A friend forwarded me an email titled "Gustav and Hannah" that was written to environmental activists by one of the top environmental leaders in this country. I am going to write on it at length because it is illustrative of the catastrophic messaging failure of the environmental community on issues of climate, government action, and energy. I strongly believe other progressives must not make the same mistakes.
Here are key quotes from the email about "three potential areas where the message of the national environmental community" could supposedly be counterproductive:
- Our first concern relates to the fact that any particular hurricane hitting Louisiana is not an example of how global warming is making everything worse .... Blaming this particular hurricane on global warming runs the serious risk of coming off as opportunism in a community that knows full well that hurricanes are a normal fact of life, and could well set back attempts to engage this community on the issue.
- Second, a hurricane hitting Louisiana is not a good example of how federal flood policy has encouraged people to build in the way of danger ....
- Third, hurricane damage in Louisiana is not an example of how additional OCS drilling is a bad idea. Such an argument puts the national NGO community in the position of attacking an existing and major job creating force in a conservative state.
While I think these three points range from wrong to dead wrong, this preemptively muzzling email is all the worse because it does not put forward what message environmentalists should be pushing. Let me (partly) address both of those problems, starting with the last point.
OFFSHORE DRILLING
The email author writes: "Using any damage to the existing infrastructure as an example of why offshore drilling is bad may very well be perceived as an attack on the existing industry and people employed in it." Duh! If the hurricane causes oil spills, then that is in fact an example of the dangers of drilling offshore. More importantly, it might at least make it harder for the GOP to keep lying about what happened three years ago (see TP's "McCain Falsely Claims Katrina And Rita Did Not Cause Significant Oil Spillage").
Obviously, McCain and the GOP think that creating the misimpression that offshore drill rigs or onshore infrastructure are impervious to strong hurricanes helps their case -- since they keep telling the same lie over and over again long after the facts have been made available to all. I'm guessing that at least on the messaging side of things, they are a lot savvier than the environmental leader who wrote this e-mail.
Secondarily, does it matter whether the spill comes from an offshore drill rig or from onshore infrastructure? Of course not.
The ecosystem doesn't care where spilled oil comes from. If we are going to do offshore drilling from, say, the Carolinas, then those states will need to build a new infrastructure to bring the oil to where the refineries are. If hurricanes were to hit and damage that infrastructure and release oil, it would still be an environmental disaster.
Third, by the author's logic, any attack on offshore drilling "may be perceived as an attack on the existing industry and people employed in it." So what? Most of the environmental community opposes coastal drilling. If it has to self-censor its most effective arguments, it really should go back to college debating and leave the real political debates to those who know how to do it.
Of course, the primary messages on drilling are that
- We already opened 80% of the offshore areas for drilling back in 2006 and since then oil prices doubled;
- Opening our coastal plains to drilling will never have any impact whatsoever on the prices Americans pay at the pump; but
- Because there is so little additional oil in the OCS that isn't open for drilling, a compromise that includes a multiyear extension of renewable tax credits, plus a big push on plug-in hybrids, could be a reasonable idea, especially as long as conservatives block any action that does not include drilling.
FEDERAL POLICY
The email author writes: "There's a huge equity and class issue problem with using coastal Louisiana as an example of how we must reform federal flood policy or the insurance system that can only be handled sensitively, not as a ‘lesson' right after a disaster." This is the kind of absurd red herring argument that conservatives try to claim progressives make.
The real issue here is that the federal government has refused to take the necessary action to preserve the vital wetlands that protect against hurricanes and that the federal government has refused to build the levees strong enough to protect the citizens of New Orleans against a Category 5 hurricane making landfall, which is certainly inevitable. Heck, Gustav, a "mere" Category 2 at landfall, came close to breaching at least one levee.
The real issue here is that the government's refusal to take the necessary action to protect a major U.S. city like New Orleans from a superhurricane shows the whole notion we can or will adapt to catastrophic global warming is absurd. If we won't adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans -- since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don't reverse greenhouse gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by humans GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes -- and it is accelerating.
