Log In | Register
196 Comments
Print
msnbc.com Newsadvertisement
While many Americans worry about high energy prices and the economic woes that go with them, Gary Terrell has the luxury of being able to take the long view.
Terrell has felt the pain at the pump, but the 55-year-old also has seen the upside of rising energy costs: The economy on the western slope of Colorado, where he lives, is benefiting from the rising prices because of its rich natural gas reserves. While much of the rest of the country suffers through a housing crisis, the local boom enabled him to profit handsomely on the recent sale of his home and position himself well for retirement.
But seeing the good and bad sides of high energy prices also has persuaded him that this country, more than anything, needs a plan to wean itself from foreign-produced oil.
In November's presidential election, the Colorado native said the candidates’ positions on economic issues — especially energy — will be key in determining how he votes.
"I want to vote for somebody that's going to try to put this country on its feet, with its own energy," he said. "Everything else will follow."
Energy concerns and the economy in general are on the minds of voters across the U.S. as the nation prepares to select its 44th president on Nov. 4. But as Colorado clearly demonstrates, voters’ views of the economy will be colored by diverse local circumstances when they head to the polls.
To get a sense of how economic issues will play out in some of the so-called battleground states that will decide the election, we asked Gut Check America readers in two such states – Colorado and Minnesota – to tell us how the economy is affecting them.
As Colorado prepares to host the Democratic National Convention this weekend, we examined the economic currents at work there and how they might factor into what is seen as a very tight race. (You can read about the economic factors buffeting Minnesotans next week, prior to the Republican convention.)
Plusses and minuses
In Colorado,
the run-up in energy prices is both a blessing and a curse: It’s a boon in rural western Colorado, but it's also squeezing residents facing rising gas prices and the prospect of hurtful heating bills this winter.
Further complicating the picture is the state's potential to become a hub for future energy production, whether through the clean energy companies now setting up shop there or new interest in the vast oil shale reserves nestled in the state's western side.
“Even though most of us feel the pain of higher gasoline and energy prices, Colorado’s one of those states that has a fairly significant energy industry,” said Richard Wobbekind, associate dean of the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado.
That has the state's voters paying close attention to the energy and economic policies of Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.
So far, though, they appear to be having a tough time deciding which candidate would be best for the Centennial State. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted with The Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com in July, found McCain holding a razor thin lead over Obama — 46 percent to 44 percent — among likely voters. The poll also found that 48 percent of Colorado residents said the economy was the most important issue influencing their vote.
“Economics is now the No. 1 issue when you say, ‘What do you think is the biggest issue facing Colorado, or the most important issue for the presidential candidates to deal with?’” said Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan state pollster who has done work for area economic development groups.
Both the GOP and the Democrats see the state as up for grabs. President Bush won Colorado in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, but Democrats have prevailed in more recent state and local contests.
While Republicans may benefit from the state's military presence and conservative Christian base, Democrats could get a boost from people like Gut Check America reader Burrall Sanders. The 54-year-old resident of Falcon, who owns a small business that manufactures custom aircraft, voted for Bush but has been badly disappointed by his policies on issues such as Iraq and the war on terror.
"I'm not exactly all excited about the Democrats, but they've got my vote this time," he said.
A tourist mecca
Colorado is perhaps best known as a tourist mecca, drawing the wealthy, famous and avidly outdoorsy to its awe-inspiring mountains. But the state also has a relatively diverse economy that includes technology, natural resources, mining and agriculture.
That's one reason that Wobbekind, of the University of Colorado, remains relatively optimistic about the state's economic outlook.
In addition to benefiting from higher natural gas prices, the state has moved to attract producers of clean energy such as wind and solar power, which Wobbekind thinks have the potential to generate more economic activity in the future.
Thanks in part to the Democratic convention, Wobbekind's annual forecast also is relatively bullish for the state’s tourism and hospitality industry. But high gas prices could crimp vacation plans and offset some of those gains, he said.
Also, while Colorado was among the first states to be hit by the housing crisis, recent signs have been more promising. Foreclosure filings fell by nearly 15 percent from the first to the second quarters this year, according to RealtyTrac, while nationwide foreclosure filings rose by nearly 14 percent.
“In the last few months, notably, the state has really been sort of going counter to the rest of the country,” said Rick Sharga, vice president at RealtyTrac.
He credits the state for aggressively tackling housing problems early on by enacting stricter standards for mortgage brokers and creating a toll-free hot line and other resources for those facing foreclosure.
But while the state itself seems to be weathering the national economic turmoil, many of its residents still say they are fighting to stay afloat.
Skyrocketing heating bills
Many of the Gut Check America readers in Colorado who responded to msnbc.com's appeal to share their stories mentioned job security and rising food prices as issues that were causing them sleepless nights. But by far the most common refrain was concern about energy prices, including the pain they are feeling at the pump and concerns over how they will be able to afford skyrocketing heating bills during the cold winter months.
Sanders, the airplane manufacturer, said he expects to be squeezed by high heating bills at his 5,000-square-foot shop this winter. He'll also be forced to pass increased shipping costs on to his customers.
"It's just making it tougher and more expensive for me," he said.
For some, rising prices mean little money for once-normal indulgences like a day trip to the mountains or a dinner out. Others are worried about more basic obligations, like buying groceries and paying the heating bill.
Kimberly Jackson, 35, of Denver, works as a traveling nurse, but lately she said she has been turning down jobs because gas prices are too high to make the trips worthwhile. The high cost of gas also has forced her to cut back on visits to friends and to ride her bike more often when running errands.
Jackson, who is undecided about who she will vote for in November, said the presidential candidates' energy policies will be an important factor. That's partly because Jackson also is a law student, and if the new president's policies focus on clean energy, she thinks that could help her land a job in her home state.
But otherwise she sees only a slim chance of landing a local job in her chosen field — public interest law — after graduating from the University of Denver with a dual degree in law and social work. Even if she does get a job in the state, she doesn’t think it will pay as well as her current nursing job. And she’ll be saddled with about $130,000 in student loan debt.
That has Jackson, an avid outdoorswoman, contemplating leaving her home state.
“I’m sure there are other places like this, but it’s almost a part of me,” she said. “But the economics (are such that) I’m almost certain that I will have to look elsewhere for work.”
‘It's not enough’
Tucker Hart Adams, an economist with The Adams Group who has followed the state’s ups and downs for decades, said Jackson and her fellow Coloradans are right to worry about whether the state will provide good jobs in the future. The state’s unemployment rate shot up to 5.2 percent in June, from 3.8 percent a year earlier. While that was still below the national rate of 5.7 percent, Adams said the figure tells only part of the story. She believes the state’s long-term job growth, especially in high-paying fields like technology, can’t support its growing population and high number of recent college graduates.
“It’s not enough to provide jobs, and full-time good jobs, for everybody,” she said.
Wobbekind also recently lowered his job growth forecast for the state from 1.9 percent to 1.5 percent for the year. He said early indicators are showing job losses in fields such as construction and manufacturing.
Many msnbc.com readers said getting — or keeping — a good job is a key economic concern.
Greg Thomason, who has an MBA and decades of experience in public relations and other fields, said he hasn’t been able to find a steady job since he was laid off in 2004.
