<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Some reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of Hillary’s new proposal]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Flamingo http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:30:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/1 like I said in another thread

Some say that a vote for Clinton is not much different than voting for a Republican. This is so ridiculously absurd, and is demonstrated once again by this policy proposal.

And she's not even the top candidate on my list.

]]> like I said in another thread

Some say that a vote for Clinton is not much different than voting for a Republican. This is so ridiculously absurd, and is demonstrated once again by this policy proposal.

And she's not even the top candidate on my list.

]]> Comment #2 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:03:04 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/2 My Goodness

I pointed to Marginal Revolution a day or two ago, as an "economics" site that did a good job of tying that field to ... whatever I said.

Today's posts have all been winners, but would you believe this China fact?

"...there are 100 gigawatts of "illegal" electric power plants in China, meaning plants not approved by the central government. (The entire nation of France uses 80 gigawatts of power. China uses 650 gigawatts.)"

Attached to the "Clinton energy" subject because it drives home how much the problem is actually international at this point.  Whatever we do here, it must be a lever to ultimate international agreement ... or we lose anyway.

]]> My Goodness

I pointed to Marginal Revolution a day or two ago, as an "economics" site that did a good job of tying that field to ... whatever I said.

Today's posts have all been winners, but would you believe this China fact?

"...there are 100 gigawatts of "illegal" electric power plants in China, meaning plants not approved by the central government. (The entire nation of France uses 80 gigawatts of power. China uses 650 gigawatts.)"

Attached to the "Clinton energy" subject because it drives home how much the problem is actually international at this point.  Whatever we do here, it must be a lever to ultimate international agreement ... or we lose anyway.

]]> Comment #3 by TheGreenMiles http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:25:13 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/3 Does international sell on the campaign trail?

I think if Hillary included too much international aid in this plan, she'd open herself up to attacks that global warming was just an excuse for those liberal hippies to raise our taxes and send the money to Red China and use whatever's leftover on their all-night reefer parties.  At least, that's what I'm sure my Uncle Warren would say.

International aid is necessary, and I'm sure it will come, but I don't think it's a plank in the campaign platform.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

]]> Does international sell on the campaign trail?

I think if Hillary included too much international aid in this plan, she'd open herself up to attacks that global warming was just an excuse for those liberal hippies to raise our taxes and send the money to Red China and use whatever's leftover on their all-night reefer parties.  At least, that's what I'm sure my Uncle Warren would say.

International aid is necessary, and I'm sure it will come, but I don't think it's a plank in the campaign platform.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

]]> Comment #4 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:55:49 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/4 CPR at the Graveside

We can only hope that our political leaders have a super double-secret emergency climate plan hidden somewhere to slap on the table when the populace wakes up and demands serious action NOW because cities X, Y and Z have become withered wastelands and caravans of refugees wander the US.

I know, they don't.

Any climate change plan that involves continued use of coal is a loser. Supposing we could capture 100% of the emissions and store them forever (we can't) simply mining the stuff involves inevitable coal mine fires that emit methane and CO2 for years.

Anyone who has been following Climate Change news closely and received a passing grade in college physics now knows that things are drastically worse than the worst IPCC projections. This fall the ice cap at the North Pole went crazy and fell off the map of normal.

In other news the world's oceans are losing the ability to absorb CO2.

For the layman: "You're screwed."

Whatever weather you were counting on to go about your normal life's business is not going to be reliable. You will be getting periods of disastrous weather from somewhere else. Ask the citizens of Australia, Atlanta GA, or Tabasco, Mexico.

We have to stop adding carbon and start removing carbon from the atmosphere on a crisis schedule. We are now experiencing "or else" but it will surely get worse.

This plan, while better than most, doesn't even come close to being adequate. Enabled on schedule it would be CPR at the graveside of your dead mother. Far too little, far too late no matter how earnestly practiced.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> CPR at the Graveside

We can only hope that our political leaders have a super double-secret emergency climate plan hidden somewhere to slap on the table when the populace wakes up and demands serious action NOW because cities X, Y and Z have become withered wastelands and caravans of refugees wander the US.

I know, they don't.

Any climate change plan that involves continued use of coal is a loser. Supposing we could capture 100% of the emissions and store them forever (we can't) simply mining the stuff involves inevitable coal mine fires that emit methane and CO2 for years.

Anyone who has been following Climate Change news closely and received a passing grade in college physics now knows that things are drastically worse than the worst IPCC projections. This fall the ice cap at the North Pole went crazy and fell off the map of normal.

In other news the world's oceans are losing the ability to absorb CO2.

For the layman: "You're screwed."

Whatever weather you were counting on to go about your normal life's business is not going to be reliable. You will be getting periods of disastrous weather from somewhere else. Ask the citizens of Australia, Atlanta GA, or Tabasco, Mexico.

We have to stop adding carbon and start removing carbon from the atmosphere on a crisis schedule. We are now experiencing "or else" but it will surely get worse.

This plan, while better than most, doesn't even come close to being adequate. Enabled on schedule it would be CPR at the graveside of your dead mother. Far too little, far too late no matter how earnestly practiced.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Comment #5 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:30:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/5 Baselines? "Foreign" Oil and CAFE

"reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020"

Just wondering who gets to set the projected level by 2020 and what happens to the goal if the real level by 2020 is way over the current projected level.  Why not use a specific date like 1990 as they do with greenhouse gas goals?  

And, this bugs the crap out of me, but why do politicians have to keep using "foreign" to describe oil?  Why can't they just say we have to reduce our dependence on OIL?  Our dependence on ALL oil is the problem.  Politicians have been saying this crap about foreign oil for more than 30 years and we keep using more of it.  They have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil one iota mainly because our demand keeps right on growing.    

And about those CAFE standards:  Read Elizabeth Kolbert's book review in the November 5, 2007 edition of the New Yorker -- 'Running on Fumes, Does the "car of the future', have a future?'

Excerpts:  "Talking up the car of the future, McCarthy suggests, is just another way Detroit has found to insure that it never arrives.  It is worth noting that the average new car sold in the U.S. today gets twenty miles to the gallon, which is virtually the same as it got in 1993, when the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles was launched, and -- remarkably enough -- less than Henry Ford's Model T got when it went on the market, ninety-nine years ago last month."  

"But, improving gas mileage will take us only so far.  Once the Chinese and the Indians really start driving, double or even triple fuel efficiency won't suffice."  

Bottom line: "the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all."  Let Hillary try telling that to Americans.  

]]> Baselines? "Foreign" Oil and CAFE

"reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020"

Just wondering who gets to set the projected level by 2020 and what happens to the goal if the real level by 2020 is way over the current projected level.  Why not use a specific date like 1990 as they do with greenhouse gas goals?  

And, this bugs the crap out of me, but why do politicians have to keep using "foreign" to describe oil?  Why can't they just say we have to reduce our dependence on OIL?  Our dependence on ALL oil is the problem.  Politicians have been saying this crap about foreign oil for more than 30 years and we keep using more of it.  They have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil one iota mainly because our demand keeps right on growing.    

And about those CAFE standards:  Read Elizabeth Kolbert's book review in the November 5, 2007 edition of the New Yorker -- 'Running on Fumes, Does the "car of the future', have a future?'

Excerpts:  "Talking up the car of the future, McCarthy suggests, is just another way Detroit has found to insure that it never arrives.  It is worth noting that the average new car sold in the U.S. today gets twenty miles to the gallon, which is virtually the same as it got in 1993, when the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles was launched, and -- remarkably enough -- less than Henry Ford's Model T got when it went on the market, ninety-nine years ago last month."  

"But, improving gas mileage will take us only so far.  Once the Chinese and the Indians really start driving, double or even triple fuel efficiency won't suffice."  

Bottom line: "the car of the future may turn out to be no car at all."  Let Hillary try telling that to Americans.  

]]> Comment #6 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:52:36 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/6 Excellent points, justlou

]]> Excellent points, justlou

]]> Comment #7 by caniscandida http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:32:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/7 "foreign oil"

Part of the vocabulary behind the "Energy Independence!" slogan.  Presumably it is supposed to appeal to people for whom "national security" and disengagement from commitments of one kind or another in the Middle East are important priorities, e.g. Republicans, some independents, and fans of Thomas Friedman.

And therefore, JustLou, you are quite right.  "Foreign oil" is misleading, and misses the point.  And it is potentially very dangerous, if it leads to resorting to domestic oil extracted from ANWR, and to increasing reliance on coal -- all for the sake of appearing "strong on national security"!

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> "foreign oil"

Part of the vocabulary behind the "Energy Independence!" slogan.  Presumably it is supposed to appeal to people for whom "national security" and disengagement from commitments of one kind or another in the Middle East are important priorities, e.g. Republicans, some independents, and fans of Thomas Friedman.

And therefore, JustLou, you are quite right.  "Foreign oil" is misleading, and misses the point.  And it is potentially very dangerous, if it leads to resorting to domestic oil extracted from ANWR, and to increasing reliance on coal -- all for the sake of appearing "strong on national security"!

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

]]> Comment #8 by johnpdeever http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:11:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/8 "bold new CAFE targets (55mpg by 2030!)"

The point about Elizabeth Kolbert and CAFE standards is good, but my reaction to the subject was . . . another hollow Clinton campaign promise?

When Bill and Al campaigned in 1992, they promised that average fuel efficiency would hit 40 mpg by 2000. Didn't happen -- not even close!  Their administration didn't even propose across-the-board CAFE standard increases during their 8 years in power. Thanks to their failure, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg as of 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/ ...), lower than during the Reagan administration.

Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are worse on energy, and CAFE standards are no measure of the all-around worth of a candidate.  Focusing on cars and transportation at all is missing the bigger picture, etc., etc.,

My point is: I am baffled that people believe Hillary when she suggests things like this.  How much of this whole energy plan is just typical Clintonesque talking the talk?

]]> "bold new CAFE targets (55mpg by 2030!)"

The point about Elizabeth Kolbert and CAFE standards is good, but my reaction to the subject was . . . another hollow Clinton campaign promise?

When Bill and Al campaigned in 1992, they promised that average fuel efficiency would hit 40 mpg by 2000. Didn't happen -- not even close!  Their administration didn't even propose across-the-board CAFE standard increases during their 8 years in power. Thanks to their failure, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg as of 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/ ...), lower than during the Reagan administration.

Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are worse on energy, and CAFE standards are no measure of the all-around worth of a candidate.  Focusing on cars and transportation at all is missing the bigger picture, etc., etc.,

My point is: I am baffled that people believe Hillary when she suggests things like this.  How much of this whole energy plan is just typical Clintonesque talking the talk?

]]> Comment #9 by MIKE CHIROPOLOS http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/ Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:37:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/clintons-climate-and-energy-plan/9 What's missing

It's a good plan in many ways.  But the junior Senator from New York missed one of the biggest energy issues in the Rocky Mountain West:  policies imposed by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to sacrifice many of our most majestic public lands to feed the nation's fossil fuel addiction.

This is a big issue in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.  Governor Bill Richardson gets it, and he has been in the vanguard of a rising bi-partisan tide of Westerners determined to allow energy development on the West's terms, for the West's best interests.  If Hilary hopes to win votes in the Rockies, she needs to commit to balanced energy policies that reduce demand for natural gas,  strengthen enforcement of public lands laws that the Bush administration has violated or ignored, and commit to a package of policy reforms to protect wildlife habitat, water supplies, clean air, and the private property of working farm and ranch families who currently have no say when their "split estate" lands are leased for mineral development.

Hunters, anglers and other sportsmen are emerging as a key swing voting bloc across the region.  They care about deer and elk habitat, trout streams, and habitat protection.  Any candidate who hopes to win their votes needs to stand tall on these concerns.  

Hilary also needs to follow the lead of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, another Westerner leading the way to a New Energy Economy.  Premature oil shale development in northwest Colorado is a disaster waiting to happen if the boosters from Wallace Stegner's "Land of Gilpin" have their way.  The federal government needs to go slow on oil shale, and make sure industry proves they can do it right without wreaking havoc on our environment and quality of life.  Colorado's people and leaders have it right across the political spectrum.  Hilary's plan needs to encompass oil shale, which would require the construction of new coal plants just to power the mines.  She should also address proposals to develop tar sands in Utah, to avoid the ongoing environmental catostrophe in Canada's vast tar sands fields.

MICHAEL LIND

]]> What's missing

It's a good plan in many ways.  But the junior Senator from New York missed one of the biggest energy issues in the Rocky Mountain West:  policies imposed by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to sacrifice many of our most majestic public lands to feed the nation's fossil fuel addiction.

This is a big issue in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.  Governor Bill Richardson gets it, and he has been in the vanguard of a rising bi-partisan tide of Westerners determined to allow energy development on the West's terms, for the West's best interests.  If Hilary hopes to win votes in the Rockies, she needs to commit to balanced energy policies that reduce demand for natural gas,  strengthen enforcement of public lands laws that the Bush administration has violated or ignored, and commit to a package of policy reforms to protect wildlife habitat, water supplies, clean air, and the private property of working farm and ranch families who currently have no say when their "split estate" lands are leased for mineral development.

Hunters, anglers and other sportsmen are emerging as a key swing voting bloc across the region.  They care about deer and elk habitat, trout streams, and habitat protection.  Any candidate who hopes to win their votes needs to stand tall on these concerns.  

Hilary also needs to follow the lead of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, another Westerner leading the way to a New Energy Economy.  Premature oil shale development in northwest Colorado is a disaster waiting to happen if the boosters from Wallace Stegner's "Land of Gilpin" have their way.  The federal government needs to go slow on oil shale, and make sure industry proves they can do it right without wreaking havoc on our environment and quality of life.  Colorado's people and leaders have it right across the political spectrum.  Hilary's plan needs to encompass oil shale, which would require the construction of new coal plants just to power the mines.  She should also address proposals to develop tar sands in Utah, to avoid the ongoing environmental catostrophe in Canada's vast tar sands fields.

MICHAEL LIND

]]>