Modern Maturity?

Whale, you're absolutely right that there is a partisan divide on energy independence and renewable fuel. The evidence, unfortunately for most Republicans, really is pretty insurmountable that climate change is the result of burning fossil fuels and that the end result--flooding of coastal areas, spreading deserts, worldwide famine, etc. is going to be very severe. Solutions to ameliorate the impact of global warming need to be found immediately, even though global warming's effects are difficult to foresee with precision and are likely to happen decades in the future.

The GOP motivation for refusing to believe in global warming ties into the way they view the world. The Market is supposed to solve all problems. The morality of the market is "sell it for as much as you can until it's gone, then find something else to sell.' That's not a productive way of dealing with a long-term problem, nor does it address how to deal with the current energy shortage (something foreseeable 10 years or more ago when some people on the"loony left" started fretting about Peak Oil). But it does excuse a lot of profiteering in the present and explains why many highly-placed Republicans in the Bush administration are opposed to doing anything. Big Oil is big business, but its profit margins are actually pretty thin. ANYTHING that threatens that profit margin, whether the threat is to reduce the rate of oil consumption or of oil extraction is going to get a big reaction from Big Oil. Bush, an oil man, is used to thinking in those terms. He's not the Devil, as some portray him, but he's having a hard time breaking out of the mindset.

I am definitely not a teenager, and I do know of one instance where a patent was bought off by the Oil companys for a small item that fit on a carberator and increased mileage to about 100 miles per gallon. This was back in the early 70's. It was bought from the inventor and then shelved because of what it might do to the demand for oil. Since I was connected to it by family, I know it to be true. And there are many more instances. And yes I am voting for Obama, I wasn't, but I am now. It seems most people don't really care about the environment or the earth, but I have watched it's decline over many years, most of you would rather play team sports and be on one side or the other. McCains energry plan is great for the short term, but what about the future when there are tons and tons of Nuclear waste to be disposed of? Can we store it in your backyards. You know its harmless when incased in lead containers-of course the lead leaches off eventually, but that might be a few years. And it won't cause any brain damage to you just your grandchildren. Of course they can't guarentee your safety if theres an Earthquake but you'll die knowing we had electricity.
As for a war Hero, if he knows the horrors of war first hand, then he should be the first to avoid it,obviously he didn't learn anything during the experience about avoiding it just how to make it bigger and involve more people.

Whale, you're right that there is a massive partisan divide on energy policy. I think what it boils down to is the Republican mindsent that the Market will solve everything. The morality of the market is basically "sell commodity X for as much as possible until people can no longer afford to buy it, then move on and sell something else." Unfortunatly, this leads to a very short-sighted kind of thinking.

Ten or more years ago, economists and geologists on the "loony left" started raising the idea of a sudden, sharp spike in oil prices due to a gradual decrease in available supplies from decades of consumption combined with a rapid increase in demand from developing nations. They called it Peak Oil. This didn't sit very well with a lot of people, especially people on the Right who firmly believed that the Market would never allow for such a catastrophe--and in any case, it was years in the future. Guess what? Oil prices have tripled over the past 6 years with little to no end in sight. The Market can't fix the problem--in fact, it exacerbated it. I'm no Peak Oil alarmist, here, and I don't think that civilization is on the verge of grinding to a halt, but you have to admit that in general terms the theory relies on simple math. It's easy to understand and the effects are being felt currently, but nobody in the position to do anything wanted to at the time. It would interfere with the current prosperity and, more importantly, implied a distrust in the Market. "What're you, some kind of commie?" was the going attitude.

Notice that I haven't brought up global warming yet? That's because the effects are further yet into the future than Peak Oil, decades from now maybe. Global warming was proposed as a theory close to 30 years ago, evidence has mounted in its favor and arguments against it have largely been disproven. We're even starting to feel the effects of it now, but what's the primary argument against doing something? Economic: it might interfere with current prosperity, making the transition to cleaner fuels will be too expensive, and besides any effects from global warming won't be felt for years.

Interesting article. It displays McCain's talking points without much investigation into the probability that any of them will work. I suggest reading the other Newsweek article listed #1 under top ten top right of this page, "McCain Sells Energy Policy--and Experience", also Newsweek's own Fact Check.org on McCain's energy comments. Most of it falls apart, including his criticism's of Obama which Fact Check found to be almost wholly wrong. McCain demonstrates over and over again that he really doesn't know what's going on. His hot new idea is 45 new nuclear reactors-----that seems more than a little precipitate. Should we build them in hurricane country, tornado country, flood country or earthquake country? We haven't figured out yet how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. We might want to think about that before we go whole hog with 45 nuclear reactors don't ya think? Nuclear may be a good option, but not in those quantities and not without working out the wrinkles. McCain's ideas are precipiate, not thought through, not fully researched and, in the case of the gas tax idea, just plain pandering. He can't find any economists who will say that is anything but dumb. It won't work---and he knows it won't work. He's counting on us being too dumb to know that. It's been tried before. All that happened is that the oil companies kept the same price and pocketed billions while the highways sunk into further disrepair because the road taxes were wasted. Dumb pandering.