Thomason, who lives in the Denver suburb of Arvada, gets by doing consulting work, but his savings have been depleted and he is uncertain about the future. He said he’s supporting Obama because he believes the Democrat will work to reverse economic policies that have driven up the national deficit and, he thinks, hurt the middle class. Still, he doesn’t expect change to come quickly.
“I don’t believe that any president is going to have that immediate an impact on the economy,” he said.
Support for offshore drilling
Over on the Western slope, in Grand Junction, Terrell is settling into a new home. While he doesn’t work in either the natural gas or tourism industries — the main drivers of the economy there — he has them to thank for the strength in local home prices and a stronger regional economy. He said that because he was able to sell his house for a good profit, he was able to pay off debts and position himself well for retirement.
Still, Terrell, an operations manager for the local newspaper, said he and his wife, who works in a grocery store, are worried about rising food prices. And they're thankful to have a fuel-efficient car, with gas prices hovering around the $4 a gallon mark.
When it comes to the election, Terrell likes Obama’s spark but said he is most concerned about backing a candidate who will reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, in part by expanding U.S. drilling.
Ciruli, the pollster, said domestic drilling has become a key issue with Colorado voters since gas prices began surging. He believes it’s one of the few economic issues that have benefited the state’s Republicans, since McCain favors expanding offshore drilling. The Republican also has said he would encourage more nuclear power plant construction.
Obama also said recently that he would favor some offshore drilling, as part of a plan that also would encourage fuel-efficient vehicles and development of alternative energy sources. Ciruli said Obama's change of heart on offshore drilling should blunt the Republican advantage in Colorado somewhat.
Affordable fuel is key to a lifestyle Ciruli said many in Colorado don’t want to give up.
“We are a completely committed recreational state, and by and large we recreate with gas,” Ciruli said. “We load up the SUV and go to the mountains.”
Terrell also is among the Coloradans who believe the real promise for the United States — and his home state — lies in the vast reserves of oil shale nestled in the cliffs he can see from his window. He said his family used to burn the shale for fuel long ago and, as gas prices have risen, he has been hearing more talk of mining the shale and processing it to produce oil.
Adams, the economist, is skeptical that such an operation is feasible. She notes that there has been speculation about mining oil shale since at least 1917, and said there is still debate over whether the cost, logistics and resources needed would be worth the outcome.
“Certainly, there’s a huge amount of oil there, but it’s not easy to get out,” she said.
26 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- AllisonLinn's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Gut Check America
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (194)
- Gut Check America (0)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
5.1
3.4
1.2
{"commentId":2517234,"authorDomain":"joeruggiero"}
Time to revisit Nuclear power. Take a look at France, they are making it work. Newer Nuclear technology is far safer than years ago, and the waste generated is less as well. Everyone keeps talking about Wind/Solar, but Nuclear should be embraced as well.
{"commentId":2517234,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"joeruggiero"}
- 2 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:10 PM EDT{"commentId":2518520,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
Take a look at the article "Forget Nuclear" on www.rmi.org. There are lots of ways we can get a whole lot more per dollar in either global warming abatement or electricity and get it years sooner than nuclear can deliver.
{"commentId":2518520,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2518651,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
This country needs to suck up a number of things to solve the "oil" issue once and for all. Political leaders need to have the cajones to put the Environmental Groups in their place. If these people had their way, we would all be sitting in the dark in a cave someplace freezing to death and not eating anything but weeds.
We need to drill ANYPLACE there are oil reserves: ANWR; Off Southern Coast, etc - this doesn't have to be forever, just until we can get other alternatives up and running. The Caribou will be fine for a couple of decades.
We need to build new Nuclear Power plants to produce cheap electricity. France runs 85% of their electric power on nuclear plants for over 35 years and have had no problems or issues. They also use technology to re-use their fuel rods - cutting down on waste by over 80%. (Are we not at least as smart as France?)
We have more than the equivalent of Coal Reserves in the US that Saudi Arabia has in oil. Through new technologies that are environmentally clean, we can produce liquid fuels (Gasoline, home heating oil, diesel, etc) from coal - with 100% of the CO2 captured - which can then be used to improve oil wells production in the form of underground pressure. This results in no increase of CO2 in the air. (though, if you read above, you will be able to infer that Al Gore's model of direct increase in temperature based on increase in CO2 is flawed since CO2 has risen since 1998, yet temperatures have fallen.
Electric; gas electric; diesel electric cars are the answer to transportation questions for the future. Battery technology is improving. There are currently cars being tested that have a 400 mile range on a single charge.
Solar and wind power can be used in new home construction to improve energy efficiency.
If we instituted these changes, in 4 years we could have much of the infrastructure in place and online and in under 10 years (like 8) we could be free of ALL foreign oil. (Not just Mid-east, but ALL - Canada, Mexico, etc) This set of changes would also create MASSIVE amounts of new jobs - at all levels, blue collar, technical, white collar; thus improving our economy.
{"commentId":2518651,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2519212,"authorDomain":"bryan-55-1"}
Actually, if environmentalist had their way we would all be driving much more efficient autos and saving more oil than we could ever get from drilling offshore and in ANWR. And the quest for alternative fuels would have been taken serioulsy along with the necessary investments long ago. Destroying our last remaining wilderness areas that are necessary for the survival of many species will not end our dependency on foreign oil or lower the price of gas.
And according to NASA, the warmest 6 years on record have occured since 1998.
{"commentId":2519212,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"bryan-55-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519235,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
The touted "alternative" sources of energy have had millions put on them for years. Hydrogen fuel Cells can run cars and can be put on the grid (have jv'd with the top company)--BUT cannot compete price and efficiency wise with the good old combustion engine nor with hydro power here in the NW. They have pretty met up with the limits of the laws of physics--can't push those darn laws. Gravity etc. work every time. Wind power kills birds and only works when and where it is windy.
Nuclear will take some time to develop even starting now (should start now), but in the mean time, we need to get off foreign oil and here's how:
1) Open up the shale in Colorado/Utah Uintah basin. There is more oil and natural gas there than in all of Saudi. The environment can be protected as much as possible--improved by research on in situ drilling instead of mining. Shell oil has a unit up and going but this needs some research dollars.
2) Have the government support the building of infrastructure to get the oil in Montana/Wyoming/Dakotas (Bakken) to refineries either by building pipelines or building refineries closer to the source.
3) ALL oil that is currently on US Public lands (most of the above) belongs to the US (that would be us). Any oil companies leasing these oil lands must have a clause in the lease that guarantees the oil from US soil stays on US soil for the use of US citizens first. This until both our military reserves are rebuilt and the domestic price of gasoline is supported (and supportable for at least a year going forward) at $2 a gallon. Doesn't do much good to drill in the US if we sell the products to China and we are still dependent on foreign oil domestically.
4) Drill offshore. It is my understanding that the continental shelf belongs to the US--not necessarily to the states located nearby (anyone know exactly how this works?). If it belongs to the US (US territorial waters) #3 above should apply.
I'm for free markets and want to make it clear I do not favor nationalizing our oil industry. On the other hand, we do have national parks on commonly owned public lands for the common enjoyment of all citizens--as we should. The oil is on commonly owned land and the oil companies profiting from this land should be using the commonly owned product for common good!
