Obama '08?

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If not the load capacity, what does the ton measurement refer to?

One way or another you make a good point; that different vehicles are required for different situations, and one-size-fits-all environmentalist solutions end up fitting nobody. Situational reduction in energy use is the key; reduce where you can!

Cycloptichorn

Well, what do you know, cyclops admits different vehicles are required for different jobs!!! Shezam, what a revelation!

Now that would be a beautiful thing for a bureaucrat to sort all of that out. You may have a prius if you cannot ride a bicycle, a doctor's statement will be required with verification from another doctor, that is approved by your local governing vehicle registry. And if you have 1 child, or two children, then you may qualify for a larger vehicle, applications are available for this, and if you have a business that is duly registered with the local authorities, you can also apply via the local vehicle registry. This application must be approved by the chain of command within the county, state, and federal offices of this bureaucracy. You must however provide proof with certificates of weigh-ins and product identification numbers applied at time of weigh-in, stating what products or service you provide with your business. If permission for vehicle is denied, you can apply for a variance from a special committee that is available to evaluate special cases. These committees meet once per month, and before the hearing, you must publish your variance in at least 3 local newspapers to allow for any protests or opinions by fellow citizens.

This is an outline of how this will all work so beautifully. It is simple and allows for making vehicle usage much more efficient by setting up a very efficient local agency and citizens input to streamline the process. Once this system is up and running, we will no doubt save tons of fuel.

Or, you have no committees or rules like that at all, and just ask people to conserve energy where they can. It is a better plan.

Why do you do this, Okie? Why such mendacity? It doesn't foster good discussion or anything of the sort.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okay, back on topic people. Here are some highlights of Obama's proposed energy policy. A good many of these issues have been discussed and/or are being discussed on the global warming thread:

--Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.

--Would channel revenue raised from auctioning emissions permits -- between $30 billion and $50 billion a year -- toward developing and deploying clean energy technology, creating "green jobs," and helping low-income Americans afford higher energy bills.

--Calls for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025, and for 30 percent of the federal government's electricity to come from renewables by 2020.

--Proposes investing $150 billion over 10 years in R&D for renewables, biofuels, efficiency, "clean coal," and other clean tech.

--Calls for improving energy efficiency in the U.S. 50 percent by 2030.

--Calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2030.

--Calls for all new buildings in the U.S. to be carbon neutral by 2030.

--Calls for reducing U.S. oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels a day, by 2030.

--Introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act, which would have the federal government help cover health-care costs for retired U.S. autoworkers in exchange for domestic auto companies investing at least 50 percent of the savings into production of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

--Supports raising fuel-economy standards for automobiles to 40 miles per gallon and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020.

--Supports a phaseout of incandescent light bulbs by 2014.

--Cosponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act. After being badgered by MoveOn and other progressives over the issue, he "clarified" his position by saying he would support liquefied coal only if it emitted 20 percent less carbon over its lifecycle than conventional fuels.

--Has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth Action, in part for his opposition to a summer "gas-tax holiday" that McCain and Clinton support. (FoE Action had previously endorsed John Edwards.)
LINK

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
real life wrote:
engineer wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
B. Hussein Obama wants to lower our standard of living (and raise our taxes):

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

Wow, heaven forbid a Presidential candidate tell Americans a hard truth.

Why should Americans need the permission of other countries to eat what they wish, or cool their homes or drive what they have purchased?

Do you envision an America that asks other countries for permission to do these things, engineer?

I envision a country where people realize that the resources we consume are limited in nature and that the selfish and often silly decisions we make have an impact beyond our borders and checkbooks. Several months ago, the governor of Georgia held a prayer session to pray for rain. That struck me as terrible theology. Instead, we should be praying for forgiveness for wasting the bounty of water that routinely falls across the Southeast US. We routinely buy more horsepower than we need, more room than we need, more food than we need, etc. Of course, if you have the money, you can consume as you want, but eventually that behavior will drive the country into the ground. If any candidate wants to point out that the long term success of our country is directly tied to the proper use of our resources, I'm fine with that.

Okay, then if somebody is going to tell us all what is reasonable for us to consume, what will it be, toyota priuses, motorcycles, bicycles, or will it be ox carts? And what about a guy that lives 1 mile from work and drives a 1 ton truck, as compared to a guy that lives 50 miles from work that drives a prius. I would remind you that the 1 ton truck guy is a more environmentally conscious person.

I would suggest you re-evaluate what road you really want to go down, when you begin suggesting that people lose their rights to make their own decisions about what to drive, where to live, or whatever. I suppose the government can encourage behaviors by tax policies, but even those go awry many times and accomplish the exact opposite of their intent.

I didn't say the government should tell you what to drive, nor do I believe that (and you can't find that in my post quoted above). I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk. Foreign governments control the price of oil, our hard-earned productivity is being shipped to the Middle East and IT'S OUR FAULT. If Obama is willing to stand up and say that, more power to him.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk.

Only if the politician and American government practices what they preach by first doing what they want the masses to do.

0 Replies

Engineer wrote

Quote:

I didn't say the government should tell you what to drive, nor do I believe that (and you can't find that in my post quoted above). I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk. Foreign governments control the price of oil, our hard-earned productivity is being shipped to the Middle East and IT'S OUR FAULT. If Obama is willing to stand up and say that, more power to him.

The problem with environmental policies purport to impose on us 'little people' is that they always seem to be suggested by those who stand to benefit most personally from the money pumped into those policies and/or whatever publicity they can generate by proposing them. To wit Al Gore's 10,000 sq. ft. mansion in Tennesse.

Or Obama's in Chicago (click on the link to the graphic)

The Mansion Obama built:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

How seriously do we take people who have absolutely no intention of living now as they insist that the rest of us live then?