Of course, the primary messages on federal energy policy is that we can't solve our energy problems without strong progressive policies, as even uber conservative T. Boone Pickens admits but that conservatives like John McCain (and Sarah Palin) have long bitterly opposed such policies, no matter how they lie about such support today.
HURRICANES AND GLOBAL WARMING
The email author writes: "Blaming this particular hurricane on global warming runs the serious risk of coming off as opportunism in a community that knows full well that hurricanes are a normal fact of life, and could well set back attempts to engage this community on the issue."
As I have written about at length (see here), this statement reflects one of the great messaging triumphs of the global warming deniers. The right wing have succeeded in browbeating much of the media (and the environmental community) to not talk about the connection between global warming and extreme weather. The journalist Ross Gelbspan has a long discussion of this in his great 2004 book, Boiling Point.
While it is almost certainly true that global warming makes any particular hurricane stronger, the issue has not ever been whether a particular hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Other issues are much more important and deserve elevation by progressives during times of extreme weather.
One key issue is that the devastation from a strong hurricane -- particularly of a city that is mostly below sea level -- is the shape of things to come in a globally warmed and flooded world. And I just finished a 2-parter on the impact of globally warmed waters on all future Gulf hurricanes.
Another key issue is just basic climate messaging, which in this case should be "Global warming makes the weather more extreme." If even the Bush administration accepts that basic fact of climate science, why shouldn't the environmental community stop self censoring itself on this issue?
This is simple stuff. As the climate changes because of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, the weather becomes more extreme. That's what climate change is. I understand why deniers don't want the rest of us talking about the connection between global warming and the surge in extreme weather events that has been documented statistically by scientists -- including NOAA's National Climactic Data Center (NCDC). That would shut down most discussion of climate impacts today and for many years to come. But I don't understand why major environmental leaders play along.
It is now officially absurd to take the view of the deniers or would-be censors. Back in June, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (aka the Bush Administration) issued Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate that acknowledged the basic climate science:
Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate.
Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing .... The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, though North American mainland land-falling hurricanes do not appear to have increased over the past century. Outside the tropics, storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are becoming even stronger.
It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. ... There is evidence suggesting a human contribution to recent changes in hurricane activity as well as in storms outside the tropics, though a confident assessment will require further study.
In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.
Is it so hard for the environmental community to say what the Bush administration has already acknowledged? Especially with multiple hurricanes bearing down on the U.S. coast?
Environmentalist have, to a large extent, taken themselves out of the political messaging game as it is now played. They have been playing slow pitch softball, while conservatives have been planning major league baseball. That is one of many reasons 450 ppm is not even close to being politically possible. That is one of many reasons I have never considered myself an environmentalist.
In any case, progressives must not follow environmentalist down the path of wishy-washy messaging.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 1:21 pm
01 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:16 pm
01 Sep 2008
But, we can make the connection between energy policy and security and this will sway Americans in a big way because sending money to the Mideast, Russia, and Venezuela is obviously harming our national security- in addition to the fact that wind and solar employ a lot more people all over the country than can oil and gas. These arguments will always hold a lot more sway, whether we like it or not.
My 2 cents for now....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems.
Permalink
LGT Posted 3:12 pm
01 Sep 2008
"In Alaska, 35 percent forest, global warming is causing irreversible changes including droughts, forest fires, and infestations of tree-killing insects like spruce beetles and spruce budworm moths. In the last 15 years, the spruce beetles, which thrive in warmer climates, have destroyed a total of about 3 million acres (1.21 million hectares) of spruce forest in south-central Alaska."
Charming!
Palin, however, doesn't believe in sustainability or alternative energy. She said, "alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years [sic] to develop"
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/it-s-all-about-big-o ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:22 pm
01 Sep 2008
How about the most recent Lakoff piece, and how Dems are still getting it wrong on messaging with Palin in the game.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-palin-cho ...