{"commentId":2519235,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2519413,"authorDomain":"tswelt"}
You might want to get your facts straight. Yes it is true that alternative energy might be a little less efficient AT THIS TIME. How much have we spent over in the middle east trying to win this war for oil? Has it passed $100 billion? Actually I think its much more then that. Tell me oil is fiscally efficient. Drilling offshore will only put off the inevitable. People to realize that oil is not going to be around forever - spending a little more to develop new energy sources is imperative. This is the problem with our country, the whole "dont fix it unless its broke" mentality. Its just not going to work.
{"commentId":2519413,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"tswelt"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519997,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
Actually, it takes about 40 years to turn over the building stock, so it really isn't enough to mandate improvements in new homes (although I certainly endorse the idea!). To get results in 10 years we have to undertake a massive retrofit program to get existing homes and apartments insulated and using much more efficient appliances, lighting, heating and cooling. Fortunately, there are lots of cost-effective ways to retrofit, and the options are improving all the time and the costs are going down. It's a matter of collective will to get it done. My 60's-era, 1200 sq.ft. house has new insulation, double-pane windows, solar electric panels, solar hot water, supplemental solar heat, energy-star appliances and LED lighting. I had to borrow the money against my house, but I bit the bullet and did it! I'd like to see federal, state and local agencies helping everyone to do the same, and I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes to do it. And, yes, I drive a Prius, and I don't shiver in the dark or eat weeds, but I do have a carbon footprint that is closer to the European average than the American one.
{"commentId":2519997,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2520428,"authorDomain":"tswelt"}
I agree completely neosapiens. I think the government should step in and help out - maybe stop spending all of our money on worthless causes and put it to some good use. Tax breaks or refunds might also be good to provide incentive for people to upgrade their houses. Although what about people like me that are renting? I cant make my landlord do anything, but I still have to pay for the high energy bills. Any suggestions?
{"commentId":2520428,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"tswelt"}
{"commentId":2520724,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
It's a huge problem. Landlords don't pay for the heat and the electricity, so they don't have much incentive to do upgrades. We need to have very strict efficiency standards for new apartment buildings and renovations, and we need incentives to motivate landlords to insulate and weatherize their properties.
There are a few things that renters can do: Install LED or compact fluorescent lights, low-flow showerheads, and temporary insulation on windows. You can also talk to your landlord (it's always possible he or she will be interested in what tenants want), or if all else fails, you could move, with an eye to finding a more efficient apartment.
{"commentId":2520724,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2520803,"authorDomain":"psychrn7n"}
We have no established way to get rid of the nuclear waste. Nor does anyone else. Nevada will not even let anyone take the waste to Yucca Flats. Would your state let it go there?
Nuclear plants and used fuel rods can be blown up, spreading radioactivity as Chernobyl did. Do you realize the enormity of the Chernobyl accident? I believe that such dirty bombs are one of our greatest challenges. Imagine if the twin towers were full of fuel rods.
Nuclear plants are a natural monopoly, and have never delivered on their promises of cheap energy. They also do not figure in the cost of handling the nuclear waste. That will be left for future generations.
Nuclear proponents do not deal with the long range costs and implications.
{"commentId":2520803,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"psychrn7n"}
{"commentId":2578369,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
Ron - please do some research before making inflammatory statements like that. First, 'spent' fuel rods can be re-enriched and recycled cutting waste tremendously.
Second, the waste in France is much lower and handled mch more efficiently than in the US - a model for us to look into for our future nuclear plants. Last, the nuclear waste currently in the US is quite small - and truthfully, could qualify for a re-enrichment program.
{"commentId":2578369,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":3315459,"authorDomain":"otb"}
Just wanted to make a quick comment on opening up Oil Shale in the Uintah Basin and NW Colorado...
one word: decades.
{"commentId":3315459,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"otb"}
{"commentId":2517303,"authorDomain":"rider-83"}
To start with, I would eliminate the strangle hold Israel has over America and I would try being a little more honest with the Arabs! Also as we are in a time of war I would arrest, try, and shoot any exectives of the oil companies that gouged the American people and the politicians who helped them!!!
{"commentId":2517303,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"rider-83"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:14 PM EDT{"commentId":2519330,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
rider-83
I assume the executives of the oil companies you want to shoot that are gouging Americans are all the leaders of OPEC and the Saudi's who handle ARAMCO as well as the Russian state owned companies and PDVSA (Venezuela). Any improprieties within US oil companies dwarf by comparison!
Since they deal in America, they should at least be prosecuted under our antitrust legislation for price fixing. These companies are huge. Exxon Mobil is dwarfed by comparison and is now having great difficulty competing with the big Chinese companies for every oil contract that comes on the market. SinoPec and Sinorich are right there with cash planting 25 year contracts on any oil they can find.
We must become oil independent by utilizing domestic oil resources and they are actually huge!
{"commentId":2519330,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519619,"authorDomain":"sffilk"}
Actually, the Arabs have been working to increase their stranglehold over the US and using not just petroleum, but anti-American groups here (no names please). Israel has been the one country in that area that we have been able to count on (remember Osirak? Had the Israelis not destroyed it, it's quite possible that there'd've been a nuclear war in the area between 1980 and today, because the Iraqis would have used it to attack Israel, and Israel would have had to retaliate, and then there'd've been escalation, and people like you, rider-83, would blame Israel for Iraq's attack upon it).
{"commentId":2519619,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"sffilk"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519881,"authorDomain":"junswort"}
With about 2.5 billion people in China and India wanting a better life, I don't think the U.S is that important to the Arabs. World demand is so high, why should they care? Also, oil companies don't produce oil, they buy it and process it. They actually have little affect on the price of oil (with the exception of limited refinery capacity). It's simple demand and supply and will not change in the near future.
{"commentId":2519881,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"junswort"}
{"commentId":2520079,"authorDomain":"gailrvt"}
You go guy! Thats what I'm saying. Get rid of corporate greed and crooked politians and our country would be good to go.
{"commentId":2520079,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"gailrvt"}
{"commentId":2520448,"authorDomain":"tswelt"}
Joefromrhody make sure you clarify that they have little affect on the price of OIL, not gasoline. Prices for gasoline are incredibly inflated by the oil companies, which is why they are posting astronomical profits. Something seems wrong there.
{"commentId":2520448,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"tswelt"}
{"commentId":2590225,"authorDomain":"junswort"}
Travis-433946 - I agree that gasoline is more affected by oil companies. However, the oil companies record profits are because of the increase in oil prices - they make about a 10% profit (which is pretty low for businesses). As prices go up their 10% is higher. Because oil/gasoline is a mega-billion dollar business, they make a lot of money. That's why there is lots of talk about windfall taxes but no action. If their profit margin is cut below 10% they will stop putting money into new supplies and production which will eventually lead to higher prices. The politician know this which is why they can do very little about it. Unless we use a lot less of the stuff, there is no tax or legislation that is going to get us out of this mess.
{"commentId":2590225,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"junswort"}
{"commentId":2517484,"authorDomain":"mpwilson"}
We need to invest heavily into alternate energy technology both at the research & development stage and the implementation stage. Drilling for more oil does not solve our problem. In addition we need to actively encourage mass transit including subsidizing the building and running of the systems. Yes, that means taking money away from building more roads, but it also means taxing oil companies fully and taking away the tax "breaks" they currently enjoy. Cars themselves are partly to blame and we need to subsidize/encourage the development of alternative energy use vehicles as well as requiring a much higher MPH for standard vehicles. We need to "bite the bullet" now and deal with the energy "crisis" with long term solutions and not just those that lead to a short term dip in gas pump prices.