For those who are not paying close attention, nuclear is at best, a stop-gap solution. The world's supply of nuclear fuel stock is as finite as petroleum, and eventually demand will force the prices upward on that commodity also.
Meanwhile, the sun shines every day, creating tides and winds as well as direct energy radiation. The carbon we ptake from the ground is little more than stored sunshine in concentrated form. Yes, its expensive now, but with application and ingenuity, we can achieve the necessary efficiencies to generate power without combustion or radiation. This will go a long way to reducing demand for fuels, even if it is only applied to static sources of energy, such as power plants. How many today are consuming oil, coal, or natural gas? How much carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by this?
I doubt very much that we will find the one "magic bullet" solution to energy production/consumption; why not work with a number of alternatives, applying each where its application is more appropriate?

Posted By: whala @ 06/27/2008 2:22:50 PM
Comment: This may be slightly out of line, but I find it interesting that the Democrats continually insult the Republicans, calling them stupid idoit morons (just to name a few of the PC names they use) and then they wonder why the Republicans aren't jumping at the opportunity to figure out the answer to the energy problem that the Democrats seem the most desperate to figure out. The Republican answer is already figured out. If the Dems are so desperate to figure out a different answer, quit whining about the Republicans, and go figure it out. When you do, you'll make yourself rich.

If drilling for more oil is the answer , this is not a quick fix either , minimum 5 years to bring new oil online , even longer some predict because infrustructure in refinery capacity is not in place , which is a 10 year bid .
this is the same alottment for time too spend developing alternative sources like Bio Algae , a source that cleans the air as it grows , is Multi-Use , has a food value as well as a fuel , has no emmsions . more oil is not the answer , because the short term problem is nothing will solve this shortage we face , and this is why the russians , iranians , syrians , hugo chavez , all are trying to form a union to seize the majority of their oil reserves with the Middleast , because they see ours and the UK's weakness by this dependence on this oil on the world maket as a stablizing feature , which they can use to ruin ours and Uks economies if they can dominate these areas and their oil reserves . This is why we need to get onto a whole new energy source period !!!!!!!!

Our civilisation is about to crumble anyway, so we can convert slowly or we can make the shift quickly. Our roads and bridges are already falling apart. They need to be rebuilt. The power and phone lines where I live are all above ground and need to be replaced after the last two years of Ice storms and tornados. The power company just keeps replacing them and raising the rates. After reading the article on Bio diesel that someone posted a link too, we shouldn't even be using food sources for fuel. algae and saw grass are a much more efficient alternative. Corn is just too expensive and wasteful, but we live in a world where no one with any power to move will listen, and those with the money don't care to do anything until it benefits them.
As for the Democrats continually insulting the Republicans, listen to what the Reps say about us, its no different, Just more Democrats happen to post here today. If it were an article about Obama you would hear form more Republicans.
I don't think there is any one solution, but there will have to be many small solutions, bio-diesel, solar power, wind, tides, hydrogen, these are all viable and easily replaced. I like solar myself, it costs a lot to initiate, but after you get it set up, just minor maintence. You could charge a car on solar. I wonder since electric fork lifts are used inside in so many warehouses, why that couldn't be adapted to automobiles. You would need smaller batteries, or a battery lift of some kind if it had to be taken out. Some of those electric lifts from Nissan can really move, I've seen them zipping up and down at 45 mph, Inside. Wonder what they could do outside on the roads with nothing to manuver around. Maybe be could replace Nascar racers with Lift racers?

Obama brings NOTHING new to the table (read your history books). Do those of you who think that gas and food prices will fall solely because Obama becomes President, also believe in unicorns and fairies?

And FWIW, the Democrats are the ones known for taxing everything you can touch, smell, taste or see.

This may be slightly out of line, but I find it interesting that the Democrats continually insult the Republicans, calling them stupid idoit morons (just to name a few of the PC names they use) and then they wonder why the Republicans aren't jumping at the opportunity to figure out the answer to the energy problem that the Democrats seem the most desperate to figure out. The Republican answer is already figured out. If the Dems are so desperate to figure out a different answer, quit whining about the Republicans, and go figure it out. When you do, you'll make yourself rich.