Excellent op-ed in The Boston Globe notes that "better than Bush" isn't good enough on energy and the environment.
« Reminder: HITS Tomorrow at the Strand | Main | GOP Doom Watch »
McCain on Energy
11 Jun 2008 05:25 pm
Comments (12)
"better than Bush"
Statistically, "better then Bush" covers a whole lot of ideological territory. Drier than Water.
McCain's approach to his Energy policy might shift a bit more toward the left during the campaign and, if elected, might be his political give to congress. He gets to play with guns and congress gets to up mileage standards, smarten up his cap and trade, and so on. That's the way McCain works. Still, its a good way to go after McCain right now. Take a seeming strength (as defined as "distance from Bush" of his and pick it apart and make him defend it. He has a HUGE job spinning the war. The less time he can spend doing that the better. And he sucks talking about domestic issues.
Although McCain once introduced legislation, his current positions on energy, renewables and a cap and trade program are simply outdated; they have not kept pace with the times.
I think this can be said for much of McCain's policies. Tax cuts during a time of record annual deficit? (Nearly $700 billion when you count borrowed Soc Sec surpluses.) The man is locked in by a lack of imagination and what appears to be a "lack of intellectual curiosity". Sorry, but 8 years of that s*** has been MORE than enough.
If you read this energy article earlier today, check it out again and send it to your friends, because it now has updates.
I thought I ought to mention here that oil production peaked in February according to some sources. Other sources peg Peke Oil back in 4th quarter 2005.
My guess for what people should do: buy oil stocks. Conserve. Walk or ride a bike. Don't elect John McCain.
It's hard out here for a pimp
When he tryina get this money for the rent
I thought I ought to mention here that oil production peaked in February according to some sources. Other sources peg Peke Oil back in 4th quarter 2005.
And other sources say the peak is far in the future.
According to Wikipedia, citing the World Energy Council, the oil deposits in the Orinoco Oil Sands in Venezuela are approximately equal to the entire global reserves of conventional oil, and there is a deposit of similar size in Canada.
Of course, the fact that tar sands require an extremely expensive, dirty and energy intensive refining process because they are not "oil deposits" in the traditional sense mean little to you and your clever talking point I guess?
Probably more than the fact that the existence of these deposits, among many other things, casts very serious doubt on the "peak oil" hypothesis means to you and your smarmy quips.
Of course, the fact that tar sands require an extremely expensive, dirty and energy intensive refining process because they are not "oil deposits" in the traditional sense mean little to you and your clever talking point I guess?
Posted by Rock On
Agree with Mixner. Your comments were smarmy and ignorant to boot. Oil from the Alberta sands is being produced at a cost of 27 dollars a barrel. Orinoco oil can be produced cheaper, but cracking the bitumen in both the separation stage and in refining will bring that to 38-45 bucks a barrel.
Sounds better than paying ME despots 140 bucks a barrel, perhaps 200 before the year is done.
Dirty? Not that the public will stand for much further roadblocking by wealthy environmental elites, but the Alberta operation has generally been pretty unobtrusive on the environment. The worst snivelling has been about a flock of ducks dying in a sludge pond. The biggest environmental problems are that exploiting oil sands requires lots of water and uses fossil energy presently to make the steam to separate the oil.
There are some limits on water out West, none in Venezuela. But even the Western water issue can be fixed by reallocating water from low-value agriculture and ranching on a temporary basis and fairly compensating those owners - as well as reducing water set aside for recreation to some extent because at 7-8 dollars a gallon, only the wealthiest will be water-skiing and frolicking in full rivers 80-100 miles from the nearest population centers.
The fossil energy used for steam, which adds lots more CO2 than oil from well sources America has been blocked from finding for 30 years by environmentalists, and costs a lot because natural gas is also soaring in price - can be replaced by a few simple design CO2-free nuclear plants, designed to be broken down for portabilty elsewhere when the oil sands, oil shale mining is done in 40-50 years..
With all due deference, the back and forth here is quite limited. For example, tar sands may prove helpful. I listened to Lee Raymond talk them up for years on Charlie Rose. I don't, however, remember Mr. Raymond predicting $130 plus barrels of oil in the short term.
The U.S. obviously uses too much oil. If petroleum is rmoved from imports, there is --at the moment --little or no imbalance in current accounts. The failure to steadily incrementally increase CAFE standards for the last 30 years was an obvious whoops.
Nuclear obviously has to be on the table. France generates over 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. Public support, per Frontline, was generated for a variety of reasons:
"...the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity....
Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of large, centrally managed technological projects....
...scientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic. According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread...."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
In my opinion, support for nuclear power, as well as drilling in Anwar, could only be generated in the U.S. by a solid package that also included commitment to conservation and renewable energy (particularly wind and --if technologically and financially feasible --"clean" coal).
It is obvious to me that our current dependency on imported oil is excessive and strategically unwise. The drill, drill, drill crowd are no more astute than McCain with his "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" foolishness.
On the other hand the polar ice cap is indisputably melting. Reduced foreign dependency and reduced carbon generation are both possible, and will generate jobs that cannot easily b outsourced. If a compromise can be reached, carefully drilling Anwar is a relatively small concession for saving the world.
Parties who cannot see this are like idiot churchmen during the Black Death in the 14th century, opposing the temporary curtailment of services that spread the disease.
On the other hand, the unabashed "more is better for the carbon economy" crowd have created an environment wherein anyone who cares about the future of the planet is justifiably suspicious.
In a humor routine, Dave Barry once described two guys driving into each other at about 1/2 mph because neither one would yield. If a compromise cannot be reached, similar idotic testosterone fueled behavior will be responsible.
Portable Nuclear? Why didn't the French think of that?
Comments closed June 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
OT: your Parfit post was up for a second and then vanished. wtf? or maybe you're fixing typos, ha ha.
Posted by putnam | June 11, 2008 5:41 PM