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I didn't say the government should tell you what to drive, nor do I believe that (and you can't find that in my post quoted above). I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk. Foreign governments control the price of oil, our hard-earned productivity is being shipped to the Middle East and IT'S OUR FAULT. If Obama is willing to stand up and say that, more power to him.

Politicians have been telling us this for decades now, definitely since the oil embargo in the early 70's. And how much do we import now, as opposed to then? Answer: alot more.

If we buy too much oil, what about the novel idea of producing more of our own? Conservation is wonderful, but one slight problem, that is only one half of the equation. We may cut average consumption, but population growth tends to offset conservation. We can eat less, but we still should grow our own food instead of begging the neighbor to grow more, and then beg them to sell it to us at the same low price. Growing more of our own I guess is too logical?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

engineer wrote:
I didn't say the government should tell you what to drive, nor do I believe that (and you can't find that in my post quoted above). I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk. Foreign governments control the price of oil, our hard-earned productivity is being shipped to the Middle East and IT'S OUR FAULT. If Obama is willing to stand up and say that, more power to him.

Politicians have been telling us this for decades now, definitely since the oil embargo in the early 70's. And how much do we import now, as opposed to then? Answer: alot more.

If we buy too much oil, what about the novel idea of producing more of our own? Conservation is wonderful, but one slight problem, that is only one half of the equation. We may cut average consumption, but population growth tends to offset conservation. We can eat less, but we still should grow our own food instead of begging the neighbor to grow more, and then beg them to sell it to us at the same low price. Growing more of our own I guess is too logical?

You're still running up against a finite supply problem. Our energy needs will not decrease, and our population most certainly will keep increasing. That's why conservation and transition to renewable resources is the smarter path to take, then just ramping up production of inefficient fuel sources.

It's the only long-term option which makes sense, and we have to start looking at the long-term at some point. Hell, it would take 5-10 years for our domestic oil production to ramp up anyways; the short term seems unlikely to provide any relief by increasing drilling here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

engineer wrote:

I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk.

Only if the politician and American government practices what they preach by first doing what they want the masses to do.

In a perfect world, sure. But if a hypocritical politician can convince 300 million Americans to reduce their consumption by 5-10%, it's a win rather or not they contribute to the reduction. The idea that "Gore drives an SUV so he's full of it and we can ignore him" isn't quite correct. He may be full of it, but he's also right.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Politicians have been telling us this for decades now, definitely since the oil embargo in the early 70's. And how much do we import now, as opposed to then? Answer: alot more.

Because politicians told us this and then enacted policies that contridicted it.

okie wrote:

If we buy too much oil, what about the novel idea of producing more of our own? Conservation is wonderful, but one slight problem, that is only one half of the equation. We may cut average consumption, but population growth tends to offset conservation. We can eat less, but we still should grow our own food instead of begging the neighbor to grow more, and then beg them to sell it to us at the same low price. Growing more of our own I guess is too logical?

Sounds logical. The way to encourage domestic production is to jack up prices so high that every US firm will be searching for oil or working on technology to get more oil out of depleted fields. Personally, I think we are already at that point, but it still won't be enough. We've got to reduce consumption and back to the point, I don't have a hard spot with Obama (or McCain) pointing that out to us.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're still running up against a finite supply problem. Our energy needs will not decrease, and our population most certainly will keep increasing. That's why conservation and transition to renewable resources is the smarter path to take, then just ramping up production of inefficient fuel sources.

It's the only long-term option which makes sense, and we have to start looking at the long-term at some point. Hell, it would take 5-10 years for our domestic oil production to ramp up anyways; the short term seems unlikely to provide any relief by increasing drilling here.

Cycloptichorn

It isn't one or the other. You keep making the same wrong argument. We are transitioning now, we are developing alternates, but we also need to produce our own oil to soften the blow of the economic squeeze of buying foreign oil. We won't eliminate the need for foreign oil, but we can reduce our demand over what it will otherwise be. We had the chance to start more drilling 10 years ago, and if we had done that, our economic situation and oil import problem would still exist, but to a slightly lesser degree.

We just had all but one senator vote for not filling our petroleum reserve to a tune of only 70,000 barrels per day, which is only 7% of what we might be producing right now from ANWR alone if we had opened up new areas for exploration. Apparently congress thinks a measly 70,000 barrels per day matter, so I don't know why a million per day wouldn't.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
engineer wrote:

I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk.

Only if the politician and American government practices what they preach by first doing what they want the masses to do.

In a perfect world, sure. But if a hypocritical politician can convince 300 million Americans to reduce their consumption by 5-10%, it's a win rather or not they contribute to the reduction. The idea that "Gore drives an SUV so he's full of it and we can ignore him" isn't quite correct. He may be full of it, but he's also right.

I drive a non-hybrid SUV that is a great car, cost thousands less, and gets better gas mileage than most hybrids on the market. Okie and others have previously provided excellent examples of how somebody driving a Hummer or other 'bad' vehicle under certain circumstances can be more environmentally friendly (by Gore's critera) than somebody driving a Prius under other circumstances.

But if the likes of Gore and Obama prevail in their proposals, none of us will have the option to buy a Hummer or many other vehicles that are now on the market.

And also, why should we think those that are 'full of it' based on their unwillingness to pare back their own lifestyles, perks, and/or benefits are any more 'right' than somebody else? Or that their motives are somehow more noble than somebody else? Why are so many willing to hand over their freedoms to people who are unwilling to give up any of theirs?

0 Replies

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us," Obama said.

This guy is a threat to the United States.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us," Obama said.

This guy is a threat to the United States.

Um, you mean you think that countries like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela do "pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us"? Really? Are we talking the Soviet Union that had enough nukes aimed at the US to destroy the world several time over?