As he keeps mentioning. What we routinely miss is to declare our principles and values (i.e. Conceptual Views that don't Change). And why those principles are important.
And then relate those to the "specific realities" at play.
_
By forfeiting debate, and admitting defeat to conservative values/principles, we do ourselves a great dis-service.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:11 am
02 Sep 2008
We can at best replace only a fraction of current oil consumption with biofuels. A five fold increase in corn ethanol from 2007 levels would reduce imports 10-12%, which would consume pretty much all of our corn crop. That is equivalent to getting 26.8 mpg on an Outback instead of 24. Remember, cellulosic is five years away and probably always will be.
Oil is like Japanese cars--something we want and therefore, something we have to pay for.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:36 am
02 Sep 2008
But it very difficult to prove that global warming causes more frequent, more damaging hurricanes. Using the scientific one would have to disprove the null hypothesis - that global warming would cause less hurricanes which were less damaging; one would also have to control for various cycles (decadal, ocean oscillation, etc.). It is very easy to quote NOAA and NASA scientists who see a plausible correlation, but another to prove causation.
"More likely to" does not infer causation.
And that's what bugs some scientists such as Jeff Masters and myself, although I am not nearly the brainiac that Dr. Masters is. Lets take ocean heat content, for example: the oceans where hurricanes spawn are actually cooler than in 2005 with Katrina. In fact, a cold core eddy zapped the energy out of Gustav, which caused (did I use that word?) the eye of the hurricane to collapse, diminishing it from a Category 3 or 4 to a mere Category 1 storm at landfall.
So tell me, does that prove anything about global warming?
No it does not. There is some evidence that global warming can cause cooling of the mid-latitudes, cause more arctic meltwater of about 33 degrees, and re-arrange high pressure cells to possibly reduce the frequency and intensity of some hurricanes. The cardinal sin of environmental science is the "cherry pick" one's facts and line them up while ignoring contrary or intervening evidence.
This does not bother "the true believer" such as what Eric Hoffer wrote about. They tend to be set in their beliefs. And indeed, the idea that global warming cases more hurricanes and more intense ones is compelling, like a "no duh" moment. Proving that using the scientific method turns out to be quite a complex job, however.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:05 am
02 Sep 2008
This is not to say that we shouldn't stick to facts, at least as far as we can know them, as Sam suggests. But uncertainty of facts was not the reason for the email, so this is a non-issue here.
Permalink
SimplyaMommy Posted 2:10 pm
02 Sep 2008
Don't we need to focus on other possibe detriments too? I would like to know, are we preparing ourselves for the possibility that through all this environmental change and hysteria that something even more threatening than stronge hurricanes could result?
Are we prepared for a possible devastating Plague? We need to act now! How about more Tsunamis? What are we really doing? There needs to be real concrete solutions that won't take years to establish. The Earth is dying, we are destroying it. Like Cancer, we need to be proactive now! Any denial of this lessens our chances of being cured. It's time for courage not cowards. Figure out how to fix it and JUST Do IT!We are almost out of time, So start planning and problem solving as one unified country and world. It's time for us to make huge changes in how we've come accustomed to living.That is the biggest challenge of all, change, enormous change!
We don't have a choice. This isn't a video game, we don't get another shot at it, another life. We either get it right now or we lose! And I know Im going to hear sh**, but the fact is since our country decided that the athiests have more rights and took God and prayers out of so many things; here is the genius result! So all those who believe and worship God and those that don't and should, please pray everyday. Without God in our lives and respect for this beautiful planet and eachother, we are allowing our earth to crumble as it is starting to do as I write, as predicted it would hundreds of years ago in Revelations.Without God, nothing will save us from ceasing to exist in our near future.Nothing will stop the denial and the death of our only world. It's time to wake up and see what's happening, things are worse than we think, and maybe we haven't even been told everything yet like children. Well, the thousand years is over..and the Mayans predict 2012, so what are we going to do about it, argue or act?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 pm
02 Sep 2008
Solutions to all of our problems, real progressive solutions, are basically environmental.
