World Politics

[fatandfast]

More than this. Oil is a finite resource. Coal is a finite resource. Both damage our environment dramatically at times (coal almost constantly). How many more years are you willing to gamble with that?

The natural processes that create(d) oil and coal have stopped?. Since we are getting 50% of our power from coal right now I would say we will be "gambling" for 25 or 30 years before we invent a new culture that has not got every industry interlinked to fossil fuel. If you look at a birth to grave process of a bicycle almost all present technology is highly dependent on fossil fuels from the raw materials to the end user delivery. Even bamboo bikes currently use glues and polymers that are created harmfully on some level.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think what I think may happen is nearly 'worst case scenario.'

Please forgive my giggling at the term 'peer reviewed scientific study' when referring to climate change.

You do realize that China, Russia and a host of other countries have deals with Cuba to drill for oil in the gulf, right?

We could be significantly more energy independent than we are. Any guesses as to why we are not?

Yea, because it is significantly easier to giggle at some emails by some scientists than it is to produce facts regarding your position. Lack of walk with your talk noted.

And if you believe that there is a simple snappy answer to your final question, then I am not sure I would listen to anything you say on the subject. There are a myriad of factors. I realize that complexity is detested by the Republican Party because it requires one to think, but you seem a bit smarter than that. I will just surmise that the question was rhetorical, and not a well thought out one, and forgive you.

 

[Anonymous]

The natural processes that create(d) oil and coal have stopped?. Since we are getting 50% of our power from coal right now I would say we will be "gambling" for 25 or 30 years before we invent a new culture that has not got every industry interlinked to fossil fuel. If you look at a birth to grave process of a bicycle almost all present technology is highly dependent on fossil fuels from the raw materials to the end user delivery. Even bamboo bikes currently use glues and polymers that are created harmfully on some level.

And seeding green energy is a pretty good idea right now. Why wait to start?

 

[Anonymous]

Yea, because it is significantly easier to giggle at some emails by some scientists than it is to produce facts regarding your position. Lack of walk with your talk noted.

And if you believe that there is a simple snappy answer to your final question, then I am not sure I would listen to anything you say on the subject. There are a myriad of factors. I realize that complexity is detested by the Republican Party because it requires one to think, but you seem a bit smarter than that. I will just surmise that the question was rhetorical, and not a well thought out one, and forgive you.

Are you really saying the science on global warming is "in?"

This guy is pretty fun to read, although it's an opposing view.

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/13286

Or you could go to Inhofe's site. Lots of info there.


No snappy answers. We have plenty of our own resources but lack the will to get them. Market forces will not allow expensive energy without extremely unpleasent consequences.

I think it is reasonable to be very concerned. BTW, I don't really see this as a simple Dem vs. Repub issue although it may come to that.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you really saying the science on global warming is "in?"

This guy is pretty fun to read, although it's an opposing view.

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/13286

Or you could go to Inhofe's site. Lots of info there.


No snappy answers. We have plenty of our own resources but lack the will to get them. Market forces will not allow expensive energy without extremely unpleasent consequences.

I think it is reasonable to be very concerned. BTW, I don't really see this as a simple Dem vs. Repub issue although it may come to that.

No, I am saying that you made a statement about there being no impact on climate change by reduction in carbon emissions has no scientific basis. I mean, you can call into question the studies that link carbon emissions and climate change, but you cannot produce any scientific studies that show there is no link, nor any that show that a reduction will have no effect. You made a declarative statement, and I just asked you to back it up. You can't.

 

[Anonymous]

And seeding green energy is a pretty good idea right now. Why wait to start?

Seeding as in mandating use or seeding as in funding to encourage tech advancements?

 

[Anonymous]

Seeding as in mandating use or seeding as in funding to encourage tech advancements?

That would be the best use in my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

No, I am saying that you made a statement about there being no impact on climate change by reduction in carbon emissions has no scientific basis. I mean, you can call into question the studies that link carbon emissions and climate change, but you cannot produce any scientific studies that show there is no link, nor any that show that a reduction will have no effect. You made a declarative statement, and I just asked you to back it up. You can't.

No impact from US reductions only, yes, I'll stand by that. If China (India and Russia) thumb their nose at CO2 reduction agreements then whatever we do will be meaningless in terms of CO2 emissions.

Here are some valid questions there should be answers to before we do anything with cap and trade or carbon tax;

Given that China, India, and Russia account for 30% of global carbon emissions, and given the apparent lack of a high-probability American strategy to convince their governments to impose a carbon price on their workers and firms, how large of an additional cost are you willing to impose now on U.S. workers and firms before knowing the likely economic and emissions endpoints?

What is your strategy to get the governments of China, India, and Russia to impose a carbon price on their economies that is comparable to the one you would impose on American workers and firms?