{"commentId":2517484,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"mpwilson"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:29 PM EDT{"commentId":2519434,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
CaliCat--
Been there done that. Alternative energy has been studied to death with huge capital investments from oil companies and the federal government. Nothing works like the good old combustion engine and hydro power (for the west).
Here's the deal. Why don't we really research better methods of disposing of the toxic chemicals produced as bi-products of combustion? There are some very excellent technologies that are underdeveloped for removing and actually utilizing the byproducts for useful purposes.
If we are worried about CO2 (actually Oregon scientists just proved all it does is improve plant growth) but if we are worried about CO2 then work on ways to remove it at its exit source. Then burn our abundant fossil fuels (coal--we have virtually tons; oil--more than Saudi in shale and in regular drills; natural gas--amazing amounts in Utah, Colorado and many other places; water--hydropower is clean and renewable but don't tear down the dams--just plain dumb; wind, waves, solar, nuclear) and other resources but let's make it a priority on the scale of the Manhattan project to be independent of foreign oil in five years (yes it can be done--much onshore oil can be pumped this year--drilled in a few weeks and on line within two to four months).
{"commentId":2519434,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2528670,"authorDomain":"SS-cA"}
Wow someone seems to be lost. First, if there was an abundant amount of oil, it would have been mined, there's only select areas that are even offlimits, and even our own Dept of Energy has said that it is not worth the cost to drill in the protected offshore; they already have 68 million acres to drill off the coast, yet there's no drilling going on...
This BS about CO2, yeah it may "improve plant growth", but our Rainforests have disappeared at rapid rates, only even more shooting up the amount of CO2 in our air, which has not only raised temperatures it has increased the toxicity of our air, and is very detrimental to several environments, particularly marine ecology. If you don't believe, take an ecology class and maybe learn something about marine life and it's importance on the overall ecosystem.
Now I'm not against combustion, you cannot argue it's benefits of cost it's readily available. But first, we can do like we've been doing (as you see it, a waste) and improve fuel economy, it's being done every day that we are making better and more efficient vehicles. However, you cannot argue against renewables; wind and solar provide a huge cost benefit when looked at in the long run, are available for production TODAY, and provide numerous benefits in comparison to cleanliness and environmental stability. Not to mention pollution has numerous negative effects directly on humans themselves; lock yourself in a garage with your car running if you don't believe me. Wait, I probably shouldn't suggest that, someone on here would probably try it.
Nuclear power has it's benefits, but like oil, it also has it's dramatic downsides. Am I against Nuclear Power? No, I think it can be a part of a mix of energy futures for us, but we seriously need to diversify no matter what. Also, enough with the call for freedom from oil; it still has plenty of uses, and I would realistically believe that it will remain a part of energy mix, but the fact is, we use approx 8 billion barrels of oil a year, and China is increasing its consumption as well.
If you think that solar is a pipe dream, or that it isn't usable in areas other than CA or FL, then take a look at Germany. "The gloomy European nation has become a hotbed of solar power popularity: there are now more than 300,000 photovoltaic systems in the country, plus a quarter-million jobs on the market that wouldn't exist without renewable energy. Now, the German solar industry serves as a model for other nations that most sun-starved Germans visit on vacation: Spain, Greece, and Italy. This enthusiasm, coupled with some traditional German ingenuity, may help to explain the German Solar Decathlon win last month." Solar is here, it works, it's cost effective, we have no reason not to use it. Will it be 100% of our energy? No, even with gas, we still don't use it for 100% of our usage. But we just need the right incentives like the billions of dollars in subsidies we pay to oil to go to solar (btw, the cost of gas is a lot more than 4 dollars a gallon here in America, just like the rest of the world) Should we really keep pumping out oil at increasing rates until the day comes and we're out, and all commit mass suicide because we were too stupid to realize that non-renewables eventually run out?
{"commentId":2528670,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"SS-cA"}
{"commentId":2517509,"authorDomain":"bcool2"}
I do not understand why the highways, schools, all manner of buildings have to be lit all the time, it is a waste of energy, why do restaurants, billboards, parking lots, car lots, shopping malls, homes with gas lamps and curb lighting for aesthetics are allowed to be on? It is and has always been a waste! Require timers and motion censors on them restrict or outlaw lighting that is not essential especially the government! Outlaw trucks whose sole purpose is to drive around just to advertise, like we need more advertising.....that should be the first to go.
{"commentId":2517509,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"bcool2"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:31 PM EDT{"commentId":2517953,"authorDomain":"eb-1"}
Agreed.. why is there so much light pollution at 4 in the morning. Yes some is for safety, but way does every neon advertising sign still need to be on. Someone will say that it doesn't cost that much to keep a sign on, but when multiplied across the entire country, it adds up.
Also, street lights.. I understand the need, but they are so inefficient. Why is it that I can see not just the cast off light, but the fixture itself while flying? A redesign is in order to make them more efficient.
{"commentId":2517953,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"eb-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2518654,"authorDomain":"rainman628-1"}
I'll give you a reason why we need things lit up at night. Thugs and ne'er do wells! Can you imagine a lady or man for that matter walking to their prospective cars at ten pm with no light in parking lot? Get real! I want a street light on my street, don't you?
{"commentId":2518654,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"rainman628-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519461,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
These buildings are lighted as a matter of public safety. That is why basic lighting is mandated by law even here in "the Soviet of Seattle." The crime wave without lights would bring images of Gotham City.
{"commentId":2519461,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519788,"authorDomain":"junswort"}
Actually the available data shows that keeping lights on does not decrease criminal activity at all. It is entirely wasteful.
{"commentId":2519788,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"junswort"}
{"commentId":2517525,"authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
Cars with one seat. There are too many cars on the road that have one driver and no passengers. One seat cars with a small trunk would save gas and space on the road. I'd keep a larger car but use the one seater when I drive alone.
{"commentId":2517525,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
#5 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:32 PM EDT{"commentId":2517780,"authorDomain":"haile-david"}
These exist already - it is called a Motorcycle. A scooter also works well, or even a bicycle. Google the terms "Taipei Scooter" to see the ultimate in commuting efficiency. Young, old, fat, skinny, mothers and kids, all ride scooters everywhere in Taipei.
{"commentId":2517780,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"haile-david"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2517872,"authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
Doesn't help much to protect you from inclement weather.
{"commentId":2517872,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519191,"authorDomain":"marzypants1"}
You complain too much...
{"commentId":2519191,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"marzypants1"}
{"commentId":2519234,"authorDomain":"sneedles"}
check out a car called the Ariel Atom. Fun, efficient...:-)
{"commentId":2519234,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"sneedles"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519485,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
Steve,
Fun, efficient and a death trap in an accident!
{"commentId":2519485,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
{"commentId":2519643,"authorDomain":"sneedles"}
but i also ride a motorcycle, so I am already certifiable?
