HERE & NOW pt. II

Well, my last post elicited a 50/50 response. One comment in concurance, and one in dissent. The one in dissent however was far too long for me to respond in any satisfactory manner in the comments box. Plus I thought the dissenting commentary definitely worthy of a full posting to see what additional debate we can engender from other friends and visitors from the blogsphere.

So, here it is... in its entirety. Dissenting opinion in orange text. My responses in white. It's a bit long, but I'm very intersted in hearing what other people think about these topics.

And so it starts:

I gotta say you are missing the point as is this 'SacUnion' paper. If you want to quote on something so complex as energy policies, I would do it from a more reputable source.

More reputable? Like "The Huffington Post" which you cite in your response? The self professed left-wing liberal news website/blog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Leer? The same Arianna Huffington who has worked with such notably respected political commentators as Al Franken and Bill Mahr? The same Arianna Huffington who co-wrote for "Politically Incorrect with Bill Mahr" and appeared on the sitcom "Roseanne"??? All shining stars in the sky of political reputability. And lets not forget she was a staunch and vocal supporter of John Kerry. Talk about polarizing the political spectrum. Yikes.

First: Ethanol is not an alternative fuel. Its a dirt eating crop that takes more energy to grow than it yields and it mixes with GASOLINE anyway...

Sorry, but the fact that ethanol is derived from a food crop doesn't take away from the fact that it is, in fact, an alternative fuel source.

• Wikipedia: The largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel and fuel additive. The largest national fuel ethanol industries exist in Brazil (gasoline sold in Brazil contains at least 25% ethanol and anhydrous ethanol is also used as fuel in more than 90% of new cars sold in the country).
  
  Added to gasoline, ethanol reduces ground-level ozone formation by lowering volatile organic compound and hydrocarbon emissions, decreasing carcinogenic benzene, and butadiene, emissions, and particulate matter emissions from gasoline combustion.[42]

However, Did I not also deride ethanol as a less than advantageous alternative to petrol? I'm failing to see what alternative point you're making since we seem to be making the same one in different ways. What ethanol does though is reduce the overall gasoline content, thus stretching the available petrol a bit farther, which, was supposed to have reduced the price at the pump... but didn't, and reducing some of the pollutants as mentioned above.

Second: A shortage of hybrid cars is temporary and is not a real solution either. It takes more 'fuel' to make a hybrid than most people will save over the life of driving one instead of a 'normal' car.

My comment on the dearth of hybrid cars is supportive of my premise that "drill here, drill now" plus alternative fuels and power generation methods, within 6-7 years could develop our energy and resources production as a net exporter. Mentioning that it is temporarilly only a shortage of manufacturing capacity has no bearing on this. The scaling up of manufacturing output takes time. Having worked in the auto industry I am fully aware of what it takes to retool for new or increased production, and the different requirements between standard and alternative fuel capable vehicles.

Another point missed from the gist and tone of my post is that, hybrid cars and alternative fuels tend to be the options constantly thrown at us by the more liberal lobbies and media. Your comment about "more 'fuel' to make a hybrid" is accurate, especially when talking about the pollutants produced by the manufacture of battery and other types of fuel/power cells. Especially the lack of adequate recycling or disposal when those cells reach the end of their lives.

I think we're basically in agreement that hybrids aren't the complete answer. It's just one more tick in the column of "supplementals" that can add up to freeing us from dependence on foreign resources.

Third: How is discussing fuel/cars related to 'oil companies' getting into electric generation instead of their core business? Building Nuclear power plants will not help offset the need for oil.

Wow! How about because oil companies aren't just "oil companies" anymore. BP (which stands for British Petroleum, not Beyond Petroleum as their commercials play it) does Coal, NG, Solar, you name it... if it's a power source, they are involved in it in some way. Exxon and others are the same. They are all involved in power generation whether through research or actual production. And if you don't believe me... keep reading. :-)

America uses far more coal for electric generation than anything else.

We use far more coal? Are you sure about that? I'm sorry I don't have time to survey all 50 states (57 if you're an Obama supporter), but I offer you the following REAL FACTS as an example:

The Commonwealth of Virginia produces power (total of Utility + Non-Utility) in the following ways:

Coal: 400MW
Hydro: 80MW
Natural Gas: 400MW
Petroleum: 300MW
Nuclear: 400MW
Landfill Gas, Municipal Solid Waste, Wood, and other forms of Biofuels for about 20MW.

