mike365’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Think it through

  "And note that Hillary would have the oil companies pay the tax."

  And where, pray tell, do the oil companies get their money from?? Taxing oil companies is an indirect way of taxing the consumer, since the oil companies will adjust the price accordingly to remain profitable.  It doesn't matter where the tax is placed - directly on the consumer at the pump or on the oil company - the cost will be paid by those who use the product.  

  The "gas tax holiday" is a complete joke, it won't save the average driver any noticeable sum, and our national deficit is in bad enough shape as it is with the rebate checks coming out this summer.  On Or how to prove you're even dumber than your opponents posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  China too

  Another huge factor in the coal issue is China, and their rapidly developing energy infrastructure.  Right now, 75% of the CO2 emitted in China comes from burning coal, and their energy use is expected to double by 2020.  Not only do we need to address our own coal use in the United States and in Europe, but we also need to put pressure on China and other developing economies to leapfrog past the traditional coal technologies and invest in cleaner, more modern generation facilities.  A moratorium here and in Europe would certainly set the precedent, but a growing China that continues to build 2 new power-plants a week could severely detract from any Western progress.On Preventing dirty coal plants is the most urgent climate policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  No magic bullet

  Great article, very thorough and well researched.  

  There seem to be two real issues here; the first and most obvious is that the global population and increasing standard of living do not match the ability of our planet to supply the demand.  So the bottom line is that we need to stabilize the population, accept a more reasonable standard of living, or increase the yield efficiency of our cultivated land.  

  The second issue is the expectation that people have that there is a magic bullet technology that will replace fossil fuels, and that some group of scientists will swoop in and save the day.  We have to understand that the convenience and simplicity of digging a hole and pumping out a liquid fuel, basically `ready to go', cannot be matched.  We will be hard-pressed to develop another liquid fuel that can be obtained as cheaply as oil, and equally as hard-pressed to develop a liquid fuel that is less environmentally destructive than oil.  The answer to our energy problem, if it comes from truly renewable sources, will not be cheaper than fossil fuels have been in the past decades, but it will be more reflective of the true cost of energy.  
  On Traditional print media and complex issues posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  High cost of oil IS the answer

  "This approach, whether solar, wind, or nuclear will use up a lot of oil, natural gas, and coal and just give us more electric power, which we don't need and can't use to plant, harvest, and transport food, nor will it heat our homes."

  cjwirth,

  I fail to understand your logic... How is it that moving to alternatives like solar, wind, and nuclear will consume "a lot" of fossil fuels?  The reality is that in America and elsewhere (e.g. China, India) electricity consumption continues to grow, and the largest portion of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production - not from transportation.  These technologies might require a finite amount of fossil fuels in construction phases, but the amount consumed will directly and quickly be offset by the consumption that these technologies replace.  

  The answer to our energy problem doesn't lie in increased corporate taxes, since these will only force job cuts or induce costs that are passed on to the consumer.  This talk of commandeering the oil companies' record profits will never fly, especially with the influence that the corporate lobbyists have in Congress (not to mention the questionable legality of such a process). The solution will come from a combination of publicly funded research and private development, both of which are already booming because of high oil prices. The answer lies in the incentive and higher fossil fuel prices mean greater market response.  
  On Obama takes NC; Clinton appears to win Indiana posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Enough to go around

  One thing that rarely gets discussed when it comes to global food supplies, as far as I have seen, is population stasis.  The underlying problems with climate change and overcrowding are a direct result of the dramatically increasing human population on Earth.  Ideas like population control can touch off highly charged moral debate, but at what point do we accept that this is an issue that may need to be addressed before we can solve other problems?  

  Sustainability seems like a much more difficult proposition when we are forced to choose between food and something as crucial to our long-term survival as the Amazon rain forest. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but it might be time to start encouraging, if not enforcing, responsible population growth.  
  On Let's raze more Amazon rainforest! posted 1 year, 6 months ago 24 Responses