{"commentId":2519643,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"sneedles"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2517546,"authorDomain":"taddbartley"}
Increase competition by leveling the playing field between oil/coal and clean/renewable energy solutions. Right now we don't have natural market forces because oil and coal industries get tax breaks and incentives that make such incentives to clean energy industries look like a joke. The playing field is not level.
Oil companies use their record profits to buy back more stock and dish out bigger dividends to shareholders. There is plenty of land they could explore/drill RIGHT NOW. I don't buy this push for offshore drilling as being a real solution for anything.
I would rather have my tax dollars go to clean/renewable solutions, including Solar, Geothermal, Wind, and research into energy storage technologies. If the price of a solar roof could come down just a few thousand dollars, and a better car battery could be developed, then I could generate my OWN power at my house in Las Vegas, and power an electric car with that energy. At that point I would not need any gas and so none of my money would go to other countries.
{"commentId":2517546,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"taddbartley"}
#6 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:33 PM EDT{"commentId":2518602,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
The biggest unfair advantage to fossil fuel plants is that they can put their waste into the atmosphere without having to deal with the costs or the consequences. Eliminating the subsidies and implementing some sort of carbon tax would help to slant things more in favor of clean energy.
I would love to be able to drive an electric car that I could charge from my solar panels and never send another dime to the oil magnates. For now, I have to settle for a Prius.
{"commentId":2518602,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2519535,"authorDomain":"if-1"}
Clean energy research doesn't only get tax breaks, it gets huge subsidies from the US government (and has since the 60'--Reagan rode in his innaugeral parade in a "hydrogen car"--) and also huge investment from private industry--including the oil companies but also from wealthy individuals such as Microsoft's Bill Gates who invested heavily (for example) in the Hydrogen Fuel Cells developed by AVISTA in Spokane, Washington. Again, no matter how much money you put into research, there are limits to science and most scientists agree that alternative sources might be good as supplements but can't really compete realistically in the market with combustion and hydro power.
{"commentId":2519535,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"if-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519922,"authorDomain":"junswort"}
Actually, the government does subusdize alteratnive energy. They give tax breaks for purchasing solar/wind, require utilities ti buy clean energy, and subsidize corn for ethanol production.
{"commentId":2519922,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"junswort"}
{"commentId":2528769,"authorDomain":"SS-cA"}
The point was that yes, the governement contributes to Alt Energy, but not AT THE LEVEL of oil. We give billions a year in subsidies to oil companies, and the contribution to Alt Energy has not been as strong.
{"commentId":2528769,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"SS-cA"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2517553,"authorDomain":"rgengel"}
immediately commission coal fired plants to be built with state of the art nox and so2 controls called SCR and Scrubbers. Baghouses must be used to collect particulate matter. Allow utilities to write off the plant in 10 years with a renewable 10 year cycle period. In meantime so we don't experience blackouts make utilities building coal sign up a nuclear palnt to take over when coal plant is decommissioned.
IMMEDIATELY clean up all coal plants by accelerating scrubbers , baghouses and SCR in order to qualify for construction of new coal plants.
Cite nuclear plants on existing federally owned property air bases, army posts, national guard, airports.
Stream line federal licensing rules by limiting state intervention ie go federal sites. Hire the best PSAR compilers in the world Bechtel to get the permits ie they invented the process.
{"commentId":2517553,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"rgengel"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:34 PM EDT{"commentId":2546300,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
It would be cheaper and quicker and better for the economy and better for the environment to ramp up the renewable portfolio standard and promote a rapid build out of small clean power generation: solar on homes and businesses, cogen and combined heat and power in commercial buildings and factories, biomass to power and anything else that makes sense (small scale, relatively clean, quick to build, cost-effective). Big power plants haven't made economic sense since the 1970's, and the problems of foreign oil and global warming are too urgent for us to wait the 10 to 15 years it takes to get big plants going.
{"commentId":2546300,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2517565,"authorDomain":"eherr"}
why not try nuclear power, it seems to be working in France??? maybe the rich fat cats in the oil business don't want to try it, could be a lot less money for those people , sure let the everyday day person pay their way, or maybe our great leaders do not care what happens to back bone of this country which are the hard working honest people , lets make sure we vote for the right leader and bring this country back on track.
{"commentId":2517565,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"eherr"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:36 PM EDT{"commentId":2517583,"authorDomain":"miner"}
I would like to drive a Sherman tank to work. The problem is that we are all forced to "split the pie" into 300 million pieces. My piece of the pie is way too small to allow my Sherman tank ride.
This country has adequate resources to sustain 160 million people at our accustomed level of living. WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR POPULATION!
{"commentId":2517583,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"miner"}
#9 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:37 PM EDT{"commentId":2518519,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
:-) Are you volunteering to be "reduced"?
{"commentId":2518519,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2519263,"authorDomain":"marzypants1"}
I'm all for population control. The question is how to do it... My personal perspective is that if you are uneducated and living in poverty then you shouldn't be allowed to have children. A certain level of education and a certain level of income should be figured out as the rule for being able to apply for parenthood. Then tests should be given on basic parenting. Sound too heavy handed? What would you do?
{"commentId":2519263,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"marzypants1"}
{"commentId":2519425,"authorDomain":"miner"}
I would like to drive a Sherman tank to work. The problem is that we are all forced to "split the pie" into 300 million pieces. My piece of the pie is way too small to allow my Sherman tank ride.
This country has adequate resources to sustain 160 million people at our accustomed level of living. WE NEED TO REDUCE OUR POPULATION!
We need to eliminate government subsidies for making babies. No more tax deductions to create more users of our resources. No more welfare increases when you pop em out. We need to tighten down our borders and stop allowing our population to swell by 3 million a year. We are the only industrialized nation with rampant population increases.
{"commentId":2519425,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"miner"}
{"commentId":2519474,"authorDomain":"ra-bmr"}
I agree with you. Look at Switzerland or Finland
{"commentId":2519474,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"ra-bmr"}
{"commentId":2535636,"authorDomain":"stephanm64"}
I just saw Lou Dobs report that by 2040 our population will go from 300 million or so to 432 million. A fifty percent increase! Mostly due to immigration and increased birth rates! Europe by contrast is actually going to be reducing its population! But like Lou reported, it is not politically correct to discuss these issues and neither Presidential candidate is talking about it!
{"commentId":2535636,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"stephanm64"}
{"commentId":2517656,"authorDomain":"haile-david"}
A novel concept - we need to use less energy! We waste energy everywhere in the USA. Factories, homes, government, and just the usual layout of our cities are all big energy wasters. A shopping mall with every store imaginable 10 miles from my house is not as efficient as a small general store just down the block. We drive 10 miles to save a few bucks at Wally World without thinking about the time and energy cost it took to get there.
I've also observed how the military uses energy. They will never have any care for costs or energy conservation as long as we're putting people in Congress who give them blank checks.
{"commentId":2517656,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"haile-david"}
#10 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:43 PM EDT{"commentId":2517659,"authorDomain":"casualobserver"}
THE USA NEEDS A MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH: END ALL TAX BREAKS FOR OIL COMPANIES, HEAVY GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT INTO WIND, SOLAR & NUCLEAR ENERGIES, HIGHER MILEAGE STANDARDS FROM THE AUTO INDUSTRY, HIGHER GAS TAXES TO EXPAND PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORT, END ETHANOL PROGRAMS, TAX BREAKS FOR HOME INSULATION PROGRAMS, AND LEGISLATION THAT DEMANDS ALL OIL PRODUCED IN THE USA, BE CONSUMED IN THE USA.