That takes the wimpiness out of the environmental movement, making it a holistic political approach to economic, foreign policy, war, national security, poverty, social justice,and healthcare problems. And basically ending the reign of militaristic corporate kleptocratic monopolistic tyranny over planet earth and it's inhabitants.
It's pretty simple really. Noneed to deny the label of environmentalist, just extend it into all realms of existence, symbiotically.
It's true that many who have vested interests in the status quo kowtow to political correctness. But you won't see real holistic radicals doing this. our basic argument to you Joe, and others who are closer to power, is to stop it. Go radical. There's nothing to lose and a brave new world to gain.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:40 pm
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:17 pm
02 Sep 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:19 pm
02 Sep 2008
Simply a Mom,
why in the world do you think it matters to God how many people actually pray to him? What does it tell us about him, if he will not answer the common prayer of 99 people, but if a hundredth person joins them, then he will listen and grant the petition? Is that a god who deserves to be worshipped?
What does it tell us about him, that he allows countless innocent members of a society to suffer, on account of the alleged sinfulness or godlessness of a few? Is that a god who deserves to be worshipped?
What does it tell us about him, that he reckons simple human failings and flaws as capital unpardonnable crimes, and sets about punishing the sinners with death and destruction? Is that a god who deserves to be worshipped?
Sorry, Yahweh as a god is a miserable failure. Fortunately there is a far better and truer God, a God of Wisdom, of whom most of the writers and readers of the biblical literature have no clear idea.
By the way, if you intend to be a staunch biblicist, you might make the effort to get the titles of the books of the Bible right. The last book is called "Revelation," not "Revelations." There was just one "revelation" to Saint John the Divine on the Aegean island of Patmos.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Luddhunter2 Posted 10:35 pm
02 Sep 2008
You got it right. Joe's "deep-seated" beliefs are irrefutable in his world.
Joe spiked two of four of my posts on his blog yesterday, clumsily trying to brush off my citations of opposing science to his hurricane dogma as "not germane".
See my full posts on luddhunter.wordpress.com.
Joe's post here is much more ideologically charged, betraying a fervent alarmism and radical anti-growth agenda:
His frequest use of the term "denier" could easily be replaced with the word "blasphemer" without losing any meaning or intent of his diatribe.
His economic arguments make no sense. Econ 101 Joe: You increase supply of oil and oil prices go down. It is a hallmark of dogmatism that the high priests expect to say black is white and up is down without challenge, then cry "heretic!" and attempt censorship when they do get challenged.
Joe's ridiculous warning of 6-12 inches of sea rise per decade is well beyond the claim of the alarmists' main source, the IPCC.
Methinks Joe is an anti-growth Ludd of the first degree, a scientist who has sold out and become radicalized by ideological zanies who envision a utopian natitivistic return to the good ol days before we invented tools and ruined Mother Earth.
His radical leanings are obvious. Let us leave Joe's chapel before he locks the doors and tries to strap the unconverted to the Spiked Chair of Green Truth.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:14 pm
02 Sep 2008
Econ 101 Joe: You increase supply of oil and oil prices go down.
Well Luddhunter, let's see if you can use this simple law and bring down oil prices.
How quickly can you increase domestic US oil production ?
5 years (as reported by the arctic drilling cheerleader Palin). Most observers contend it takes 7 to 10 years to establish all the machinery.
How much can you increase oil supply ?
Arctic peak oil production will be at best 0.8 million barrels per day (298 million barrels per year). This peak production will not be reached until 2 decades. In the next 5 years, US oil production can be increased at maximum by 80 million barrels per year.
Can this increase eliminate oil imports from abroad ?
The data on US oil imports is here. No.The current annual oil imports from abroad are totalling around 4 million barrels per day = 1460 million barrels per year. 80 million barrels (from domestic increase) is a tiny sliver in the US oil imports. This will do nothing to eliminate the flight of US dollars to oil-rich countries.