Given the competitive effects on American workers and firms, how big of a difference between the carbon price imposed by the U.S. and that imposed by China and India is acceptable at the end of the international negotiating process? How much of a competitive disadvantage are you willing to impose on U.S. workers and firms because the U.S. is comparatively wealthy relative to China, India, Russia, and other developing countries?


http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/22/incomplete-climate-strategy/

 

[Anonymous]

That would be the best use in my opinion.

I have no problem with this.

But this is not what cap and trade or the cabon tax proposals are (currently) designed to do.

 

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with this.

But this is not what cap and trade or the cabon tax proposals are (currently) designed to do.

I understand that. They are designed to hinder the continued use of processes that do use more carbon emissions, and are also cheaper (at this point) than alternatives. The market doesn't care about environmental concerns not because they are evil, but because business operates on profit, not concern. It is therefore up to government, who's purpose is to promote the GENERAL welfare of the population, to move them in the right direction because left to operate on the only set of rules they adopt, they will fail to do so themselves because to do otherwise would reduce profit.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that. They are designed to hinder the continued use of processes that do use more carbon emissions, and are also cheaper (at this point) than alternatives. The market doesn't care about environmental concerns not because they are evil, but because business operates on profit, not concern. It is therefore up to government, who's purpose is to promote the GENERAL welfare of the population, to move them in the right direction because left to operate on the only set of rules they adopt, they will fail to do so themselves because to do otherwise would reduce profit.

Companies will find a way to profit. What this will do is reduce economic output by restricting energy use. Reduced output means less need for labor. Less need for labor means less revenue via taxation, less wealth creation, lower living standard... and less carbon emissions , which is where Obama's ideology is again at odds with a thriving economy.

Show me how to cut CO2 significantly, reduce our national debt, keep our global competitiveness while expanding our economy at a reasonable pace (4 to 5% growth in GDP) and I'm on board.

 

[BroDeal]

Remind me again who cleaned up after Carter?

No one cleaned up after Carter unless by cleaning up you mean killed the alternative fuel and energy policies that would have paid huge dividends today. Or maybe by cleaning up you mean enacting the Republican policies of voodoo economics, deficit spending, trade imbalances, and deregulation that ultimately created the mess today.

The economic problems of the 70's were solved by Paul Volcker, not a senile B movie actor. Greenspan then proceeded to lead the nation down the road to ruin with his Objectivist nutbaggery.

 

[Anonymous]

No one cleaned up after Carter unless by cleaning up you mean killed the alternative fuel and energy policies that would have paid huge dividends today. Or maybe by cleaning up you mean enacting the Republican policies of voodoo economics, deficit spending, trade imalances, and deregulation that ultimately created the mess today.

The economic problems of the 70's were solved by Paul Volcker, not a senile B movie actor. Greenspan then proceeded to lead the nation down the road to ruin with his Objectivist nutbaggery.

Your history revisionism is lame. You can likely get away with that garbage with your minions who may not have been alive during the Carter admin.

Had we tried to abandon fossil fuels then we would have killed our economy just as we are poised to do now.

Say it with me... 13% inflation, 22% interest rates. That's Carter's legacy. Deal with it.

 

[BroDeal]

Your history revisionism is lame. You can likely get away with that garbage with your minions who may not have been alive during the Carter admin.

Had we tried to abandon fossil fuels then we would have killed our economy just as we are poised to do now.

Say it with me... 13% inflation, 22% interest rates. That's Carter's legacy. Deal with it.

Jeebus! You dumbass. Stagflation came out of the recession of the early 70's and the oil shock of 1973, before Carter even ran for the presidency. It was one of the things that got Carter elected. It was not just the U.S. Many western nations experienced the same thing. Interest rates went double digit because Volcker raised them to put an end to inflation. They were the harsh solution to a bad situation.

Carter's energy program was about conservation, efficiency, and development of new energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He did not try to "abandon fossil fuels." In essence he wanted to smooth the transition to the inevitable era of high priced oil.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Jeebus! You dumbsh!t. Stagflation came out of the recession of the early 70's and the oil shock of 1973, before Carter even ran for the presidency. It was one of the things that got Carter elected. It was not just the U.S. Many western nations experienced the same thing. Interest rates went double digit because Volcker raised them to put an end to inflation. They were the harsh solution to a bad situation.

Carter's energy program was about conservation, efficiency, and development of new energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He did not try to "abandon fossil fuels." In essence he wanted to smooth the transition to the inevitable era of high priced oil.

You are wasting your breath, it is central to the conservative mantra that Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, when in fact he was the last one willing to stand up for the common man vs. the corporate world. That of course is why it was a forgone conclusion that he was out after one term.
In reality he is the only former president in the last 40 years to forego high priced speaking engagements and tee times in order to continue working for the people.