Coal is only 25% of the total. Natural Gas and Petroleum, of which the USA is a net IMPORTER of both, comprise 44%! THAT was the point you missed. That's how discussing "oil companies" and how power generation IS part of their core business is related to fuel/cars. It's a ginormous percentage of power generation in all forms in our country, whether vehicular, or in the domestic power grid.

By the way - Chernobyl happened in 1986. We already had MACs by that time. That isn't a comment that Nuclear is not an option, I personally think its the best for electric generation - but to my first point, this helps us with the GLOBAL oil shortage how?

Chernyobl is not a valid comparison... no one ever accused the Soviet Union of being the most rigorous in their application of safety standards. But to your "first point" because power is generated in the USA almost 50% by imported petroleum and natural gas.

Fourth: Asking folks to change behavior doesn't work alone. Incentivizing them to do so (taxes) does help. 'Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute' as cute as it the slogan was, acid rain came after this little gem hit the popular culture.

Our Federal gasoline tax is one of the lowest in the world and needs to be increased much higher to capture the true cost of operating highways. Here in California, our state tax on gas is on top of the Federal, is 45.5 cents for a total of 63.9 (highest in the nation) and we also have the largest amount of roads, highways etc etc. Seems fair to me.

Just a tiny bit of research I found this little gem for you to digest:"The federal gas tax was last raised in 1993, from 14.1 cents a gallon to the current 18.4 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that makes our current tax the equivalent of only 12.4 cents a gallon in 1993 dollars. It is interesting to note that if in 1959, the year Congress established the National Highway Trust Fund, the then 4 cent tax was pegged to inflation, consumers would now be paying about 29.4 cents a gallon." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-goldstein/the-falling-federal-gas-t_b_100379.html)

Or in other words, the tax set in 1993 is extremely LOW.

Mentioning the California fuel tax as the highest in the country, while noting that CA also has the largest number of roads... and? What does that have to do with the Federal tax?

It's perfectly appropriate for state level taxes to be based on that state's combination of usage and availabiltiy. The Federal tax is a general tax and has no relationship to those factors. I'm perfectly happy for that tax to either remain where it is, or be reduced over time as fuel alternatives become more readily available and in use.

I think Senator McCain's "Gas Tax Holiday" is silly populist propoganda. However, I think it's a great deal better than the Democrat position of knee jerk "NO" to any suggestion of possibly opening new land for exploration.

Next you are telling me you think that the CAFE standards shouldn't be raised either....? (Again, forces a change in behavior at the Manufacturer level which forces the consumer to comply through purchase choice)

Nope. I didn't say anything about the CAFE standards, but since you mention it, there's no reason for the standards to remain as low as they are. The technology exists and is in use already to get more power and better mileage from smaller engines. If you've ever lived overseas (which you haven't) you would probably hear quite often how people everywhere else feel about the silly Americans driving GINORMOUS engines that put out diddly for power, and get horrible gas mileage.

In Thailand I owned a Honda Jazz (Honda Fit to my North American friends). It had a 1.5 liter engine (WOW! that's small), could zip along the highway at 140kmph, and got 40+mpg! Now, it was like driving a roller skate, but it was a fantastic little car. Over there Chevy had a V8 3.0 liter (183 ci) turbo-diesel EFI engine that used the new cylinder control technology. What it did was retime the cylinders on the fly, or shut down the combustion of certain cylinders completely when the extra power wasn't needed. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it produced around 30mpg. A full-size pickup! So there's no reason other than the financial impact to the manufacturing industries (and the 100's of thousands of employees thereof) not to raise the CAFE standards.

I'm all for pushing tougher standards, but I (unlike the "leftist liberals") want to combine it with increased exploration and access to the natural resources we know exist in our own back yard!

Fifth: After raising the tax on gasoline, seven years later Gore suggested 'charging polluters' and then turned around and invested in a free market idea that allows companies that can't/won't change their pollution output to be able to legally comply by 'trading' carbon credits. How is this hypocritical? It enforces exactly what he proposed: TAX/CHARGE/FEE the polluters.

