things you don't want to hear. Like this:
And this:
Anyway, your secondary quoting of the two NHTSA studies doesn't mean anything unless you can show us the original statements and the context. And while it's true that we can make cars safer (for the occupant, at least) by adding weight, there are smarter ways to do it. The NHTSA text you cited didn't say CAFE added risk. It said cutting weight added risk.
For some reason the flaming moonbats at Weekly Standard are convinced that Cheney said that. And not just that. They defended him for it: "it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something."
And the behavior of the GOP is certainly congruent with Cheney's statement. Most of our national debt was racked up by Reagan and the two Bushes.
Shocking!
Um, I know you're rather slow, but all it would take is to review the thread. A claim was made "I want roads safer" in reference to increasing CAFE standards.
I pointed out the roads have been getting safer, while CAFE standards have not increased and SUV sales have increased.
At the same time, there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere demonstrating increasing CAFE standards will decrease highway fatalities. None. Zero.
That's why I posted it.
but you would prefer that we didn't realize you got it from here, because that columnist also says some things you don't want to hear. Like this:
Except you have the wrong source. I didn't get any information at all from any columnist.
The NHTSA text you cited didn't say CAFE added risk. It said cutting weight added risk.
And the auto manufactures have little remedy except to cut vehicle weight.
Do you mean Afghanistan? And here I thought you ignorants supported that one!
What does the location of a war have to do with anything?
Are only "necessary" wars fought on American soil?
Given that al Qaeda clearly believes the war is necessary, in fact they have called Iraq the mother of all battles, how is it unnecessary?
You mean except for the fact that Congress controls the budget, right?
Good grief are you an imbecile.
By the way, love the insinuation that Democrats are somehow now the party of fiscal responsibility.
And an obviously good place to start is to stop burning money in an unnecessary war on the other side of the planet
We are going to spend more this year on Social Security and Democratic earmarks than we've spent in Iraq to date.
Funny how you're not talking about that.
Mind you from the author of:
because that columnist also says some things you don't want to hear.
The article goes on to say: "the budget deficit may be larger than we would like"
But again, this complaint coming from the party of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SSI, EPA, Midnight Basketball and all the rest is just too rich.
You obviously have no sense of irony.
Translation:
You don't like those facts.
The NHTSA text you cited didn't say CAFE added risk.
Um, again:
"The obvious place: all of us."
That's a little vague. Obviously everything comes from all of us, so that's a complete non-answer. The problem of course is that the "us" is out of money. The American consumer loaded up on debt. So is the federal government. The banks are in crisis. To fund the conversion system someone has to sell bonds. Now who specifically is going to buy those bonds?
"I didn't say you said it. I said people who generally oppose this sort of thing said it. At the top of that list is Cheney and the party he's been running."
Then why do you refer to people I don't even agree with when responding to me? It seems like you have no answer so you go off on a tangent.
Cheney runs the Republican party?
Who knew!??
We obviously would all like to spend more money on alternative fuels and power plants that use renewable resources, but we have to balance that with our other priorities. I like spending money on killing terrorists, that gets my vote.
The real answer of course is to tax the types of energy sources you don't like and let the market provide the energy from the sources you do like. Then we won't turn the whole energy market into a giant pork fest where we will both spend money and not get any innovative or efficient sources of energy.
Just be prepared to drive any sort of industry that uses any amount of energy overseas where they will be using coal at $17 per mwh. And it doesn't matter if we finance the power plants with indirect taxes (corporate and individual income, or VAT) or by a carbon tax, all have been shown as being very effective at repelling industry.
So you want to lower the cost of Energy tomorrow? Do something about the value of the American dollar. The government policy of feeding mandates with debt relies on dollars from the entire world. We are 14-15 years into a cheap money policy nailed in place by one of those funny little wall street men from the monopoly box, placed in charge of the treasury by a democrat, to reduce the cost of government borrowing. He did, by moving to short term debt at low rates. It was so effective, the policy has been followed ever since, even with regime change. The only problem is, it reduces the incentive for the world to send their saving here, meaning the value of the dollar goes down. The only thing the government can do to reduce gas prices is return to a responsible monetary policy….
If you want to address the supply side instead, if you want to free up what the head of the Environmental defense fund has called to greatest engine of innovation ever, you have to do a few more things:
- Remove the Public Utility Commission’s backward looking King-Canute style cost recovery based stranglehold on energy investment.
- Stop looking to government to pick winners, a strategy that has destroyed industries from microbrewing to catfish farming, without producing any noticeable dent in oil prices.