{"commentId":2517659,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"casualobserver"}
- 1 vote
#11 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:43 PM EDT{"commentId":2518555,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
You cannot impose higher gas taxes to push public transit in areas where there is no viable public transit. And, no, I do not feel 3+ hours and a 2mile hike on the side of the highway is a viable means of public transit.
Mass transit in some places is awesome. I loved riding the "T" in Boston - and parked my car for months at a time. Texas (Dallas) has little viable transit. You cannot punish those who would use it - but can't.
{"commentId":2518555,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2517732,"authorDomain":"franklinvernon"}
let's hook up every stationary bike at every workout gym in the country to a generator, then get every american to install one in their home... 30 minutes a day of exercise for everyone (and just think of the spinning classes!) and we'll have huge amounts of energy being put onto the grid, not to mention cutting into our problems of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and just plain laziness. you can even put the bike in front of your tv.
why don't we actually do a little bit of physical work (for once) and benefit from the fact that we have a ridiculous amount of untapped and environmentally/human friendly energy within ourselves?
{"commentId":2517732,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"franklinvernon"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 PM EDT{"commentId":2517752,"authorDomain":"magic985"}
{"commentId":2517809,"authorDomain":"wiegandse"}
Its interesting that the comments so far ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars we are sending out of the United States each year and overseas to countries that don't like us very much. These countries use our dependence on their oil against us. Any energy solution the US implements needs to reduce the amount of wealth that leaves our country. As to which alternative to choose? I would suggest that "D. All of the above." is an answer worth looking at. Nuclear, you bet. We can do what the French can do and better. Wind, geothermal, and solar? Not everywhere, but there are places in the US that could benefit from that technology. Drill here, drill now, keep the wealth in the US, that is important too.
{"commentId":2517809,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"wiegandse"}
- 1 vote
#14 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:54 PM EDT{"commentId":2518139,"authorDomain":"goingcarbbean"}
Actually, we send out all that money because it's cheaper than making the energy here. If we cut off that route, we will raise energy prices domestically while lowering them on the world market. That will put us at yet a larger disadvantage in the global marketplace and make us ripe pickings for hostile takeovers from overseas.
{"commentId":2518139,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"goingcarbbean"}
{"commentId":2520877,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
The assertion that it's cheaper to buy foreign energy doesn't take into account the full effect of 1) the pollution and CO2 emissions, nor 2) the effect on our economy of the massive drain of wealth ouf of the country, nor 3) the long-term political impact of making people who hate us filthy rich.
A dollar sent abroad to buy oil is a dollar that isn't circulating in the domestic economy.
We'd be better off with clean energy that is domestically produced, even if it costs more in the short run. In the long run, it will cost less to be independent than to be vulnerable to foreign markets and to suffer the consequences of global warming.
{"commentId":2520877,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2517921,"authorDomain":"santoshk"}
1. stop the aggressive war in the middle east we started. this immediately reduces the cost of oil which factors in "risk of disruption" whenever there is war. immediate savings $20-30 per barrel conservatively. in addition, this would dramatically reduce the oil needed for FIGHTING the wars further reducing the "demand" side, thus easing supply and lowering costs further.
2. remove special tax breaks from oil companies who already have windfall profits, and use the funds to support solar, wind, geothermal to make them competitive and take up more of the energy needs
3. ratchet up the gas mileage requirements for new vehicles to achieve parity with european and japanese/chinese standards. conservatively this will save 10-15% of our oil usage. technology already widely available.
4. enhance research into new technologies such as gravitic, electrostatic, etc. that are possible but not yet worked out.
5. enhance public transit systems particularly in major metros to reduce cars on the road.
6. fix roads and bridges. the cost of having a broken down infrastructure is immediate and harms all citizens as well as drives up costs in the general economy. it also reduces gas mileage by having a broken down system. we have neglected our infrastructure too long.
{"commentId":2517921,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"santoshk"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:04 PM EDT{"commentId":2519728,"authorDomain":"sneedles"}
Point 1 - it will not immediately reduce the price of oil. As soon as we pull out, neighboring countries that do not like us will move in and Iraq will become a suberb of Iran or Russia.
Point 2- no one is more qualified to develop enrgy solutions than energy companies. Not a popular sentiment...I know. What they need are incentives to replace their oil-based cash-cows with something else that is more responsible. They will not abandon oil for something else based on altruism, they will only go that way if forced or enticed.
Point 3 - 6 - I whole-heartedly agree with you on this point.
{"commentId":2519728,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"sneedles"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519988,"authorDomain":"junswort"}
I agree that unstable Arab states cause inflated prices and we should get rid of the tax breaks for the oil companies. As far as your other suggestions - where will all this money come from? It's easy to say enhance public transportation and more research, but that cost more money. There are answers but if you are proposing more taxes, if not tell us where the money will come from.
{"commentId":2519988,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"junswort"}
{"commentId":2517930,"authorDomain":"tswelt"}
Well, for starters we could stop electing people that benefit from oil company profits (Hint hint, the people I am talking about are pretty darn high up in the executive branch). I would agree with Dave too, people in America use way too much energy on a regular basis. Making 1 seater cars is probably the worst idea I have heard of in a long time. Give me a 1 seater car that could withstand an accident with a semi, and I would think about it.
But all in all, its pretty aparant that the people in this country love to elect the dumbest person they can find, and then re-elect them after 4 years of failure. Its pretty obvious that the energy crisis is a direct effect of our @!$%#ty economy which, again, is the fault of our incapable politicians. Money money money, if only we could have non-corrupt politicians, we might stand a chance to get on the right track again. But as long as we have amazing voters, we will have amazing politicians.
The answer to the energy crisis and our economy is pretty easy, relieve ourselves of foreign dependency. Get off of oil, we have the technology, we just dont want to use it until we suck every last dollar we can out of the ground.
{"commentId":2517930,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"tswelt"}
#16 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:04 PM EDT{"commentId":2518805,"authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
Making 1 seater cars is probably the worst idea I have heard of in a long time. Give me a 1 seater car that could withstand an accident with a semi, and I would think about it.
Motorcycles can't withstand an accident with a semi either yet more and more people are using them.
{"commentId":2518805,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"itspat4047"}
{"commentId":2519160,"authorDomain":"tswelt"}
Motorcycles are just as stupid. Who wants to ride around on a death trap pissing everybody else off? Probably the same people I was talking about in my earlier post...
{"commentId":2519160,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"tswelt"}
{"commentId":2520884,"authorDomain":"speirce101"}
Travis - motorcycles have a rep as a death trap thanks to people in cars that don't watch what they're doing. Yeah, we have our share of morons riding crotch rockets doin stupid stuff but for the larger part we're a responsible bunch.
Have a look at the next 12 motorcycle accidents you see in your local paper, my bet is 9 of the 12 were cause by people driving cars/trucks.
Y'all piss us off more; get off the phone, quit applying make-up and pay attention to what's around you!