What is the increase in global oil demand in 5 years ? (yes we should talk about global demand and not american demand, because the oil market is global)<
The global oil demand will increase by 6% in the next 5 years. (unless demand is mitigated by rapid shift to alternative fuels). A 6% increase amounts to 1600 million barrels per year. The 80 million barrels of US production will matter "absolutely nothing" in the global oil market.
What about the next 5 years ?
Even if you start to drill now, it means no immediate respite to the American public. It will shield them absolutely nothing from the pain of high gasolene prices.
Then why are the Republicans even arguing for the drill here, drill now mantra
The oil industry wants to maximize the profits that can be milked out of this dying industry. Republican puppets are just dancing to the tunes of big oil.
You know luddhunter, there are a million ways to cure US Oil addiction (battery vehicles, biofuels, ...). There are a million ways US can become energy independent (solar, nuclear.. ). Drilling for more oil is nothing.. absolutely nothing of importance in achieving this. This is just an extremely dumb strategy, even if you care nothing about the environment.
Do you care about the profits of big oil, and how you can make them richer than what they are right now ? Then, repeat "drill here, drill now" along with the other sheeple out there.
Otherwise, you can drill inside your own brain and get some fresh ideas please. Over !
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:17 pm
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:19 pm
02 Sep 2008
Permalink
Luddhunter2 Posted 12:45 am
03 Sep 2008
I never said the price will drop a lot. I said if supply is increased, prices will drop, or at least rise slower than they would have without increasing supply. This is like trying to teach arithmetic to someone who doesn't believe in the concept of zero. Why do Ludds try and spin something as rock-solid as supply and demand?
I never said drilling should be the main strategy. I'm an all of the above guy, as long as subsidies and unreasonable regs are eliminated, and the energy techs can fight it out on the great plain of competition (a dirty word to Ludds, I know)
Yes I care about profits, because profits are the fuel of businesses and workers. If costs go up and revenues stagnate, worker and business profits go down, and savings/investment is less and/or assets must be sold (negative growth). If you're anti-profit, you're anti-capitalism, and anti-growth, and anti-survival (as growth is critical to human survival). If you're suggesting (American) oil companies collaborate to hold prices artificially high, then prove it. No one else has been able to. The real monopolists are OPEC, they intentionally restrict oil supply to improve the cartel's wealth.
Can you post a picture of you extrapolating to the poster of Karl Marx over your bed? I'm into Ludd kink.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
03 Sep 2008
The only handle we have on oil prices is to reduce demand.
Barack's call for a 4% rise in mileage standards per year is a start.
A goal of 5% reduction in oil demand per year would be better. Oil workers out of work? A boom in renewable energy and conservation device manufacturing will take care of that many times over, reviving the US manufacturing base.
Bush and the GOP, serving corporate lobbyists as they do, have encouraged job outsourcing with tax breaks. McCain voted for those job outsourcing tax breaks 4 times.
Under a democratic administration and legislative branch those tax breaks will finally be ended.
Barack will lower taxes for 98% of US. And with a new economic revival and an end to deficit spending and an end to the huge trade deficit (to pay for oil), inflation will sl;ow, the dollar will strengthen, and the top 2% whose taxes won't be cut, will grow even wealthier.
As they always have during democratic economic recoveries of the past.
The warlike, fear mongering GOP triples (under reagan/Bush) and quadruples debt (under bush/cheney), and democrats pay the natiional debt back down with peace and prosperity and economic growth.
