Comments Ronald Rutherford has made

  • Hillary and the Hydrogen Economy?

    That's it Kaela, defend your lady.
    "The attack was not on hydrogen fuel as a viable future fuel source.."
    That's the point no matter if you say fuel cell or hydrogen powered it is not a fuel source and once people get that stupid notion out of their head the better we will be.

    And as amazing said: "It's all pandering."
    So just be honest and eveluate both sides of the aisle in the same framework.

    "Hillary, on the other hand, quotes specific references about the US market in fuel cell technology; more than singing the praises of hydrogen, she is saying we should not miss the boat on this one, and let Japan reap all the economic rewards, much as they have done in the automobile industry."
    What miss the boat on what, an energy storage system that may not fit into the future energy sources?

    My above link came from:
    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/york220805.htmlOn Newt and energy posted 3 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Come on be honest!

    If I have seen it once, I have seen it a hundred times that environmentalist state the same stupid comments about a "Hydrogen economy". Now this web site has been more balanced in regard to science but attacking Republicans just shows that you are partisan hacks.

    We could do a survey of all congress people that have such information on their web site.
    How about GM web site:
    http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/fc_milestones.html
    "April 1, 2005: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joined GM and the U.S. military for the unveiling and ceremonial delivery of a GM fuel cell-powered pickup truck built for the U.S. military. Developing partnerships with customers like the U.S. military, whose goals match GM's, will advance a hydrogen economy, help gain real-world experience with hydrogen and fuel cells and create the potential for additional future joint transportation ventures with the military."

    And Hillary:
    "The United States was, in the past, the world leader in what's called "alternative energy," which I like to call "smart energy" because that's what it is: it's smart, it's clean, it's productive. There's no reason we should not be the leader in smart energy technology again. Twenty years ago, US firms had 80 percent of the fuel cell market. Now fuel cells are finally hitting the big time. Japan is going so far as to begin the construction of model hydrogen stations. I went to Iceland last summer with John McCain to look at their hydrogen economy. They're committed to being the first all-hydrogen economy combined by geo-thermal so they totally can begin to wean themselves off fossil fuels. But now the US market share of that technology, just when it's beginning to take off, has dropped to 20 percent."
    AspenOn Newt and energy posted 3 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Good point gaelwolf

    Jon Christensen, I do not know of a direct study and if I have time I may be able to create a correlation between Freedom House (The Excel sheet can be changed and manipulated)study and The World Conversation Union with Report ranks 180 countries on sustainable development: Sweden in 1st place, Canada 7th, Germany 13th, Australia 18th, Japan 24th, and the USA 27th (Microsoft word doc). But I will keep looking.
    I have seen the problem brewing in Zimbabwe for some time, and as there freedom surfers so will their environment. If Zimbabwe can force resettlement andcleanup and more 'cleanup' all the while getting protection money from their rackets and willing to sell (um give) their resources to a Communist China, what do you think they will do with their environemt?
    The book Free Market Environmentalism has been an inspiration to me since it was assigned in my graduate level class of "Economics for Public Policy". I will not bore with every time "Tragedy of the Commons" has occured with undefined or poor enforcement of property rights, but let me show one location Togo: Almost Club Med.
    I agree that Northern Plains Resource Council is the type of environmental group that even Terry L. Anderson would support. But I am not sure how many on this site would agree with " Northern Plains has taken the lead in ensuring coal bed methane is developed responsibly in Montana." Why not responsible development of ANWR. Which ties in with what  gaelwolf said, (sorry to paraphrase but studying ecnomics I would say) that we are "exporting our environmental damages".
    Thank you Dr. Christensen.On Why aren't conservationists fighting poverty? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 23 Responses

  • Democratic Peace

    Dear Jon Christensen:

    I am sure there is much I could learn from your study of history with specialties in History of conservation, the science of conservation biology, and measuring conservation. But today I want to expand your radar screen more (if that is possible).
    The most important aspect of expanding environmental protection and healing parts of our world is the spread of Democracy around the world (Democratic Peace). If we are to treat the world as a metaphore for an island, then let us look at a situation in one island Haiti/Dominican Republic. I could not find any of the satellite pictures I had seen before from NOAA but this article explains the difference. Let us now look at Freedom House and then clicking on FH Country Rankings and downloading the Microsoft Exel table. Just using a simple average of the 32 years of surveys done we can see that the freedom rating for DR is just under 2 1/2 and Haiti is almost 6.
    Each country is assigned a rating for political rights and a rating for civil liberties based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest degree of freedom present and seven the lowest level of freedom.US and Iceland are examples of pure freedom with a ranking of 1 and Zimbabwe being close to being 7 consistantly.
    Do you think environmental protection may be correlated in a direct proportion to freedom?On Why aren't conservationists fighting poverty? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 23 Responses

  • Democracy and Property Rights are the answer.

    I liked your blog entry and wish more environmentalist believed that and followed your advice. This is especially insightful:"Good governance -- which starts with free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and property rights -- needs to be pushed further to embrace conservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity through good laws, adequate administration, and practical incentives that work for people on the land."
    Democratic Peace would also agree with you. While the study you link to looks at corruption, all of us including Dr. Rummel would say democracies lead to the things that make environmental progress possible. As the phrase goes "Wealthy makes Healthy". Bringing the poor up and giving them opportunities in democracies are the best way to avoid wars and famines and environmental damages. This is better than handouts to corrupt and not free nations.
    I am surprised but happy that you used the phrase "property rights". In addition to having a stable democracy, having well defined property rights are important in protecting the environment and avoiding problems of "tragedy of the commons".
    I have more to say on this subject but this is enough for now.On Why aren't conservationists fighting poverty? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 23 Responses