{"commentId":2520884,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"speirce101"}
{"commentId":2517981,"authorDomain":"goingcarbbean"}
We need a multi-faceted approach:
1. Reduce our federal debt, trade imbalance, and private debt so the US Dollar will gain purchasing power on the global markets.
2. Conserve energy. Fortunately, the solution for that is high energy prices.
3. Invest in alternative energies through better tax breaks for industry.
4. Lower the corporate tax rate to be more in line with the industrialized world. This will draw new investment from overseas and create jobs.
5. Drill for more oil where it is feasibly. The caribou will have to cope, as Robin Williams pointed out.
6. Mandate LED lights.
7. Review our zoning laws so stores can be located closer to neighborhoods.
8. Simplify the income tax code and spend the savings on energy research.
9. Ask the federal government to take a 10% across-the-board budget cut to address the budget deficit.
{"commentId":2517981,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"goingcarbbean"}
#17 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:08 PM EDT{"commentId":2522663,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
It's difficult to know if corporate taxes are really higher or lower in Europe, because they tax differently than we do. Every time a commodity changes hands it is taxed with a VAT (value added tax) that the consumer never sees, so businesses pay very high taxes in Europe, just not the same kind of taxes as we pay here. So, I see the tax rate issue as a red herring.
I love LED lights, and I have lots of them, and give them to my friends, but I don't expect many people to actually buy them, because the up-front cost is so steep. I think we'd have trouble mandating them. Banning the incandescent lightbulb is something that I think we can actually accomplish.
{"commentId":2522663,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
{"commentId":2518004,"authorDomain":"kurtnickerson"}
Ration gas! Make additional amounts available to those who are willing to pay a sliding scale tax..the more you buy, the more you pay. Drilling is NOT going to solve our problem. We need to reduce demand until we are able to convert to other forms of energy.
{"commentId":2518004,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"kurtnickerson"}
#18 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:09 PM EDT{"commentId":2518042,"authorDomain":"march-hare"}
Our "accustomed level of living" as Bill above puts it, is wasteful and profligate. Proof of that is found in the dumps and the trash strewn all over city streets, flowing down the rivers to the ocean.
How about leaving some resources for the rest of the world (seeing as we don't actually produce all the the fuel ourselves but instead import it from other countries)? How about leaving some for the next generation, and the generation after that? Even for those of us who don't have children, surely we don't want to leave our friends' and relatives' children with nothing.
Even if there were fewer people living in the USA, eventually there would be problems with getting fuel, it would just be further down the road. Notice I didn't say we're running out of oil -- it's just getting more difficult and more expensive to obtain it. All the easy oil is gone.
I agree on ending tax breaks for oil companies, and using that money to invest in wind, solar, etc. Also investing in programs to help more people insulate their homes (saves fuel use both in winter and summer).
Additionally, we need to strongly encourage people to not waste energy and resources. Many people still resist this, saying they have a "right" to drive as much as they want to, keep their thermostats at 80F in the winter, etc. Well, sure, I guess if they want to use up all their money that way, that's their "right". But in the end, if enough people are living like that, they're hurting everyone else. So I guess if these folks don't care about their neighbors or their community, they can go ahead and do that.
Me, I'm working on some articles for our local paper on being "green" the cheap way, including creative ways to insulate. The easiest way to help with the energy problems is to not use the stuff in the first place. Living a moderate life can buy time for working on developing and building the alt. energy systems we need.
{"commentId":2518042,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"march-hare"}
#19 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:13 PM EDT{"commentId":2518043,"authorDomain":"angry-boy"}
A quick, first step is to simply change the definition of "Street Legal". Mandate that within 5 years, every car sold in America to be driven on public roads must have a zero-gasoline mode. Don't dictate which technology must be used, and start by setting the bar low. For example, each car must be able to drive 1 mile at 10 miles and hour without gasoline.
The downside is Americans don't like mandates and car prices would go up slightly. But the benefits are huge. The car companies have the tech today to do it, and the race would be on to make the best, knowing that those cars would sell and they wouldn't lose money. Within several years, mpgs would nearly double, potentially cutting imports by 65%. Almost all gas burned sitting in gridlock, the drive-through, even parking lot driving would instantly be saved, and create less pollution. If gas-electric was the initial winning technology, then there's be an instant motivation and HUGE market for portable solar panels to charge your car between trips.
There are plenty of precedents of mandates, such as seatbelt laws, airbags, & requiring unleaded gas. They are always resisted initially, but in the long run they are accepted and improve things. It would just take polticians with the guts to ask for sacrifice, which is probably our most scarce resource.
{"commentId":2518043,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"angry-boy"}
- 2 votes
#20 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:13 PM EDT{"commentId":2518099,"authorDomain":"plabry"}
Wind, solar and CONSERVE, CONSERVE, CONSERVE. If we all did just a little what a difference it would make.
{"commentId":2518099,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"plabry"}
- 3 votes
#21 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:16 PM EDT{"commentId":2518110,"authorDomain":"march-hare"}
Our "accustomed level of living" as Bill M above puts it, is wasteful and profligate (although I'm assuming he's joking about the Sherman tank). Proof of that is found in the dumps and the trash strewn all over city streets, flowing down the rivers to the ocean.
How about leaving some resources for the rest of the world (seeing as we don't actually produce all the the fuel ourselves but instead import it from other countries)? How about leaving some for the next generation, and the generation after that? Even for those of us who don't have children, surely we don't want to leave our friends' and relatives' children with nothing.
Even if there were fewer people living in the USA, eventually there would be problems with getting fuel, it would just be further down the road. Notice I didn't say we're running out of oil -- it's just getting more difficult and more expensive to obtain it. All the easy oil is gone.
I agree on ending tax breaks for oil companies, and using that money to invest in wind, solar, etc. Also investing in programs to help more people insulate their homes (saves fuel use both in winter and summer).
Additionally, we need to strongly encourage people to not waste energy and resources. Many people still resist this, saying they have a "right" to drive as much as they want to, keep their thermostats at 80F in the winter, etc. Well, sure, I guess if they want to use up all their money that way, that's their "right". But in the end, if enough people are living like that, they're hurting everyone else. So I guess if these folks don't care about their neighbors or their community, they can go ahead and do that.
I like the biking/spinning idea above for generating some electricity. Sounds like a win-win idea!
Me, I'm working on some articles for our local paper on being "green" the cheap way, including creative ways to insulate. The easiest way to help with the energy problems is to not use the stuff in the first place. Living a moderate life can buy time for working on developing and building the alt. energy systems we need.
{"commentId":2518110,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"march-hare"}
- 1 vote
#22 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:17 PM EDT{"commentId":2518126,"authorDomain":"d-hilbert"}
Right now, the most important objective here on our home soil is to conserve and use wisely, the consumption of oil. Let's face it, we are in a crisis and it is worsening. The only reason oil futures have gone down is because China has taken 1 million cars off the road during the Olympics. Those are drastic measures. We also must take some corrective action. Congress and Bush have yet to assemble a comprehensive plan to conserve oil. We need to curtail extravagant wastes of oil resources.
Our military uses 360,000 barrels of oil each day. This is more oil than entire nations use. Congress should put a halt to new warships, warplanes, tanks and other military hardware that gulp oil faster than water goes through Mr. Hoover's Dam. We can reduce the military by half, at the very least. Stop all the unnecessary flyovers by military jets at NASCAR races, the Indianapolis 500, and other events, such as Veterans Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Armistice Day, Patriots Day, Flag Day and Memorial Day.
Disband the Blue Angels and the Thundertirds. We do not need them as a recruitment tool any longer. It cost nearly 400,000 dollars for one air show. That figure includes travel to and from the air show and practice before the show. Close Nellis Air Force Base and Pensacola Naval Air Station. I'm sure some corporate giant, such as Microsoft or even Donald Trump might want to build some more of his towers in those two places.
Airlines have reduced their flight schedules and various police departments have reduced the number of patrol cars. Reduce the number of days the the President is allowed to use his luxury 747 to two times per year. Imagine an ordinary citizen going to the Olympics and forcing taxpayers to shell out 10 million dollars just so he and that prissy wife of his can take advantage of photo-ops while we at home are forced to struggle with rising fuel costs.
{"commentId":2518126,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"d-hilbert"}
- 1 vote
#23 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:18 PM EDT{"commentId":2518585,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
Our military needs to use that fuel to keep us safe. Our military also is employing clean coal to liquid fuel technology (making their own) but Congress won't allow the public to do the same.
{"commentId":2518585,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2518768,"authorDomain":"d-hilbert"}
Oh, I get it. The Canadians would swoop down on us and annihilate us all. Let's all be safe and wear a condom.
{"commentId":2518768,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"d-hilbert"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2519314,"authorDomain":"march-hare"}
"clean coal"? No such animal, sorry. And yes, the military could use a lot less fuel. Happily, some parts of the military are working on that, and have given more thought to long-term energy use and needs than most state governments.
{"commentId":2519314,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"march-hare"}
{"commentId":2578488,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
Heather - wake up and stop drinking the Kool-aid. Yes, there is clean coal technology. There are also new technologies out there that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Clean coal is one part of the answer to our energy independence.
{"commentId":2578488,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2518140,"authorDomain":"jack00000001"}
Tom above was spot on: The US needs a multi-pronged approach:
1) Mandate higher fuel economy from automobiles. Every safety or other mandate has been met by auto companies after their typical whining.
2) Mandate a "Total National Cost" measure be applied to all energy alternatives -- Where does the money go; How much pollution does it cause? Are Americans employed? What are the direct and indirect subsidies associated with it? What are the national security implications? Only by comparing apples to apples, can people see that coal & oil aren't the deal they're made out to be.
3) Regardless of the issues, nuclear power HAS to be embraced, at least until the efficiencies of renewable (wind, solar, etc.) resources is high enough to make them viable for our insatiable energy appetite. Environmentalists (of which I consider myself) who don't embrace nuclear energy are simply uninformed and delusional. We will figure out the waste issue eventually. If we don't end fossil fuel consumption, there may not be much left to the environment to embrace.
4) Significant tax credits should be given to ANY business or consumer that invests capital in American-built products that reduce fossil fuel usage.
There are lots of other ideas, but these are critical: regulation, nuclear, alternative energy, tax credits.
Respectfully submitted.
{"commentId":2518140,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jack00000001"}
#24 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:19 PM EDT{"commentId":2518190,"authorDomain":"jack00000001"}
Tom above was spot on: The US needs a multi-pronged approach:
1) Mandate higher fuel economy from automobiles. Every safety or other mandate has been met by auto companies after their typical whining. 2) Mandate a "Total National Cost" measure be applied to all energy alternatives -- Where does the money go; How much pollution does it cause? Are Americans employed? What are the direct and indirect subsidies associated with it? What are the national security implications? Only by comparing apples to apples, can people see that coal & oil aren't the deal they're made out to be.
3) Regardless of the issues, nuclear power HAS to be embraced, at least until the efficiencies of renewable (wind, solar, etc.) resources is high enough to make them viable for our insatiable energy appetite. Environmentalists (of which I consider myself) who don't embrace nuclear energy are simply uninformed and delusional. We will figure out the waste issue eventually. If we don't end fossil fuel consumption, there may not be much left to the environment to embrace.
4) Significant tax credits should be given to ANY business or consumer that invests capital in American-built products that reduce fossil fuel usage.
There are lots of other ideas, but these are critical: regulation, nuclear, alternative energy, tax credits.
Respectfully submitted.
{"commentId":2518190,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jack00000001"}
- 1 vote
#25 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:23 PM EDT{"commentId":2518905,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
Yes to points 1, 2 and 4: higher gas mileage standards and careful investment in the most cost-effective energy efficiency and generation available with today's technology would let us decomission all the coal and nuclear plants. We waste more energy than all the coal plants generate, and if we unleashed the potential of individuals, communities and businesses to generate power and to save power, we'd be able to do without the big centralized power plants. Get a copy of "Small is Profitable" by Amory Lovins.
{"commentId":2518905,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2518229,"authorDomain":"mlarkin99"}
First, we need more nuclear power, and we need it fast. I consider myself an environmentalist, and I belong to several environmental groups. But the rest of the world has been steadily converting over to a combination of nuclear and renewable energy sources, and they are benefiting greatly from it. We have a huge planet, and there are plenty of alternatives for storing nuclear waste. I have worked in the past for three nuclear utilities, and the safety of their plants is such that I would not have a problem living near one, and in fact, I did for a while. The key is how aggressively funded and staffed the NRC is. So long as they have godlike powers over nuclear utilities, the plants will remain safe.
Second, give large tax credits to businesses and homeowners who install renewable energy sources to furnish some or all of their power needs. Boy, will you ever see solar and wind energy companies take off, creating tens of thousands of jobs, because many current utilities are shafting their customers with huge rate hikes. This will get a lot worse as older nuclear plants are decommissioned due to age, and are not replaced.
Third, also give large tax credits to people who buy high MPG cars, including not only hybrid or electric vehicles, but gas or diesel cars that average over 30 MPG.
If we had been pursuing the above for the last 20 years or so, right now we would be thumbing our noses at OPEC, Venezuela, and all the rest of the petro-states, and we would NOT be paying $4 per gallon for gas.
{"commentId":2518229,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"mlarkin99"}
- 2 votes
#26 - Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:27 PM EDT{"commentId":2519032,"authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
It's too late to start building nuclear plants. Global warming would be hopeless by the time (15 to 20 years from now) when they start really contributing to carbon reduction. We need to reward businesses and individuals for global warming abatement--starting RIGHT AWAY. The future is in distributed power (also called the energy internet) and efficiency. We need millions of people working on the problem and we need BIG results in this decade. Wasting billions of dollars on nuclear plants would just divert precious resources from what we need to do NOW.
{"commentId":2519032,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"jay-turner"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2578542,"authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
Neosapiens - THAT is the same exact attitude that got us here today. "don't start drilling - it won't be available for 10 years...'
Guess what? It is 10 years later.
New nuclear plants are sitting and waiting to be opened. New technology would have new plants ready to go sooner than the 1970's technology you are citing - also getting the federal government and the environmentalist lobby to sit down and shut up would go a long way to getting new wells and new nuke plants built and running.
{"commentId":2578542,"threadId":"335693","contentId":"1766252","authorDomain":"KeltWolf"}
- 1 vote
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"335693","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
