I’ve held off as long as I can with commenting on the presedential election, as it tends to suck all the oxygen right out of the room, but this issue needs to be aired. There’s more to Obama’s energy plan than bankrupting coal power plants. He also intends to make energy prices “skyrocket”:
This doesn’t sound sustainable to me. Hat tip to Jon Jewitt.
UPDATE: here is video from the San Francisco Chronicle of the actual interview:
Hat tip to Fred for this one.
Pamela Gray (21:46:06) :
‘It amazes me how many people know what I think. Were I to believe what has been written here, I wouldn’t like me. But nonetheless,………..’
I agree with you on many of your view points. But I don’t need or trust a politican that tells the west coast I’m going to bankrupt “new”coal fire electric power plants and then comes to Ohio and says he for “new” clean coal fire electric power plants. He talks out of both side of his mouth on a lot of issues.
And I have said before that it is government regulation that keeps monopolies from ruining private competition.
——————
Completely and utterly wrong. It is govt regulation that creates monopolies.
Without the force of government, monopolies are impossible.
Our economic woes are due to two things.
1) The high price of energy. Bush had nothing to do with that. If the Democrats had allowed drilling offshore and in ANWR, the problem never would have gotten this bad.
2) The credit crisis. As I mentioned above, that was caused by policies put in place by Clinton, and protected by the Democrats throughout this adminstration. (The economic slowdown caused by high energy made this problem much worse.)
As to our foreign policy. Yes, it has been derided by a large number of left wing intellectuals.
So what.
A recent poll of Democrats found that 70% of them believed that judges should let their own view of “fairness” over ride the text of the law.
Now, nothing anyone posts here will affect the American election. So it is past time for people to be honest in what they write. Partisanship for the sake of partisanship is past its due date.
Obama’s energy policies are the same as the declared policies of Pelosi and Boxer in the Democratic Congress. They involve scaling back coal and oil sands drastically, and preventing the use of oil shales in Colorado entirely. They also involve severe limitations on any expansion of nuclear fission plants.
It is critically important to understand in real terms what this policy would mean, if implemented. Partisanship is misplaced, indeed it is suicidal, in this context.
I am curious, what other country has over 250 army bases in foreign countries?
——
Every time the US tries to close a base, the local politicians go nuts trying to prevent it. Do you honestly believe that those bases are there to control the countries they are located in?
—–
And you are really deluded if you think that Irak is now a democracy or will remain a democracy.
——–
You contradict yourself. How can Iraq remain a democracy, if it isn’t a democracy now? So which is it. When you can figure out for yourself, let me know.
As to it being a democracy now. Of course it is. They’ve voted twice now in free and open elections.
Joachim (01:47:26) :
———
Projecting again?
Anna V, I can only conjecture that the rest of the world has been as bamboozled by Bush’s bad press as have Americans by Mainstream Media. The America of Bush’s eight years has been a wise force for international civil defense, peace, and expansion of trade. It is only insofar as the American military has been needed as the world’s police force that envy and fear are generated internationally. However, it cannot be shown that that military has acted in any fashion other than with professionalism and ethical behaviour. There is very little on earth better than a good cop, and very little worse than a bad one, and the United States of our era, in co-operation with the functioning democracies of the world, has been a good cop.
You could ask for more, and would probably get worse.
=============================================
Phil, as I see it, neither the Left nor the Right have real answers. Each focus on certain problems, to the exclusion of others. Each tries to go with fragmented and damaging policies, in various ways. It really doesn’t matter whether someone is focussing on the social or the individual problems–both create their own problems. What you need to do is let go of the idea that climate is all about politics. You need to stop the witch hunt for people’s “real” motivations. Because first you have to identify your own motivations–are they so clear and pure? Nobody is a saint. So stop “uncovering motivations” and just pay attention to science issues. The whole point about science is that it is objective, which is to say, people’s motivations are irrelevant to the truth of the matter–either something is objectively true or it is not. But if you focus on motivations then you are focussing on subjective evaluations and you will never find the truth that way. The environmental movement can also be accused of being subjectively biased and motivated by weird politics, but that should be completely irrelevant to whether a windfarm will work in the real world. If it works it works. If it doesn’t it doesn’t. Look for facts and analysis. Imagining that you will only listen to someone who is pure of heart, makes the assumption that you are so pure of heart that you could even spot such a thing. We all have egos. We are all selfish in our own ways, and that includes you. So just be interested the facts and analysis.
Joachim,
Politics are important in this debate, perhaps fundamental.
Alas, but Democracy or something like it is a requirement for good science. If you look at “science” in Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, or Communist China you see the full forces of the state have been used so that science arrived at the politically required conclusion.
(Beria once expressed concern to Stalin that the scientists working on the atomic bomb were gaining too much political power. Stalin replied something like: “leave them alone. We can shoot them later.)
I believe the same factors are driving the AGW supporters. Acceptance of the AGW theory gives the government incredible power over the economy and the ability to transfer tens of billions of dollars from the pockets of fools to the friends of the politicians.
Think about this particular thread: the transfer of so much money out of the US economy that it will probably bankrupt the United States. Unless you think that Senator Obama is lying. If so, which parts are lies and which parts are the truths?