 

[Anonymous]

You are wasting your breath, it is central to the conservative mantra that Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, when in fact he was the last one willing to stand up for the common man vs. the corporate world. That of course is why it was a forgone conclusion that he was out after one term.
In reality he is the only former president in the last 40 years to forego high priced speaking engagements and tee times in order to continue working for the people.

Agreed. And the second part of their mantra is that Reagan was the savior. Never do they mention the crap he left for Bush I. Or the fact that his spend and cut taxes strategy didn't lead to unparalleled prosperity for the remainder of mankind. Its easy to beat on Carter and forget that the economic crisis was in place when he took office. They also seem to forget the recession that started at the end of his presidency. I wonder if they will ever connect the dots on the fact that spend and cut taxes seems to always end with a recession.

 

[Anonymous]

Jeebus! You dumbass. Stagflation came out of the recession of the early 70's and the oil shock of 1973, before Carter even ran for the presidency. It was one of the things that got Carter elected. It was not just the U.S. Many western nations experienced the same thing. Interest rates went double digit because Volcker raised them to put an end to inflation. They were the harsh solution to a bad situation.

Carter's energy program was about conservation, efficiency, and development of new energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil. He did not try to "abandon fossil fuels." In essence he wanted to smooth the transition to the inevitable era of high priced oil.

Time heals all wounds, I suppose. The inflation rate was under 5% in 1976. Inflation was about 12% by the time of the election in 1980. His economic policies failed to control or reduce unemployment (kinda like now). The NJTC that Carter signed into law didn't work then so the fact that Obama has marched it out now is like putting a band-aid on a spurting artery. His blaming stagflation on the American people's "malaise" was impressive. Iran, Panama Canal, North Korea... his foreign policy was also... impressive.

He began the price deregulation on the oil markets to which the brilliant Ralph Nader predicted $600 per barrel oil pricing by 1990. His Presidency was one of was a one of half-measures. BTW, adjusted for inflation, where is the high priced oil?

I could go on but there is no point. I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion with you about Carter. But I will give him this: He signed a bill legalizing home beer brewing, so I give him credit for that.

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed. And the second part of their mantra is that Reagan was the savior. Never do they mention the crap he left for Bush I. Or the fact that his spend and cut taxes strategy didn't lead to unparalleled prosperity for the remainder of mankind. Its easy to beat on Carter and forget that the economic crisis was in place when he took office. They also seem to forget the recession that started at the end of his presidency. I wonder if they will ever connect the dots on the fact that spend and cut taxes seems to always end with a recession.

And where will spend (mightily), then tax lead us?

Yes, what we really needed was another Carter term. Things would have been so different.

 

[Anonymous]

More evidence of govt involvement in markets hurting consumers.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Pot-Growers-Troubled-by-Falling-Prices-jw-93964829.html

 

[Anonymous]

And where will spend (mightily), then tax lead us?

Yes, what we really needed was another Carter term. Things would have been so different.

Your convenient avoidance of the economic reality of Republican rule is noted.

 

[Anonymous]

Your convenient avoidance of the economic reality of Republican rule is noted.

Sounds ominous. You keeping a file?

 

[Anonymous]

And where will spend (mightily), then tax lead us?

Yes, what we really needed was another Carter term. Things would have been so different.

Its also funny that you guys always act like economic conditions happen immediately under Democrats, and never look at the fact that the train started under Republican rule. Carter inherited a mess as did Obama. A mess created and made worse by Republicans.

I would also like you to explain the recession at the end of the 80's and beginning of the 90's. How could that possibly have happened under Republican economic sorcery?

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds ominous. You keeping a file?

Yep, keeping it up in the old brain vault. It is a frightening place filled with the rhetorical failures of may a conservative...

 

[Anonymous]

Its also funny that you guys always act like economic conditions happen immediately under Democrats, and never look at the fact that the train started under Republican rule. Carter inherited a mess as did Obama. A mess created and made worse by Republicans.



I would also like you to explain the recession at the end of the 80's and beginning of the 90's. How could that possibly have happened under Republican economic sorcery?

Reagan inherited a mess. Dubya inherited a recession. Not uniquely one party or the other.

Economies are cyclical, no?

Early 90's recession was an economy transitioning away from defense (no more cold war) and GHWB's ridiculous tax increases, among other things. One could argue that Clinton was a beneficiary of tech being adapted in more of a commercial setting because there was less demand from the DOD. Somehow I don't think you would agree with that though.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep, keeping it up in the old brain vault. It is a frightening place filled with the rhetorical failures of may a conservative...

Good one....