10:10 Campaign -- No Pressure -- Join Us or . . . .

[Jack Springer]

Self portrait?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Quit while you're behind, Jack.

 

[Kulindahr]

Quit while you're behind, Jack.

Wouldn't that depend on who he's behind?

 

[MoltenRock III]

I can't convince myself that CO2 emissions can be called a national security issue. OTOH, the reliance on foreign oil certainly is, and cutting that will mean dealing with the CO2 issue anyway. We could do a lot by going with thermal depolymerization ("anything to oil") to turn our trash into oil, but to get free of the imports will mean heavy reliance on things that don't produce emissions at all (unless you count stray neutrons ).

You and I both agree that we need to get America off the oil teat of middle eastern dictators and anti-democratic regimes. In the end, I don't care what it takes be it using the Clean Air Act, the EPA's newfound regulatory mandate, new legislation, or whatever, we need to make this happen. Ideally, the Senate will pull its head out of its ass and pass the Energy Reform Act that Pelosi, got thru the House and passed nearly 14 months ago as it now sits doing nothing in the Senate.

On the Senate's final piece of legislation as it decamped to go home to campaign until mid-November, was the hugely important C.A.L.M. Act it passed unanimously. (One of the only pieces of legislation to actually get Republican support.) What is this all important CALM Act that could get Republicans to stop blockading anything, everything, and all things you ask? It's a new law that makes it illegal for advertisers to have louder commercials than the TV show preceding it.

Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And yet this is the body you want to be responsible for clean energy. The Energy Reform Act was the most important thing the Obama Administration should have gotten done by hook, or by crook. Instead, Obama deferred to that limp-dicked Harry Reid.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Actually, in a rational world, the U.S.-American Public Land Holding Company, which would collect land rent from everyone and distribute the dividends, would enforce clean energy rules, on the basis that dirty energy impacts everyone's land.

That's who I'd WANT to handle the matter.....

 

[Jack Springer]

You and I both agree that we need to get America off the oil teat of middle eastern dictators and anti-democratic regimes. In the end, I don't care what it takes be it using the Clean Air Act, the EPA's newfound regulatory mandate, new legislation, or whatever, we need to make this happen. Ideally, the Senate will pull its head out of its ass and pass the Energy Reform Act that Pelosi, got thru the House and passed nearly 14 months ago as it now sits doing nothing in the Senate.

On the Senate's final piece of legislation as it decamped to go home to campaign until mid-November, was the hugely important C.A.L.M. Act it passed unanimously. (One of the only pieces of legislation to actually get Republican support.) What is this all important CALM Act that could get Republicans to stop blockading anything, everything, and all things you ask? It's a new law that makes it illegal for advertisers to have louder commercials than the TV show preceding it.

Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. And yet this is the body you want to be responsible for clean energy. The Energy Reform Act was the most important thing the Obama Administration should have gotten done by hook, or by crook. Instead, Obama deferred to that limp-dicked Harry Reid.

I'd love to see America stop buying foreign oil -- it's a huge national defense issue.

Why not drill for more oil on land in the USA, expand nuclear power plants, build more wind farms, and work together in a way to make us independent.

I really wish solar power was a viable way to do this. However, it seems the technology just isn't there. If it were - requiring all new construction to include solar panels for water heaters alone would save a tremendous amount of energy.

One thing that is rarely brought up is that most people think that electric cars don't pollute -- the electricity has come from another source -- oil, gas, coal, etc.

Sorry, but cap and trade just doesn't make any sense. Why should we pay third world countries for what some see as sins of being progressive.

 

[Kulindahr]

I really wish solar power was a viable way to do this. However, it seems the technology just isn't there. If it were - requiring all new construction to include solar panels for water heaters alone would save a tremendous amount of energy.

Solar is getting closer. Part of the problem of measuring how effective it is is that assumptions begin with guesses at peak sunshine. For the newer photovoltaic, that's almost useless; some integration over the active hours of sunlight is necessary, since good solar shingles now will still yield current on cloudy western Oregon days. Using peak sunshine calculations, the figures come out around 35 cents per KWH' integrating over the hours of current-yielding hours gives one less than half that.

After that it's "location, location, location". There are farmers here putting in electrical equipment out in the fields are going with solar, because by the time you figure in the cost of stringing electrical lines, power off the grid costs more. A nearby cemetery put in a fountain in a new stretch of graces, and it's solar, for the same reason: the cost of running power lines. State parks are using solar, again for the same reason. So if you're just feeding into the grid, solar has a ways to go, but if you're off the grid very far at all, solar may be the way to go.

One thing that is rarely brought up is that most people think that electric cars don't pollute -- the electricity has come from another source -- oil, gas, coal, etc.

Absolutely. I read an article that claimed that some electric cars may actually have a bigger carbon footprint due to manufacturing power requirements -- not sure I believe it, but it points at a question we need to ask.

When you live in a big city, the idea of a no-emissions vehicle is a wonderful thing; your immediate air is cleaner. Stop to ask if the overall picture is better.... That comes down to what's being used to generate your electric.

Sorry, but cap and trade just doesn't make any sense. Why should we pay third world countries for what some see as sins of being progressive.

What has it got to do with third world countries?

 

[BostonPirate]

Sorry, but cap and trade just doesn't make any sense. Why should we pay third world countries for what some see as sins of being progressive.

Cap and Trade is a republican innitiative originally and it fell to the party of NO agenda.

Did you think it was a bad idea when they were promoting it?

 

[Jack Springer]

Cap and Trade is a republican innitiative originally and it fell to the party of NO agenda.

Did you think it was a bad idea when they were promoting it?

Cap and Trade is a bad idea -- WHOEVER -- is promoting it.

I don't drink kool-aid.

 

[BostonPirate]

you didnt answer my question

I asked whether you voiced your protest then

 

[Jack Springer]

you didnt answer my question

I asked whether you voiced your protest then

I wasn't aware that the national Republican party supported cap and trade? Any proof?

As I stated earlier -- I would not support cap and trade -- it's a job killing and business killing idea.

It's almost like the RC Church selling indulgences in the middle ages.

 

[laikaNYC]

I wasn't aware that the national Republican party supported cap and trade? Any proof?

As I stated earlier -- I would not support cap and trade -- it's a job killing and business killing idea.

It's almost like the RC Church selling indulgences in the middle ages.

There are even numerous Democrats running tv ads about how they voted against cap and trade.

 

[Jack Springer]

What has it got to do with third world countries?

If you remember, much of the money collected under cap and trade would go to poor countries that do not have "ability to pollute".

The idea is that the polluters would be able to pollute and pay the non-polluting country money for doing so. It's not less polluting - it's just a reassignment of wealth.

 

[BostonPirate]

good lord.

It is a way for dirty, environmentally unfriendly corporations to buy credits from clean companies so they can keep on polluting. It was about removing obstacles and shackles on oil and coal.

Get real

That was always its intent and why the progressive side of the dem party hates the idea of it.

 

[Just_Believe18]

If you've never watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and took offense to this, you are taking life way too seriously.

 

[JackFTwist]

I wasn't aware that the national Republican party supported cap and trade? Any proof?

among other things that are dishonorable about your brand of hate-mongering is your ignorance of matters in the body politic

cap and trade was a market based concept that comes from the Bush 1 administration, scorned by environmentalists at the time but found to have real life success

the opposition by Republicans to cap and trade was when the other party came into power

a 1 second google search produced this

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html


next time, do your own homework, kid, and learn the issues before you banter your hatred

and by the way, since you will deny your being a partisan political hack spreading hatred, where, oh where, is your faux outrage and your thread over this:

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/gop-looking-to-hire-some-west-virginia.html

 

[Kulindahr]

Cap and Trade is a bad idea -- WHOEVER -- is promoting it.

And I have yet to see any solid reasons, only twisting the idea into forms where it looks bad.

As I stated earlier -- I would not support cap and trade -- it's a job killing and business killing idea.

Not necessarily.

If you remember, much of the money collected under cap and trade would go to poor countries that do not have "ability to pollute".

The idea is that the polluters would be able to pollute and pay the non-polluting country money for doing so. It's not less polluting - it's just a reassignment of wealth.

That's one possible way to implement cap and trade; it isn't inherent. Just roaming around the web, I've read three articles showing that it can reduce pollution, and produce innovation to find efficient ways of doing so.

It is a way for dirty, environmentally unfriendly corporations to buy credits from clean companies so they can keep on polluting. It was about removing obstacles and shackles on oil and coal.

Again that's a caricature.

It's a way for market forces to find the most efficient places/ways to reduce emissions first and apply that knowledge to tackling harder and harder stuff.

I've never seen a version actually proposed that would have allowed companies that don't pollute to sell any credits to companies that do, for the simple reason that companies that don't pollute don't produce emissions in need of being reduced, and therefore wouldn't be eligible for any credits in the first place.