- Remove cost smoothing to the home and business, to encourage people to use local energy storage and conversion to re-allocate energy use. That will encourage many small buyers, which will encourage many small inventors… (This would *acvtually* address Randy's concern about offices, in a way that the pretend standard of LEEDS does not)
Everything else is just more of the same, usually braying by those who do not want to leave their current comfort zones….
And T. Boone is merely marketing his own next investment, quite skillfully. This does not make him wrong, but nor is he a saint merely because he says renewable. May his success rise ir fall on the market.
And yes, Al Gore is as great a hypocrite as was the Dominican monk Tetzel.
If the city wants to provide an incentive for the DNC to hold the event there, why shouldn't it be allowed to do that? Why do you hate democracy?
I guess what you really mean to say is that there's no evidence you know about, or are willing to admit knowing about. Like this:
Lighter vehicles can save lives, especially if there is less weight variation among vehicles.
A bit more about CAFE. Above, you cited this text:
You grabbed that text from a column here. The columnist, in turn, was paraphrasing this:
That's in a 2002 report from the National Research Council. What the columnist overlooked, and what you didn't mention, is that the report contained an extensive dissenting opinion, which disputes the claim I just cited:
The dissenting opinion points out various confounding factors that were not properly taken into account. Here's an obvious one: younger drivers tend to drive smaller cars.
Then you should let us in on the secret and tell is where you got the text you cited here. The exact text you cited can be found here. And nowhere else, according to google. So if I have the "wrong source," then where did you get it?
It's true that cutting weight is a great way to boost mpg. But it's far from the only technique. For example, read about the Honda Civic VX and HX, which use a variety of other techniques, like lean-burn. The VX has an EPA rating of 50 mpg highway (and that's the 2008 adjusted rating; the original rating was 56 mpg).
You mean except for when POTUS executes his veto power, right? You seem to have forgotten that. You also seem to have forgotten all the years that Dubya racked up huge deficits with the help of a GOP Congress.
Love you way you deny reality. Look at what happened to the debt under Clinton, and then compare that to what happened under Reagan and the Bushes. Your talking point expired roughly 28 years ago. Find some new material.
Really? Prove it. In particular, show us your data for "Democratic earmarks." According to Citizens Against Government Waste, total earmarks this year are about $17 billion. Social Security this year is $544 billion. The cost of the war so far is $539 billion. So your numbers probably add up, but just barely.
Anyway, what are you suggesting? Should we slash SS payments? I sure hope McCain is listening to you. He already put his foot in his mouth by calling SS a "disgrace," even though it's one of the most popular government programs in the history of the world.
Yes, it's hysterically funny that I was not the first to mention SS in a thread about energy policy. How shocking that I let you be the one to do that. And what about steroids in baseball? Funny how you're not talking about that.
You're being totally incoherent. I guess you're trying to change the subject. Let's review. You said this:
I cited Weekly Standard quoting Cheney as saying exactly that. Who's right? Weekly Standard, or The Ace?
Silly me. I looked at gop.com, and on the page called "National Leadership," Dubya and Cheney are right at the top of the page. If you're claiming that it's the former who's really in charge, that's fine with me, because it really doesn't change the point I was making.
Really? I'm confused. The GOP is telling us that the economy is strong and that only "whiners" are claiming otherwise. Just yesterday Rush used Batman and the iPhone to prove that the economy is strong.
So I think only some of "us" are out of money.
Because I hear you express views that are remarkably congruent with people you allegedly "don't even agree with." But if I'm misunderstanding where you stand, I'm happy to hear the clarification.
What a shame that $539 billion still hasn't been quite enough to catch OBL. But at least we killed lots of brown-skinned people who had nothing to do with 9/11.
Let us know how many companies you know of that only need cheap energy, and don't also need to be close to raw materials, labor, and customers. I can think of one, sort of: google. I guess you're right. Someday they might move their data centers to Russia, because they do indeed use a huge amount of power.
The safest cars are small, well engineered cars. Fortunately the larger SUVs are about to disappear, or at worst, sharply decrease in numbers on the road.
See the American Scientist, March/April 2008 Safer Vehicles for People and the Planet," by Thomas P. Wenzel and Marc Ross
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.
Another poster addressed tragedy of the commons very well, so all I'll say is that the only thing this might go to demonstrate is some form of hypocrisy, which as they say, is the praise vice pays to virtue. It's not any sort of proof at all about what level of problem global warming is besides the proof that Gore sees the utility he gets from his emissions as greater than the cost *to himself* of those emissions. But Gore is also imposing externalities on the rest of us, as everyone who drives anywhere does.
So Gore is being selfish... so what? Seems like rational behavior if there's no one there (like, I don't know, big, bad guvm'nt) to stop him and his emissions are a drop in a massive ocean. But, by the "duh, jet" logic, if I say stealing is bad and then embezzle a cool mil, obviously theft is not a big enough problem for the government to try to curb.
Needless to say, that's moronic.
So, if the intention of the "duh, jet" people is to prove that Gore isn't a saint, well mission accomplished, too bad it's a question nobody here asked, and too bad Gore's not running for office.
If R&D on wind turbines is a good investment, the government need not get involved; companies will invest in it on their own. If it's a bad investment, why would we want U.S. taxpayers to be forced to pay for it rather than German and Chinese taxpayers?
Byomtov's response to this is, "The second is risk. Even if something is likely to be profitable, the risks may be too high for private investors." So, rather than being the brilliant investment that liberals are claiming, it's actually an extremely risky one? So remind me again why we want the government spending our money on this risky scheme?
Uh, that's to produce 20 per cent, not 100%. And, uh, you might notice that his argument is a red herring, since we'd still be buying the oil; wind farms would produce electricity, and we don't use oil much for electricity. And, uh, you might want to consider that T. Boone Pickens might not be a disinterested analyst here, but a businessman trying to suck at the government teat.
"Because I hear you express views that are remarkably congruent with people you allegedly 'don't even agree with.'"
Then you don't read me very carefully. Where have I said that I agree with Dick Cheney? Now I'm skeptical of something like global warming and for all I know Cheney is skeptical too. That does not mean I generally agree with him. Where have I ever said that I was in favor of continuing the Iraq War for example. Bush is a big booster of immigration, something I strongly disagree with.
Big risk and big reward go together. Some projects (like going to the moon, or like radically changing our energy infrastructure) are so big that they won't happen without a push from government.
There are signs that those countries have the vision to understand what I just said. To the extent that we don't, our grandchildren might end up speaking lots of German and Chinese.
(By the way, here's my idea of a truly "risky scheme:" using military force to transform Iraq into a pro-American democratic paradise.)
And, uh, then you also might want to consider the amount of funding the oil industry puts into trashing Gore, because they are also "trying to suck at the government teat." According to the Heritage Foundation, the GOP energy bills (2003 and 2005) were packed with "pork" and "giveaways" for the oil companies (link, link). Gore is a big threat to that gravy train.
I've somehow developed the impression that you and him are voting the same this fall.
That's sort of like 'some of my best friends are [fill in the blank].' When someone announces that they differ with Bush on immigration, I find that to be a fairly reliable indicator that they voted for Bush and still generally lean in his direction. But in your case I could be wrong, of course.
Just curious: how many times did you vote for him? Zero?
Do you share none of Gore's premises? Or is it that you agree with Carroll's implicit assumptions that there is no climate risk, no linked externality and no desirable governmental response?
I would note that there is widespread recocgnition that there is plenty of climate risk, that BAU will further compound them and that the externalities will not cure themselves.
Marlo Lewis/CEI laughs at the ice sheets and Gore; Lloyd's and other insurers do not. Hmmm.
His proposal makes no economic sense.
He plans to invest a trillion dollars to generate 812.6 billion kWh of electrical energy per year. That's 20% of our current generation from all sources. Discounting the cash flow over 50 years at a rate of 4% means the electricity costs 5.5 cents per kWh. Discounting at 6% implies 7.3 cents per kWh just for the capital investment. The system will have operating costs, including repair and maintenance. So the actual cost will be something like 10 cents/kWh. But currently we generate electricity at a cost of 4 cents/kWh from coal. So his idea sucks from an economic standpoint.
Has anyone asked him about this?
Hilarious.
After you've droned on about the deficit &debt mind you.
Your hypocrisy is stunning.
Then:
So your numbers probably add up, but just barely.
Unreal.
This is the best part.
You cited an article claiming Cheney said that. Mind you, after saying:
because you don't want anyone to notice that the context says
You provided the context of Cheney's remark, right?
But you brought up the debt and the deficit.
Are you really this idiotic or just pretending?
Look at what happened to the debt under Clinton, and then compare that to what happened under Reagan and the Bushes. Your talking point expired roughly 28 years ago.
Um, the federal debt went up under Clinton.
What I'm saying isn't a "talking point" it's a fact.