A researcher will be provided with near unlimited funding if he “proves” AGW.
If a researcher “dis-proves” AGW, his funding will be cut off, he will be called a shill for the oil companies, and there will be a call for him to be tried for “war crimes”.
What would you do? Put the welfare of your family first? Or abstract thoughts about the “integrity of science”?
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
PS
My life is now complete. Anthony recognized me with a “tip of the hat”. Seriously, thank you. You and your blog are important to me.
“John-X (08:29:39) :
We’ll know in about 36 hours if we’re following Britain down the road to freezing in the dark.”
Excuse me?! *looks around well-lit, air conditioned office* Do me a favour, stfu about my country, since you seem to know so little about it. Cretin.
it is a shame that people are so myopic in their view. I will not argue that lower fuel prices helps the economy. I will not disagree that people should not be penalized for their profits created from hard work. I will not dispute that we should push opportunity and not privilege.
But what I don’t understand is how people can look at issues in a parsed up vacuum. While low fuel prices grease economies, the waste from those fuels destroys the planet. Why not just remove all corporate hindrances on pollution and let companies dump toxic chemicals into the ground water? It would drop expenses and increase the economy. Oh that is right, we would all get sick and die. Tempering the demand for fuel consumption with environmental protection isn’t just economic– it is protecting the legacy of our planet for the future.
As far as alternative energy production, anyone that says that wind, new solar tech, and thermal aren’t viable power sources hasn’t done the research. Each house could create not only self-sustaining power, but extra power for the grid. Geo-heating and cooling can be done with a simple drilling into the ground. Solar can produces more than an entire houses electrical needs in New Hampshire, let alone Arizona. Wind can also provide more power for a home. What is expensive is retrofitting the millions of homes and building new power infrastructures that would undercut the utilities. Who is going to make a power grid that won’t make a profit for anyone but the consumer? That means that Americans have to pay for upgrades on their own– and that isn’t possible when high-paying manufacturing jobs are replaced with lower-income service and retail jobs. That isn’t the fault of politicians, but rich CEOs who value profit over patriotism.
Regarding the middle east over the last 30 years.
Perhaps you have forgotten about this other country, called the Soviet Union?
The US was involved with a global struggle with them.
The US has always been interested in democracy, it’s just that during tough times, you make do with the options that are available, rather than whining that the one you want isn’t there.
During the Cold War, the US promoted democracy first, and stability second. Sometimes stability had to be elevated to the first. The alternative was Soviet style communism.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the US has been promoting democracy, and only democracy.
As to the war in Iraq. It was the right war at the right time.
Whether or not Saddam had WMD’s is moot. He wanted everyone to think that he did. He did everything he could to make people think that he did.
He had a nuclear program prior to the first phase of the Gulf war. This program was only partly dismantled and was ready to be restarted once the sanctions were lifted.
I should remind everyone that liberals, especially European liberals were screaming bloody murder that the sanctions regime was killing Iraqi babies and that it needed to be ended immediately. I find it amusing that the very same people who were demanding that sanctions be ended, are now claiming that since the sanctions were working, we should have relied on sanctions rather than going to war.
That’s not true, as my example of the USA supporting Iraq in the 1980 Iran – Iraq war showed.
—–
Just how does the US supporting one murderous dictatorship against an even more murderous dictatorship that was also trying to expand it’s sphere of influence, prove that the US has no interest in supporting democracy?
I have been in the scientific community my entire life. Many scientists fundamentally consider the outside world to be intellectually inferior and fundamentally dangerous.
Relying on people of that mindset to set social and economic policy will absolutely lead to disaster, just as it always has. The mindset of many government funded scientists is that the private sector is dangerous, mainly because no one in the private sector is willing to hire them into a better paying job.
But would you hire someone who is arrogant, consistently wrong, and considers himself unaccountable?
Criminy, is there any piece of anti-western propaganda that you aren’t willing to peddle?
———-
This is why Russia swatted Georgia and went over the top with it’s response when Georgia started an aggessive military campaign in South Ossetia,
————
It was the Ossetians who started shelling Georgia. When Georgia responded, Russia jumped in with troops that it had pre-positioned in the area.
————
this is why the USA freed Kuwait from the Iraq invasion in the early 1990’s but then didn’t take the ideal chance to instigate a democracy in Kuwait as well. All they did, quite rightly, was correct the power balance and limit the anti US interests at that time.
——————
And just what pre-text would the US have used to install a democracy in Kuwait? I find it funny that certain people in one breath proclaim that the US is an imperial power, forcing it’s will on other countries. Then in the next breath complain that the US isn’t doing enough to force it’s will on other countries.
——————-
The problem with invading Iraq is that the power balance has now shifted again but this time it has shifted it in Iran’s favour.
—————-
On the contrary, Iran is even more contained than ever.
—————
There’s quite a few countries in East Africa that could do with a good dose of democracy right now, but I don’t see much intent by Bush to send in the troops there.
——————–
Again, a person who complains about US imperialism, demanding that US be more imperialistic.
Regardless. Out here in the real world resources are limited. We can’t do everything at once.