The "carbon credits" process is ridiculous. It does exactly what you say by alowing over-polluters to continue over-polluting by buying unused credits from more ecologically friendly entities, and maintains the polluting status quo. Brilliant plan. Where are the incentives for change, and benefits to the ecology?

It is hypocritical at its very core to give organizations who refuse or "can't" change the ability to opt-out of change by paying a fee or buying someone else's good deeds, and THEN getting upset when industries continue despoiling the landscape. It was a sad political compromise that made the big industries feel better about tighter pollution controls, put a bandaid on the wounds of betrayal felt by some in the eco-lobbies, and made a ton of cash for democrat profiteers and spend-thrifts.

I'm much more a hardliner than you are on this issue. I disagree with Dems and Republicans. But Al Gore is the worst. He is the poster child for the global warming lobby and he's raking in the cash because of investments in a hypocritical non-solution like carbon credits. It disgusts me. And yes, I'd pick a do-nothing Republican over a do-wrong Democrat any day.

Are you seriously ignoring the Republican party's ignorance of environmental issues, EXTREMELY POOR RECORD on Energy Policy (and ignoring the fact that these oil companies are being tax subsidized by American income Tax paying people to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR, all the while they are making profits never heard of in the history of commerce, why are we giving them tax breaks again? This is above and beyond the Federal Subsidies these same companies receive for exploration and renewable energy research for many more BILLIONS.

While I am a leftist liberal (after all I am a Californian now) I don't think TAXING record profits of a successful company is correct either, but end the tax subsidy for damn sure.

Ignoring? No. Because hugging trees isn't my only criteria for an electable candidate. As a matter of fact, I will probably be voting for a Democrat for Congress, and Republicans for Senate and the White House. Though as I said, I think both major parties are pretty daft when it comes to energy and environmental policy. The Dem's because they are knee-jerk anti-everything, and the Repub's because they place it too far down the priority list.

The statement of 'voting Replublican' how has the last 8 years worked out here? When the first 4 of those years we also matched with a Republican majority in the House AND Senate - what did this party do to stop the bleeding of oil, the decrease in the dependency of foreign energy, the increase in funding for renewable energy? What about the fiscal conservancy they are so proud of? Blowing one of the largest Federal surpluses in recent history (50 years) and turning into the quickest, largest Federal debt.

And what have the Democrats done for the last 4 years that they have had the majority? The same. Nothing. What's the Dem's excuse? Again, my vote isn't based on agreement with Republican policy - although I do place national security at the top of my priority list - it's based at least 50% on disagreement with Democrat policies.

I got news for you right wing, jingoist, narrow visioned, short memory folks: By all measures these last 7 years are the worst on record and that was with the Republicant's steering the ship. No thanks - I for one already gave them a chance and its been blown to smithereens. Along with several other countries to boot.

If "narrow visioned" means placing American interests first before foreign, then yes, I'm narrow visioned.

If "narrow visioned" means securing our borders and enforcing the law on the illegals (not 'migrants' as they like to call them in San Fran, but just plain old illegals), and stopping the flow of drugs, guns, and gangs across the open border, then yes, I'm narrow visioned and happily so.

If "narrow visioned" means developing ALL available natural resources to the fullest extent practicable to relieve us completely from dependence on foreign despots like the House of Saud, or raving lunatics like Ahmidinijad, then yes, I'm narrow visioned and PROUD to be so.

If by "jingoist" you mean someone who places USA interests first before consideration of foreign powers, then yes, I'm a jingoist.

If by "jingoist" you mean someone who will belligerantly defend our nation's right to be resource independent from foreign powers, then yes, I'm a jingoist, and happilly so. I would expect citizens of other nations to have similar inclinations in their own favor.

If by "jingoist" you mean someone who wears our nation's flag proudly, and doesn't care (unlike Senator Obama) if someone in some other country in some misguided misinformed way sees it as a symbol of oppression, then yes, I AM a jingoist, and will remain such forever more.

I'm not sure why you felt the need for juvenile name calling, but you go right ahead since as I mention above, most of those are badges I already wear proudly.

If someone like Obama is my only other choice? I'll still vote Republican.
.