People like you and the politicians you vote for want to increase federal spending. You can't dispute this so you call it a talking point.
We all know why.
You mean other than the fact Congress over rides his veto, right?
You really ought to familiarize yourself with the responsibilities of the various branches of our government.
Um, in this time of crumbling infrastructure and given your overwhelming concern about about the federal deficit and debt, why shouldn't Democrats pay federal gas taxes?
Don't worry hypocrite, you don't have an answer.
Ace:
By the way, love the insinuation that Democrats are somehow now the party of fiscal responsibility … this complaint coming from the party of Social Security
Incoherent Leftist
Your talking point expired roughly 28 years ago.
Incoherent Leftist 10 seconds later
Should we slash SS payments? I sure hope McCain is listening to you. He already put his foot in his mouth by calling SS a "disgrace," even though it's one of the most popular government programs in the history of the world.
Again, your sense of irony is missing and your projection is so evident.
By the way, yes, we should be cutting Social Security payments. It should be means tested. However, in this time of huge federal debts it is nice to know you favor giving Social Security to millionaires.
And then what?
We catch OBL (note you don't want him killed) and the war is over?
Since OBL &his followers have publicly stated how important the battle for Iraq is, why is the war "unnecessary"?
Isn't if funny how you can't demonstrate the war is "unnecessary" as you claimed? Why do you think that is?
And, when did we declare war on 9/11 again?
What is hysterically funny is that you were the first to say:
Anyway, it's a terrific irony that the people who generally oppose this sort of thing are the same group who added about $5 trillion to the national debt and told us that "deficits don't matter."
But otherwise, as par for the course, you don't respond to the point I made because you have reading comprehension problems.
I didn't say "you weren't talking about social security"
I did say that when you're complaining about the federal debt and spending on the Iraq war, it's funny you don't mention all the other government spending programs you favor which cost more.
It's hysterically funny you continue your incoherent bluster.
Um, you tell me?
Don't worry, you'll continue to spin and obfuscate for the hypocrites you vote for.
That's great, but the facts remain unchanged.
Facts:
Fact
Fact
Fact
4.
Fact
As you can see, driving has gotten safer, while sales of SUVs have increased dramatically, but CAFE standards have changed little since 1975.
Now flapping your arms about columnists, things I did not claim, and a 1997 study do not change these facts. Facts you do not like for political reasons.
Which is why you are flapping your arms.
Hysterical.
So, the person who is on the record saying:
Can't stop himself?
I like how you leftists think that if the government doesn't "act" then actions aren't possible.
Or something.
Again, hypocrisy is a virtue for you people which is why you continue to excuse it.
Ace has posited a cause-effect relationship between the increase in SUVs on the road and reduction in fatalities per mile driven.
Fact
Ace is ingnoring the other changes that contributed to that reduction.
(See Hoosier's brilliant post on this from yesterday afternoon.)
Fact
Ace seems to be confusing corelation with causation.
Fact
According to Ace's numbers, per mile average fatality has plummeted since I started following the Cubs in 1975.
Fact (?)
Many of you VCers are alive today ONLY because of my loyalty to this hapless team. DON'T MAKE ME STOP WATCHING THEM! If you love your familty, don't anger me.
I've done no such thing.
Ace is ingnoring the other changes that contributed to that reduction.
I've done no such thing. I never claimed anywhere, ever, that SUV's caused the reduction.
(See Hoosier's brilliant post on this from yesterday afternoon.)
You mean this one?
Ace--Greg Easterbrook has reported on this extensively. 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.
The one you have no evidence for?
This is what people who can't produce facts to bakc up their claims say.
(See Hoosier's brilliant post on this from yesterday afternoon.)
Parody.
In the long run, higher CAFE will SAVE lives.
You can in now way demonstrate this. And accepting the claims of Easterbrook, an increasingly deranged lefty, uncritically, reflects poorly on you.
This is quite funny really. The "other changes" which are great, have nothing to do with CAFE. Which you said would make the roads safer.
Coherence much?
Ace has posited a cause-effect relationship between the increase in SUVs on the road and reduction in fatalities per mile driven
No, I pointed out it is absurd and ridiculous to claim that lighter vehicles will make the roads safer when on average SUV ownership has grown over ~60% and more drivers are on the road, and more miles are being driven, and CAFE standards have not really changed, while fatalities have decreased.
Earlier you said this:
Really? Then you should tell us where you found the text that you pasted in here. I know where that text comes from. I explained it here.
Why are you ducking this question?