Here’s a perfect example of psychological “projection”:
Flanagan:
Not only does Flanagan fail to understand the tradition of scientific skepticism and how it directly relates to the Scientific Method, but he provides not one fact to back up his incorrect assertion.
It’s scary seeing how easily the scientifically illiterate are controlled by climate alarmist propaganda.
I am curious, what other country has over 250 army bases in foreign countries?
—————-
Of course many of these bases are nothing more then supply depots or diplomatic missions with only a handfull of soldiers manning them.
But let’s not let something as trivial as reality interfer with a good US bashing.
I do not agree with your assessment. John McCain is an honorable man but his energy policies are too similar to the Bush administration’s policies and this is not the time to continue those policies. The ‘drill, baby, drill’ short sighted mentality will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it won’t help us in the short run. Experts say that it will take about 10 years to extract that oil if we started today. Don’t get me wrong, I do like a few of his policies. There just aren’t enough of them that converge into a single long-term vision that will get us where we need to be; and energy independent nation.
Even now as some controversial statements are plastered all over the press, I still can’t support McCain for president. I have researched both the candidates’ energy policies that are stated on their web sites and after analysis I have posted that the results of my blog and I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama is the clear winner. Obama has a multipart multi phased approach with the long term vision that uses any and all current and future technologies to bridge the gap from our current dependence on oil to total independence.
With that being said, Obama is a common sense kind of guy. He listens to intelligent people and makes an informed decision. When he changes his mind because an expert’s opinion seems to make more sense than his position, people call him a “flip-flopper”. Both candidates have changed their minds and been labeled as flip floppers. I simply call them sensible. If coal can be burned clean and it would create jobs in a depressed area I don’t see why Obama would not listen to the proposal.
His energy policies are sound and impressive. See my blog for more information.
JCE
http://johnceberhardt.wordpress.com/
evanjones: Now, now, moptop. The economic realities come hard. Pamela has made pretty fair progress, I think. Besides, her climate skepticism has, perforce, cast her adrift.
She’s an exile in her own party, though she may not fully realize it yet.
There are many skeptics who also happen to be Democrats and/or Independents. This is a point which keeps being made, and continually gets ignored. The foam-at-the-mouth Obama bashers also conveniently forget that McCain is aboard the AGW bandwagon, as are many Republicans. You are right, though, that being a skeptic and a Dem. does put us in a difficult position, since, as far as I know there are no Democrats running who are even remotely skeptical on AGW, or who would dare to admit it if they were. The truth is, I would probably vote for McCain if he weren’t an AGWer, despite his other failings. I will, however be voting for a Republican senator, who is skeptical on AGW to some degree.
I am very fearful of Obama winning. Voting for Obama is the same thing as voting for Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rev Wright, Frank Davis, L. Farrakhan, and who knows what other Marxists.
The Press and the McCain campaign barely scratched the surface of this network of revolutionaries.
Obama’s relationship with Ayers goes back to the 1980s, not the 90s. And it way more profound than just working together on boards.
If you have never watched the documentary called “Weather Underground” about that group, go to Google video and watch it. Realize that the violence was just a means to ends. They have just switched means.
To make a long story short…they have groomed Obama. He is their Trojan Horse.
I could go into detail if anyone wants.
As far as alternative energy production, anyone that says that wind, new solar tech, and thermal aren’t viable power sources hasn’t done the research.
————
I have done the research, which is why I can say with complete confidence that wind, solar, and thermal aren’t viable power sources.
————-
Geo-heating and cooling can be done with a simple drilling into the ground.
————
No it can’t. Not all houses have big enough yards to make this practical. If you live in an area where the bedrock is close to the surface, geo-thermal is not practical. Geo-thermal can make heating and cooling more efficient, but it does not provide enough energy to heat and cool by itself.
———-
Solar can produces more than an entire houses electrical needs in New Hampshire, let alone Arizona.
———–
This is true while the sun is shining. It is not true at night, or on cloudy days.
You forget the cost of storing the excess energy, and providing alternative sources when the sun isn’t shining brightly enough.
———–
Wind can also provide more power for a home.
———-
When the wind is blowing. What do you do during the vast majority of time when the wind is blowing strong enough?
Some of us are conservative.
Most of us are skeptical.
Therefore we are all skeptical because we are conservative.
And to think, some of us believe that AGWers have trouble with basic logic.
Look at what happened to Joe the plumber. For the crime of asking Obama a tough question, the govt officials of his state illegally opened his files looking for dirt to discredit him.
What do you think will happen to critics once Obama has access to the IRS, Justice Dept, FBI, etc?
We tend to forget that, unless re-elected/incumbent, a President will be shown some things that they did not know before. Things that even Vice-Presidents are not privy to.
This can make them grey haired and haggard within months. This can give them such new “perspective” that their manifesto promises turn 180 degrees about face. This can alter their world view drastically.
This happens with all heads of state. Permanent under-secretaries or civil servants deliver the news-
“Meet Knaargngpflitz Sodintxo Prime Minister. He is the ambassador from Altair and he wishes to discuss your plans to alter the composition of your countries atmosphere.”
Good luck today all our friends and allies across the pond.