Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Energy Policy in the United States

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline

    Energy Policy in the United States

    We’ve heard the same tired ideas during the primaries, and we will hear them again in the Republican response to the State of the Union Address on Tuesday night: candidates offer plenty of attacks on Obama, but no new vision for America’s energy future.

    Gingrich may be the man who wrote the book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Solving Our Energy Crisis, but Romney is just as eager to rely on the same fossil fuels we’ve been using for the past 100 years. Romney’s energy blueprint, included in his “Believe in America” economic plan, calls for flinging open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy companies, sinking wells into the deepwater, and expanding fracking in the Marcellus Shale, despite a long list of environmental and public health concerns (not to mention small earthquakes).

    Neither Romney nor Gingrich has a fresh plan for an energy future built on innovation and cutting-edge technology. Neither one talks about how better-performing cars are putting 150,000 Americans to work right now and helping slash our oil addiction at the same time. Neither one trumpets the fact that American engineers are already making breakthroughs in the next generation of solar technology. And neither one of them urges America to lead what has been estimated as the $243 billion global clean energy market.

    Instead, both Romney and Gingrich seem to view renewable technologies as a wasteful distraction. This despite the fact that the Department of Defense—the nation’s largest consumer of energy—has pledged to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 because of national security concerns.

    The candidates like to demagogue about energy independence, but they have no plan to achieve it besides doing more of the same—an approach that hasn’t worked so far. We saw it in Gingrich’s acceptance speech in South Carolina. “I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king.” That is a fine aspiration, but instead of encouraging Detroit to build more fuel-efficient engines or farmers to grow sustainable biofuels, he called for expanding offshore drilling and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

    When your home has 1.6 percent of the globe’s proven oil reserves and you consume 26 percent of the world’s supply, there is a limit to how much you can influence supply. That's not politics; it's geology.

    And building a pipeline from a friendly ally won’t help much when the pipeline operators routinely say in the Canadian press that a primary goal of Keystone XL is to access Asian markets. The same operators have refused in Congressional testimony to commit to selling the majority of their oil to the United States. Instead, they are rerouting it out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export from of the United States.

    Approving a pipeline to help dirty tar sands oil get to Asia is not a long-term plan for America’s energy system. Opening more ocean waters to drilling won’t position us to lead the next generation of energy breakthroughs. But that doesn’t stop Gingrich and Romney from singing the same old song again and again.

    President Obama recognizes that America’s energy leadership will be built on clean technologies. Last week he kicked off his presidential campaign advertising with an ad devoted to the economic power of clean energy. I expect he will highlight it again in the State of the Union.

    Here is how I expect the GOP candidates to respond: They will criticize Obama’s clean energy programs and sprinkle in fossil fuel buzzwords like Keystone and drilling. But their complaints can’t cover the fact that they have no fresh ideas, no innovation, and no groundbreaking vision for America’s energy future.


    MYDD.com

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    This is an excellent answer to all those who reach for Republican talking points concerning the complicated energy field.

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    And the king of Republican talking points is none other than SiriuslyWrong.

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    And the king of Republican talking points is none other than SiriuslyWrong.
    Only to matched by the king of Democratic talking points, Hava - get a freakin' (tax) accountant - kasha.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Silly response as usual to a complex and important issue.

    Whats described in this article is a very reasonable approach to the need for a comprehensive and diverse energy policy even supported by James Woolsey the former head of the CIA who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. You cant escape the fact that Republican (and your) attempts to boil all energy policy down to one word (solyndra) is a patently obvious attempt to spout a talking point at the expense of an important and factual discussion on the important energy needs of the U.S.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 01-30-2012 at 11:21 AM.

  6. #6
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Silly response as usual to a complex and important issue.

    Whats described in this article is a very reasonable approach to the need for a comprehensive and diverse energy policy even supported by James Woolsey the former head of the CIA who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. You cant escape the fact that Republican (and your) attempts to boil all energy policy down to one word (solyndra) is a patently obvious attempt to spout a talking point at the expense of an important and factual discussion on the important energy needs of the U.S.
    It is an equivalent response to yours. Embarrassed yet?

    Energy policy is one thing, venture capitalism another..................

    I would love a comprehensive energy policy based on competitive technologies that produce electricity. Solar cost too much. In as much good it does to reduce emissions, society as a whole cannot afford to pay more for electricity. You see, the "poor" have to heat and light their homes too. Do you want them to pay more?

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Not equivalent at all. Diversity of energy sources isnt a talking point. The words Solyndra and Keystone are.

    Not all solar (hot water, passive, etc.)costs too much. And those areas of solar that are expensive today will come down in price over time. Just like all new technologies (computers,etc.) do.
    You are unfortunately short term centric to the detriment of this country.

  8. #8
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Not equivalent at all. Diversity of energy sources isnt a talking point. The words Solyndra and Keystone are.

    Not all solar (hot water, passive, etc.)costs too much. And those areas of solar that are expensive today will come down in price over time. Just like all new technologies (computers,etc.) do.
    You are unfortunately short term centric to the detriment of this country.
    Oh, I see. Democratic talking points are not talking points, but Republican talking points are just that. Thanks for setting me straight on the rules.

    Short term centric? What is stimulus?

  9. #9
    Havakasha is offline
    Thats fair up to a point. All party's have their talking points. But notice that one group is using
    a few examples (solyndra, keystone) and ignoring many others examples of success in new
    technologies. Diversity of energy sources shouldnt be a partisan issue and it once was much less than today. Unfortunately the Republican has turned rightward this past years, and so anything President Obama proposes, no matter how moderate,
    is described as radical, un american, socialist, marxist etc. You are participating in perpetuating
    those lies unfortunately.


    To compare stimulus policy which is by definition a short term assist to the economy to ENERGY POLICY
    over the long haul is not a good comparison. I believe you ARE being VERY short term centric concerning energy policy.

  10. #10
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Thats fair up to a point. All party's have their talking points. But notice that one group is using
    a few examples (solyndra, keystone) and ignoring many others examples of success in new
    technologies. Diversity of energy sources shouldnt be a partisan issue and it once was much less than today. Unfortunately the Republican has turned rightward this past years, and so anything President Obama proposes, no matter how moderate,
    is described as radical, un american, socialist, marxist etc. You are participating in perpetuating
    those lies unfortunately.


    To compare stimulus policy which is by definition a short term assist to the economy to ENERGY POLICY
    over the long haul is not a good comparison. I believe you ARE being VERY short term centric concerning energy policy.
    Unfortunately, the Democrats have turned leftward these past few years, and anything the republicans propose can't get past Harry Reid - no matter what it means to middle class Americans looking for good high paying jobs.

    What is going on in ND is not "short term". They need infrastructure, for Christ's sake.

    You want long term? How about splitting up that $535 MM that Solydra blew and give it to 5 universities with the challenge of making a panel that double the efficiency from 13% currently to 26%? Let's get it competitive first before "investing".
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 01-30-2012 at 12:15 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •