farmerman wrote:Okie, interesting observations but seemes to me that you are hopelessly partisan. The Carter energy incentives were the only attempts in our history to "kick start" alternative energy, whether you agree or not. I know its a mantra by the Right side of the aisle to deplore Carter for his other shortcomings of which I cant deny. However, in energy, he was a prescient wizrd and he supported an approach of development of new oil ( witness the number of drilling starts that occured in his 4 years), he was a nuclear engineer with respect for the nuclear industry even after TMI. He tried to incentivise new energy reserach (the majority of which were dumped by the reagan regime).
HAd we followed Mr Carter, wed be way up the energy totem pole than we are now.
Thanks for the reply. I am hopelessly partisan, but partisan in this respect, and that is I think for very sound reasons, I happen to think Democrats trust government far too much to provide solutions, while Republicans, although far from ideal, offer the best current alignment toward free market solutions, and common sense trust in the ingenuity of man and free enterprise if not meddled with too much or hindered.
Further, aside from politicians, many of the so-called public interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party are very anti-progress in terms of business. They are obstructionists and that is an undeniable fact. Farmerman, you speak of nuclear as well as Carter having experience in that field, whether Carter realized it or not, it was liberal groups that support Democrats that basically killed that industry from further growth in this country about 30 years ago. I know because I was involved in that industry, and it cost me my job and career in that field. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the law of unintended consequences when the government meddles with the market.
I am partisan because I believe the market is a good indicator of the most efficient energy usage. Libs will argue that oil companies are subsidized, which I do not believe any more than many other industries are subsidized. We are talking about tax breaks and incentives, in regard to investment in drilling and oil production, and although they take different forms from industry to industry, I do not believe oil companies are propped up by the government. It is just a simple reality that oil works, it is dependable, and a hugely economical engine to our industrial world, there is just no getting around it.
I appreciate your contibution to the discussion here, wherein you offer real data and facts, which is commonly missing from the subject of oil. Oil companies make nice whipping boys for the Democrats, but I think it is based largely on ignorance and a basic dislike of capitalism.
I personally do not have much confidence in government research programs and solutions ahead of the market dictating what will happen in regard to energy. You can research all you want, but until the technology is feasible in an economic way, it is largely spinning the wheels. We can offer tax incentives, thats all well and good, but again the energy must be feasible and profitable, otherwise unintended consequences kicks in. I don't see a need to panic. We are seeing progress in the way of solar and wind and other things, but it won't happen overnight, it will be a gradual process. But most importantly, we need to fight the obstructionists to progress and unleash the ingenuity of business and the market onto the this problem. And we definitely need more oil, more drilling, as a bridge to the future, to ease the pain as the process unfolds. Here again, Democrats oppose this, and they are wrong again. That is why I am partisan.