With the GOP in control, those who learn from history, are doomed to watch others repeat it. But when democrats repeat history, with economic boom, it's not so painful. All boats are floated by the economic revival.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 2:55 am
03 Sep 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:52 pm
03 Sep 2008
No, this is not your only strategy but this is your primary strategy. As embodied by Palin's speech yesterday, while drilling "will not solve all of America's energy problems", that is "no excuse to do nothing at all"
Very well, luddhunter. When you have a problem, you mention the best solution first and go down from there. Drilling in the arctic or offshore, as you see from my numbers, will solve about 1/20th of the problem. It is not as if this is done for free. There are costs - economical costs in investment, leasing the land for oil companies and finally environmental costs in a sensitive region. You work out the costs and see if this is a profitable thing to do.
There are efficient and powerful solutions to solve the problem. And the democrats have been smart in mentioning them.
When Obama mentions nuclear energy, he mentions a new version of nuclear energy which minimizes waste and which uses 99% of the fuel. Republicans use 0.5% of nuclear fuel and store the rest as waste in the Yucca mountain.
When Obama mentions investment in R&D, he mentions how much he will be investing in new technologies which really solve the energy problem. Republicans will just expect to burn the coal, oil and Uranium as quickly as possible, and expect the free market will produce a miracle and save our ass.
and the energy techs can fight it out on the great plain of competition
Have you checked how much the energy companies have been investing in research in alternative technologies ? About 0.5% to 2% of their profits ? Less than the money that they put in all the advertising they do about "invention and creativity".
Do you know the numbers of how much the Bush administration has cut the funding for science ? Apart from tying the hands of scientists in genetics, cell biology and medicine with all kinds of foolish excuses.
Of course, where do you have any money at all, if the treasury is empty due to a senseless war started by a triger-happy president ?
And Palin doesn't even believe that global warming is due to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere ? You know that she is up against 99% of the scientists working in this area, and what credentials does she have to debate against them ? Being a small town mayor with small town values ?
The republicans are finally getting exposed in the open for being (a) stupid (b) enemy to science (c) massive sucking up to self interests in the oil industry (d) utter failure in running the country and economy.
You might expect that you can hide in the fly-over country and small town people who empathize with your "stupidity". But guess what, not many people are as stupid as you think !
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:03 pm
03 Sep 2008
Richard Wagner is not someone whose miserable Weltanschauung most of us would wish to adopt.
Amazing Dr X is, by the way, among the most brilliant and hopeful and encouraging leaders and philosophers that we have. Attacking him is like attacking life itself.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:09 pm
03 Sep 2008
The idea is to antagonize the least number of people possible. mreingold might have a very funny outlook of the world, you might think he is stupid, greedy or even malicious.
But the plain fact is that he is not the personification of all evil on this planet. He is just a bloke writing comments on a website. The impact of evil that he can / will commit is very less.
In that case, it should be your priority to reason with him, convince him, and win his heart. It is a more difficult job than picking up a fight. But in politics, this is necessary. This is what Obama's message of unification is all about. It is about being united and solving our problems in a smart way.
I also saw your comments on another page over small town values and how they are detrimental to the country. This is not the time to worry about small town values versus urban values. This is not the debate we need. If you accept Republican language, you will automatically walk into their trap, and they can brand you as an "elitist", whatever that means.
You might think Karl Marx is a great philosopher, but there are several people, who rightly, think that he is also responsible for a lot of evil. Mentioning karl marx is just a right wing tactic to antagonize the democrat message. Whether you like Marx or not, you should agree that Obama is no Marx. His message is completely different.
And whether you like Marx or not, if you just start to think a little, you will realize that one more Republican administration will lead to economic poverty and environmental destruction. This is what we should be worried about. Republicans are trying to distract the people from the real issue by the clever use of a poster-girl, with the message of identification, and so on.. The best way to counter this propaganda is not by further antagonizing lots of people.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:57 pm
03 Sep 2008
After all every building convered instantly reduces demand from that day forward. The units required are modular, cheap and available in comparison to arctic drilling rigs and no infrastructure is required to take advantage of the new capacity.
Correct me if I'm wrong by why are we drilling in Alaska when drilling in Maine is so much easier? Here's a page on TOD that might help.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Luddhunter2 Posted 9:20 am
04 Sep 2008
Let's assume your numbers are right on R&D spending by the largest energy companies.
If so, then the largest energy companies would be not advancing their tech much. If there was pure competition for energy consumers, then they would eventually lose business.
Now the great plain of power competition I'm talking about is something that can only emerge if two major changes happen:
The Dems need to allow drilling, nukes, natural gas and coal power plants to be built.
The wholesale and retail electricity markets need to be regulated just enough to make sure there are no unnecessary barriers to entry by small power companies or even individuals putting self-generated power back on the grid. The current regulation seems to work well after tweaks were made after the Enron debacle, but there are still some excessive barriers to entry.
I'm sure Obama has no credible plans to make headway on #1, and I don't trust him to not try and screw up our de-regulated markets in order to nationalize them again. He talks about clean/renewable/efficient tech, but his path to them is to 1) ban or overregulate existing tech, and 2) throw millions at energy research and subsidies which actually juist screws up the natural emergence of new power tech which is already in plenty of demand.
BTW, the people who say that "we must lower demand" for power, are talking about imposing bans/regs/taxes etc without new power tech to replace the disincentived techs. This is nearly pure Luddism. The next step is to invade their homes and break their electrical devices. You Ludds won't be happy until we're all back in the caves and trees eating lice out of each others butthair.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:37 am
04 Sep 2008
And yet, even though you are "right," what do you intend to do with us "antagonists"? You can hardly expect to stuff rags in our mouths, and seal our jaws with duct-tape. And even if you could, the moral argument would persist, would it not.
Politics is not everything.
Politics is certainly not ethics.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:50 am
04 Sep 2008
Then there is the propane and other oil based heating fuels, besides regular heating oil, that ground source heating can save. And freeing up natural gas used for heating, with ground source heating, would allow natural gas to replace oil as a transport fuel too.
Pickens' idea to use it for cars is too expensive in terms of infrastructure, but for use in diesel locomotives and even long haul trucks it would be feasible. That can save a lot of oil too. Then eventually trains can be renwably electrified and even long haul trucks can go to plugin hybrid.
Peterbuilt has a hybrid semi now. Induction recharge lanes in highways could become efficient and practical with an MIT breakthrough on tuned induction energy transfer.
Cars, SUVs, and light trucks are better off going right to plugin hybrid drivetrains, it's ready right now for mass production. And could save up to 90% of fuel use in these vehicles.
We definitely have affordable, practical pathways to keep pushing oil use down 5% per year until it is virtually eliminated as a land transport fuel.
Aircraft have possibilities for drastically cutting fuel use too and so does water travel.
And make the oil companies drill the areas already approved before giving them monopoly control over all the rest of US oil reserves yet untapped.
Giving them every last area now will allow them to avoid any and all environmental scrutiny. That is the real agenda behind, "Drill baby drill!".
Gulliani and Palin shill, GOPsters shrill, and big oil won't even drill, they will sit on that oil and extort US over it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:57 am
04 Sep 2008
I wish these nasty republicans I keep getting on the phone call lists for Obama could see it this way! Hehey.
Pretty good list tonight though. No really nasties, plus some encouraging ones. Maybe some real partiers for a party event.
Volunteers need cheering up after some of the responses we get, calling, canvassing, or just manning the information booths. Yikes.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:36 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:01 am
05 Sep 2008
Real capitalism can do that. Enough with war based on lies and market manipulation.
We need innovation, investment, risk-taking real capitalism again. This corporatism has let the scum rise to the top. That's what happens when government becomes a cesspool of bribery and corruption.
It is time for leaders who worked their way up the ladder to the top. Like Obama and Biden.
Bush and McCain were screwups whose influential families got them through college. No wonder mcCain voted with bush 95% of the time, these last 8 years as prosperity buily up during the Clinton years vanished.
Bill Clinton, another guy who came from the lower middle class to work his way to the top. Hard working leaders who understand how life works for most of us that's what we need to revive this nation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink