Redstate

_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

McCain accepts the scientific reality of global warming. If the majority of the world's scientists say we've got a problem, we ignore them at our peril, if we just ignore them because we can't deal with their message. As I've said before, it would be tragic for a major political party to oppose a scientific theory.

We went through this with the hole in the ozone layer. We solved it by restricting halocarbons, and now the problem is receding.

What is needed is a debate on the best way forward, with minimal government intrusion, to deal with it.

Charles Krauthammer favors a carbon tax, not cap-and-trade. It's similar to Milton Friedman's idea of effluent taxes. It's simple and doesn't allow for political favors as does cap-and-trade. And the cost of compliance is visible so we know what we're paying, whereas cap-and-trade hides it in the cost of finished goods.

If you're allergic to raising taxes, then make the carbon tax revenue-neutral by lowering some other taxes. Start with total elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, just for starters.

I actually used to prefer Cap-and-Trade to Carbon Taxes before examining the issue. A carbon tax is closer to a price in broad daylight. That is not what the environmentalists want at this point.

At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.

are leftists, are we in peril for ignoring them?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

would be a simple tax (not a percentage) on BTU's obtained from fossil fuels.

BUT, as I have often stated, we must offset the tax with lowering of other taxes or else we wreck the economy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

why don't we not have a carbon tax, and not offset that by lowering taxes? Any Repubs still with me or have we all gone wobbly?

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Cause you know what you want is a silly pipe dream, look at what government has already done in the name of energy independence and environment etc. We have ethanol subsidies, CAFE standards, and lots of taxes already.

So you know there is a big push for more of the same don't you?
Don't you?
Gee while we are wishing we might also wish for a ten percent flat tax and abolition of the dept of education, the EPA, and the dept of the interior. But guess what? it ain't gonna happen.

So meanwhile some of us have suggestions for using market incentives to accomplish some of these goals and to get rid of some of the more onerous regulations. And what do we get from you? A rather unhelpful suggestion.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

while I am smiling like the Cheshire cat :) Do you know what I do for a living? probably not since I don't talk about myself, I realize how boring it would be to others. I research stocks and manage porfolios. I AM aware of what is going on, and have no problem making money off government and public foolishness. Monsanto, Potash, Deere, and others have bin huge winners from ethanol, I have been riding them.

You say it is a pipe dream to believe in lower taxes and small government. I say it is YOUR philosophy that is unhelpful. Last time I checked this was a conservative and Republican blog. I am amazed at those who buy into the theory of man made global warming. I don't even think they know what the term "theory" means. It is like the "theory" of evolution. De facto, theory means something unproven.

btw, the USSR went from Communism to a flat tax in a decade or so, and you think it is so outlandish that we could never acheive such a feat? It reminds me of the old saying, "lead, follow, or get out to the way".

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

are you going to take up arms against the government? I might be all for that. What is your plan to get rid of ethanol subsidies?
Oh thats right you are making money off of them.

BTW I don't buy into global warming at all. But I still think that if we HAVE TO have taxes, (I suppose you will admit that we have to have some taxes) I would much rather they be consumption taxes on raw materials bought from other nations.

That way you make an incentive to lower the wealth flowing out of the nation. It is also a much more efficient tax than income taxes.

But don't mind me, just go ahead and sit back an laugh at us and count your money big guy. We just might not pay much attention to you anymore since you have nothing important to say.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

often result in keeping money out.

because I am not calling on tariffs in general, or tariffs on manufactured goods which is what we often had in the past.

I am calling for the replacement of income taxes with taxes on (mostly) imported fuel. And at the same time doing away with all the stupid subsidies and artificial limits the congress has right now on fuel and transportation policy.

It would have several results. More freedom of choice for the public. More help for poor workers who use public transportation.
It would make local fuels and alternate energy more attractive. And it might boost the economy since people will have the ability to pay less tax if they want to use less fuel.

Of course it won't ever happen. It is hard to convince anyone to change. People have become quite comfortable with what we have now. Regressive FICA taxes, High marginal income tax rates, hidden tariffs on many foods. Highly subsidised agriculture. Huge artificial price increases due to government regulation.

It's a mess, but it's a familiar mess.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

who procure all sorts of resources fom outside the U.S. will have an incentive not to bring those resources into the U.S.

The U.S. would truly have to be energy independent because we wouldn't be able to effectively bid on energy and commodity resources from outside the U.S.

On the other hand, since we would be using pre-tax dollars . . .

I guess the hardest parts would be:
(1) setting the proper rate in an attempt to make it revenue neutral (presuming that would be rough goal)
(2) avoiding wild fluctuations
(3) compensating for gradual energy independence

to get agreement. just upthread a few posts you said: "would be a simple tax (not a percentage) on BTU's obtained from fossil fuels."

I don't see the "foreign fuel" qualifier. I see someone who believes in taxing for "green" purposes. BTW, there is no such thing as foreign fuel. There is one oil market, it is an international market. How on earth do you think taxing foreign fuel will help our economy? Would our oil companies not just raise prices because their competition was priced out of the market? oh, I forgot, we are going to steal all their profits. sheesh, I expected more from you Kyle, I also expected a hell of a lot more of a response than from little ol' me.

btw, I will drop this, I have had worse fights here before and they are long forgotten. Hopefully you don't hold a grudge, I know I don't.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

the question I have put to you several times. What is your best solution.

I mean, we have a real mess on our hands right now, surely you see that. Dependence on foreign oil, high income taxes, huge manipulation of markets by the government. economic stagnation.
High traffic density and pollution in our cities.

I, at least offer a possible solution to some of these matters, not perfect but its something.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

first of all, of course I am against income taxes, but you said a flat tax is unreasonable. I would be open to a consumption tax and even some sort of luxury tax for high priced items. I think food, fuel, homes, etc should not be taxed at all.

1) we need to drill drill drill. Get the government out of the drill banning business and let our companies find the oil on our own land and oceans.

2) we need to stop this carbon capping crapola, it is a plan to kill the coal industry. As larry Kudlow says, "we are the Saudi Arabia of coal". Our Congress hates coal, but it is the fuel WE have in abundance and technology is making it cleaner, and available for more power uses.

3) nuclear power- we invented the stuff but we barely make use of it. We have not built a nuclear plant in decades. The much maligned French use nuke for 70 percent of their energy needs, take a train in France and you will end up seeing a reactor sooner or later. Our nuclear subs have been running on it for decades with not a single death. Even Three Mile Island caused no deaths, it is all media hype.

4) Solar technology, fuel cells, wind power. These are all great alternatives but the will not even come close to rivaling oil and coal for probably 50 years. They can be part of the solution, but anyone who thinks they are some amazing answer is just wrong.

The key to all this is that the government needs to get out of the way. We do not need the government to pursue these options, what the heck do they know about it? Just let private industry and capitalism work. I doubt many companies think it is in the best interest of their shareholders to destroy the planet. The sad part is so many, even on our side our buying into the idea that we need government action. I would rather have government inaction, than action.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I would also tax imported oil to hasten the conversion to coal and nuclear.(after we take off the handcuffs). And although I prefer consumption taxes, a flat tax would be almost as good.

But it's all moot, nothing like that is going to happen. Maybe we should overthrow the government.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The northeast doesn't want to have any drilling or refineries? Fine - tack on $1/gallon for gas and heating oil to help pay for it. That's how the libs like to "offset" their "carbon footprint" by paying someone else right? CA/OR/WA don't want drilling off their coast? Fine - add $1/gallon and let it go to LA or TX or whoever is allowing drilling to offset their "environmental protection" activities.

Because the government got involved in the first place. Giving it more power and money to play with isn't going to help.

putting the hurt on people who want everyone else to do the dirty work while they change nothing isn't the answer either

You are saying we must have some taxes on carbon, and I am saying we do not. You are talking about overthrowing the government, where that non sequitor came from I have no idea. So "we" will not listen to me anymore? ahh, if "we" means you, then that is fine with me.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I at no time called for a tax on carbon, just the opposite, I am trying to offer an alternative.

I talked about overthrowing the government because the gist of your criticisms seemed to be. "Shut up because conservatives should be opposed to everything!" Then you offered nothing positive to the discussion.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I suppose it was an error to oppose that in the 70s?

Astrophysicists make terrible meteorologists.

Gingrich is simply saying that if the majority of the world's climate scientists say we've got a problem, we are making a mistake if we just ignore what they are saying simply because we don't like its implications.

Gingrich has NOT recommended the type of Draconian interference in the free market that Pelosi has. He has made some realistic recommendations. But he HAS said that as a nation, we can't just blissfully ignore what the scientists tell us. America's preeminent position in the world is largely due to her support for free scientific inquiry, and the respect she has given for the best knowledge that science can provide.

If hundreds of the world's climate scientists say human-caused global warming is very real, and you ignore them and cherry pick a few dissenters just so you don't have to deal with the problem, that's not science. There were a few dissenters who said the atomic bomb would never work or that the Mercury space program would never get off the ground. Aren't we glad we didn't listen to them, even though we would have saved money in the short term if we had.

And one more thing: One way or the other, the West is going to have to find ways to stop pumping their money into the pockets of the Muslim oil sheiks of the Middle East. If you don't like the global warming reason, I suggest you focus on the fact that Saudi Arabia now spends more money promoting Islamism than the Soviet KGB used to spend promoting Communism. ExxonMobil and TotalFinaElf don't care whether the Saudis and the Iranians get richer. It doesn't bother them or the marketplace. But it bothers me.

One part of free trade I definitely don't like, is the part where it enriches the type of people who caused 9-11. It's just like the infamous example of the U.S. selling scrap iron to Japan, which they turned into torpedo planes and sent right back to us at Pearl Harbor.

"Gingrich is simply saying that if the majority of the world's climate scientists say we've got a problem, we are making a mistake if we just ignore what they are saying simply because we don't like its implications."

I know that Newt has got to be smarter than that. I know that Newt has got to believe that these pro man-made global warming believing scientist are just as politically and financially motivated as Nancy Pelosi herself. There is no such thing as science by consensus. It's either a fact that all scientist can verify as such, or it's not. The belief in man-made climate change is a complete 100% liberal Democratic agenda item, and by doing this commercial Newt is just caving in to their agenda.

I'll agree with you that something may be a fact or may not be a fact- such as, humans have 23 chromosomes or the sun is the center of the solar system. However, much science is advanced by consensus. Someone gets new data, publishes a report with his/her conclusions and support/detraction from other researchers in the field and the report makes its way into the general body of knowledge. It's not uncommon to find dissent on any issue. For example, I'm working with cladistics of mackerel sharks, following up on other research done that suggests Great White Sharks may be evolutionary descendants of mako sharks (genus Isurus) rather than megatooth sharks (Genera Carcharodon and Carcharocles-- think Jaws). This is supported strongly by both genetic analysis (specifically mtDNA) and morphometrics (comparing shapes). I believe, personally, that the new research is correct and replacing older work that hasn't been challenged since Linnaeus originated it. I suspect within a decade scientists will start referring to white sharks as Isurus carcharodon. However, until this becomes a consensus stance of paleontology & marine biology, it won't happen. There's a lot of catching on that needs to be done.

______________________
Out with the Oak King.

Theories are put forth, they are tested, they are revised, and then eventually we arrive at a working consensus which is supported by many accepted facts, proven by experimentation/observation.

Global Alarmism does not match that criteria:
(1) It began with a theory.
(2) It was promulgated by computer modeling.
(3) Facts were cherry picked to fit the theory.
(4) When papers were put out in the scientific journals they were simultaneously released to the media in hysterical terms.
(5) Then critics were slammed for being deniers or working for big oil.
(6) Nothing much has been tested, and contrary evidence has been slighted.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

This issue has become way too political. Some radical groups on the Left use this issue to push for their anti-capitalist ideology. Some business interests ont the Right fund faux-scientific studies to avoid having to make meaningful changes.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/06/ninety_percent_of_enviro...

If our politicians werent' bought and paid for by special interest groups on both sides of the spectrum, the public would probably have better information on which to base meaningful and cost-effective changes. Instead we have no-nothing alarmists on one side and anti-science denyers on the other. Sad.

The alarmist are the ones trying to attack our economic system and trying to gain as much control over our lives as possible.

IF, there has been some overreaction on the other side it is understandable.

Perverting science, using people's fear against them. This is nothing new to the left. Remember Silent Spring?, the Ozone Hole? New Ice Age? All the sturm and drang against nuclear energy. (that has proven very helpful to us hasn't it)

Not to mention the attacks on oil exploration. And guess what?

If global warming is somehow disproven, they will invent something new to try and scare us with. They have to, since marxism failed, it is all they have.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And the deniers are trying to protect their revenue and wealth. If GW happens to be true, they will claim ignorance and the rest of us will pay the price.

Remember the tobacco companies and their denials of the consensus scientific evidence that showed that their product caused cancer and that they manipulated nicotine levels to increase the addictiveness of their product? Should we have given equal credence to the tobacco scientists and their
industry funded studies as we did to other health studies?

Because of the propaganda from both sides, we are missing out on a chance to enact sensible, free-market solutions to mitigate this problems. So, one side proposes an potentially economically harmful and probably useless cap and trade sytem and the other side puts their head in the sand and tries to ignore the evidence.

There is little doubt that we are in a period of global warming (today's weather and one or two year trends don't negate that). There is some evidence that human activity has caused some of the increase though how much and what we can do to change that is in dispute. We can't "wait for all the science to come in" before we take some action. However, we can't assume that we know all the evidence either and enact drastic, government mandated economically disasterous policies. Instead, we should take a look at our options, conduct cost-benefit analysis on all of the proposals and then let the market create solutions that both mitigate the global warming problem and have a net positive or neutral economic impact for all of us.

You are also ignoring the fact that MOST global warming critics are not funded by energy companies.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

45 trillion dollars vs. possibility of global temperature increase of one degree celsius

You have answered your own argument.

GW isn't even worth MENTIONING if you factor in the costs of the solution

I don't know if the numbers you wrote are factual, but the point is that we aren't doing true cost benefit analysis and we are making drastic decisions (pro and con) based on a bunch of hooey. For example (hypothetical of course), ff the cost of relocating people from the coasts or developing new agricultural areas to mitigate the effects of a 1 degree increase in temperature is $3 trillion, then we better be sure that any proposed solution does not negatively impact the global economy by more than $3 trillion.

Actually, I do, really, from Bjorn Lomborg and friends even:

Even as the U.S. Senate debates a vast new tax and spend regime in the name of fighting climate change, a more instructive argument was taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. Some of the world's leading economists met last week to decide how to do the most good in a world of finite resources.

Scarcity is a core economic concept, though politicians and even many economists prefer to ignore it. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to be spent on every problem, so choices have to be made. The question addressed by the Copenhagen Consensus Center is what investments would do the most good for the most people. The center's blue-ribbon panel of economists, including five Nobel laureates, weighed more than 40 proposals to improve the world by spending a total of $75 billion over the next four years.

What would do the most good most economically? Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for malnourished children.

Number two? A successful outcome to the Doha Round of global free-trade talks. (Someone please tell Barack Obama.)

Global warming mitigation? It ranked 30th, or last, right behind global warming mitigation research and development. (Someone please tell John McCain.)

The cost-benefit analysis takes all the current proposed global warming fixes and stomps them more effectively than Monty Python's foot.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Follow the Money! Who profits from AGW? Carbon Credits -- Cap and Trade -- A Little History Lesson

__________
When I was your age....heck, I was NEVER your age

So far, the vast majority of pro-AGW side prefers to question the motives of skeptics instead of engaging them properly - that the tobacco industry corrupted scientists to protect their profits does not automatically translate to all AGW skeptics are bought and paid shills for the energy industry.

That's the main bone of contention for me - the introduction of the idea that determining one's sources of funding is a shortcut to deciding the quality of his work.

How the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, etc. react and interact withe each other to changes in temperature either due to the sun or the release of Earth trapped carbon in the air is nowhere near settled - but over and over again, Gore and his acolytes demand that "the debate is over!"

The fact of the matter is that one or the other could be right. Ready! Fire! Aim! is not smart even if newspapers are shrieking "Crisis!" in the headlines.

The pro-AGW side simply has better PR and is staffed mostly by people whose ideological fellows have a stranglehold on academia like the Church had in Galileo's time.

That's the main bone of contention for me - the introduction of the idea that determining one's sources of funding is a shortcut to deciding the quality of his work.

How the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, etc. react and interact withe each other to changes in temperature either due to the sun or the release of Earth trapped carbon in the air is nowhere near settled - but over and over again, Gore and his acolytes demand that "the debate is over!"

That's the main thing for me. When this issue first started to make a big splash, I was kind of weary. It seemed like some R's were jumping off on an ideological binge by saying it was all nonsense before all the facts were in.

As time went on, however, it became frighteningly clear that, in fact, it was exactly the opposite.

You don't need to declare the debate over if you've won it. You only need to do that if you can't win it if it goes on.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

That's the emotional propaganda stuff I was referring to. In general, the debate over climate science in the political arena is mostly vacuous.

My only point in pointing out the extent of energy company funded anti-AGW studies is to show that this is not a one sided issue.

So who exactly would have funded the science that embarassed Al Gore and revealed as the hack that he is if the energy industry hadn't? It certainly wouldn't have emerged from NASA, on the taxpayer dime, during the 8 years Gore served as VPOTUS.

At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.

The GW crowd has disabled the ability to take poor performance of their model as evidence against their viewpoint. Temperatures going down instead of up? Well, it's because GW causes "variation" in temperatures. That's not science. Not even close. That's the current equivalent of Monty Python Witch Detection Methodology.

---------------------------------
Oil: Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

I like your Monty Python Witch Detection Methodology analogy. That describes perfectly these man-made global warming alarmists scientist.

"global warming" in summer and "climate change" in winter. Anyway, it seems more Republicans are buying the excrement. I am not sure if it is just ignorance, pandering, or both. My money is on both.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Lets face it. The media will only glorify those scientists that help push their shared agenda. Anyone else is deemed ignorant and blind.

Limousine Liberals would have less traffic to fight if they can get all the lower/middle class people out of their cars.

---------------------------------
Oil: Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

every couple weeks. Someone above had a very good idea about holding the dem's feet to the fire about what they would do to lower gas prices.
It has been said....To conservatives, seeing is believing.
To liberals, believing is seeing.

You can announce that you plan to drill, but the preparations and investments required to drill in ANWR and in the deep sea areas off the continental shelf will take years to come together. At that time, demand will likely be up and supply from current and proposed oil deposits will not make up the difference. The solution is not to drill more but rather to get off of oil as a primary fuel source as fast as possible. If we are going to invest time and money in solutions, it should be in nuclear, wind, solar and other energy sources.

said ten years ago. Even the liberal Jay Leno called them out on that one.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

For starters, 'it wont help in time to save us any anguish' that's what the Marxist-Democrats said 8 years ago. If not for them, we'd be in full production now. We ABSOLUTELY would not be having the media-manufactured crisis we are having now. Second, they can get it going a whole lot faster than is commonly thought, and third, every large bit helps.

The known reserves will last us as far as the eye can see. The proper solution is, on the one hand, DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, NUKE, NUKE, NUKE (as in build nuke plants), and on the other hand, continue to develop those outstanding alternatives that are showing signs of success.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

However, even at full production, ANWR is a drop in the bucket. We are not going to drill our way out of this dilema. There is not enough domestic oil to make a significant impact on global supply and meet the increasing global demand. We need to proceed with building nuclear power plants, invest in biofuels (NOT corn based), and then use solar, wind and others to supplement. Oil is a commodity in decline. We can't continue to depend on it as a primary energy source. We can't continue the massive transfer of wealth to hostile nations. I quite frankly that many Conservatives want to drill just to "stick it to the lefty tree-huggers".

You have just been stabbed in your arm, the medic tells you he will get you back to the base for some of that neat spray on skin but you may bleed out before you get there.

The medic also says we can just put on a tourniquet and you won't bleed out but you might lose your arm.

Then another medic wants to slap a bandage on you and get you to the neat spray on skin, and you won't bleed out or lose your limb.

Which choice are you gonna make? Obvious right?

Well it is the same with energy, the dems want a tourniquet(tax consumption out of existence), moderates want that neat spray on skin (alt energy) hoping we won't bleed out during the ride, and conservatives want to use the bandage (drill here drill now) until we can get to the spray on skin in order to at least control the bleeding.

I am sure you also want the bandage/spray skin option, but you usually put the spray before the bandage in your argument. This gives a false impression that you are a AGW truther, instead of a logical principled conservative.

Anyhow that's my take.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

is followed, then you shouldn't even mention solar and wind because they will NEVER be enough to be the solution. We need reliable power. Solar/wind are ancillary sources that can augment our power supply, but they are not the "solution." Moreover, Solar and wind totalled together are less than ANWR.

We have the years it take to drill for oil, and we should use them instead of presuming that we will have some stunning innovation that will provide an economical fuel source for vehicles.

People like you have been using the "it will take X years" to get the oil anyway, so why drill now. 10 years from now, the same argument will be used.

For transportion purposes, we need a liquified fuel. Nuclear, solar, and wind are NOT going to be the solutions with respect to vehicles.

I never hear this mentioned.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/bakken-oil-trade/658

The trouble is that to expand this reserve - there needs to be capital to invest - plus new refineries. I still believe the law of supply and demand applies. We need to make incentives to invest (not excessive capital gains taxes or any windfall profits taxes). This is what pays for this risky investment. But do think we need to look at alternative energy sources that do not create chaos with the the food supply. Obama would make this situation far worse with his taxation!

the USGS must be completely inept.
The USGS survey in 1998 (OFR 98-34) summarized ANWR.

"At a market
price of $24 per barrel, there is a 95 percent probability of at least 2.0 BB of economically recoverable oil and a 5-percent probability of at least 9.4 BB.
The mean or expected value is at least 5.2 BB of economically recoverable oil at $24 per barrel."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/

Notice that last item... $24 per barrel.As the price goes up, would one presume that the economically recoverable amount goes up?

Now, enough of the real world. Lets what if....
What if Bill Clinton had not vetoed drilling in ANWR 13 years ago?
We would be 3 years into production.
GWB would be able to tell the Saudi King to kiss his instead of kissing his.

I really only desire to educate and eradicate some misinformation, not pick on anyone. and
-disclaimer:I own no oil stock.

More disturbing to me , however , is the frequency with which I see unsubstantiated quotations from the book of gore popping up on the blog. Repeating urban myths without checking is fine if your name is Dan Rather, but I see the individuals on Redstate as responsible "journalists", more interested in "what's right", than "who's right."

Regards

I agree that if we had started the process 13 years ago, we perhaps would have a few hundred thousand barrels a year more coming out of Alaska. The US economy consumes 20.8 mm barrels per day according to the CIA World Factbook. A recent EIA report optimistically projects an average daily output of 780k barrels/day in 2027. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

Plus, since oil is fungible, OPEC and other oil producing nations always have the leverage to lower production in order to keep prices high. Since we can never drill enough to eliminate our dependency on important oil(we don't have the supply), it makes more sense to just stop using as much of this limited resource as soon as possible.

mentioning solar or wind from this point forward.

Neither amounts to a even a drop in the bucket when it comes to transportation fuel.

I am sick of environmentalists dismissing drilling for oil or mining coal as a remedy, while at the same time talking about wind or solar like those technologies are capable of making a dent in the next 10 years.

A little rhetorical consistency please.

I am not just saying that because I think it will make enviros turn interesting shades of red. (that is an added benefit though)

solution. I want clean energy and support reductions in carbon emissions and particulates as a whole. However, from a national security standpoint, I would readily support coal gasification as an option.

I've read several reports in the past that showed that converting coal to gasoline would be economically viable if oil got to $60-80 per barrel. Since it seems like we are stuck with $100/barrel oil for the foreseeable future, why don't we see some significant activity in this industry?

comments on another thread to that effect. The only quibble I have with that is that while cost effective solar is a long term proposition, it is a domestic, sustainable, renewable and clean resource. Wind, of course, will always be a supplemental source of power given the fact that it is dependent on, well, wind.

For transportation, I think our best mid-term solution is electric powered (plug-in) automobiles that are fueled by energy generated by nuclear power plants. In the short term, I'm afraid the best solution is less driving, more energy efficient homes, and automobiles with better fuel economy. That means, bye-bye SUVs and large cars and trucks for most Americans. I do think we may need a straight carbon tax to make gasoline gradually more expensive with most of the revenue rebated to tax payers via a reduction in the payroll tax and some of the proceeds used to fund public transportation and alternative energy research.

Let's go to school for a minute,

Once upon a time,there was a great country with a great leader who had unequaled success in renewing his country.
This fine fellow pointed out that the tax code was for financing a few essential services, never for influencing behavior.

Please do not fall into that trap....

Regards

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him. . . . But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure. R-R

Save the Rainforest Save the Bioshpere Burn COAL !!!

Their argument is analogous to a demand in 1878 to get everyone to stop transporting themselves by horseback because there should be a more modern means of transport by machine instead of by horse. Now in 1908 after Henry Ford had started Ford Motor Co. and designed the Model T the change did happen in transportation. You can't force a change just because you wish it were so.


Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

we were running out of horses and if the few nations willing to sell us these horses also wanted to kill us.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan

Just imagine Manhattans traffic but with horses on fifth avenue in august. You want to talk about an emissions problem hooh boy.

Does that mean partial relief is no relief?

The Alaska pipeline produces 900,000/ day compared to the projected 780,000 /day from ANWR, but I never thought of it as insignificant.

The OPEC countries can only increase their capacity by 1.9 mbb/d if DOE projections are correct.
Non-OPEC supply is projected to increase .6 mbbl/d in 2008
The Red Chinese demand will increase .4 mbbl/d and the rest of world should increase another .8 mbbl/d.

Sounds like a lot, but things seldom go according to projection.

There are a lot "if's." If Iraq and Nigeria stay stable. If Chavez doesn't get loonier and on and on. Any of these "if's" could lead to reduced supply.
Should the supply be reduced, the current energy problems will only grow.( Ask a trucker.)

Not to mention we are being held energy hostages by people who hate us.
Certainly not an enviable position. Very bad national security policy.

The worst solution I can see is sit on our hands and do nothing. Crippling our economy to "hurry up" alternative energy simply won't work. Less money does not lead to more research.

Your aversion to oil is somewhat obvious, and that's OK. There is some logic to it, but how and when are critical points.
That's why there is chocolate and vanilla, but don't expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon when oil prices are causing havoc in the economy. Intead of the alternative energy initiatives some expected from high oil prices, there is pressure on congress to drill, This, I think, will bewilder some of my overly green friends. I confess, I am enjoying their confusion just a little too much.

Just as Bernake still believes in Phillips Curves, (long ago discredited, see Forbes Magazine, current issue), there will be those who want to dump oil before an alternative is established.

The alternatives will also take a few (perhaps many, excepting nuclear, which is established technology),years to get up to speed.

If you would, give us an idea of what you mean by "just stop using."

You like numbers, Here's a riddle
How many bald eagles were sliced up in the CA windmill farms since their inception?

Best Regards

Does that mean partial relief is no relief?

A mathematician and an engineer are taken to the door of a room. At the other end of the room is a beautiful naked lady. They are told they can make as many moves toward her as they want, but each move can only be for half the remaining distance to her. The mathematician says, "Forget it. I'll never get there!" The engineer says, "That's okay. I'll get close enough!"

(Disclaimer: I was in school in the pre-PC 70s when a teacher told this one.)

An engineer, a mathematician, and a physicist are staying for the night in a hotel. A fire breaks out in each of their rooms

The physicist awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's wine list does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher, he puts out the fire with one, short, well placed burst, and then crawls back into bed and goes back to sleep.

The engineer awakes, sees the fire, makes some careful observations, and on the back of the hotel's room service list (pizza menu) does some quick calculations. Grabbing the fire extinguisher (and adding a factor of safety of 5), he puts out the fire by hosing down the entire room several times over, and then crawls into his soggy bed and goes back to sleep.

The mathematician awakes, sees the cooling embers of the fire from one of his neighbors, fans it back into a roaring inferno, observes that "this reduces to a previously solved problem", crawls into his warm bed, and goes back to sleep.

It would be about 100K bbls per day, minimum.
The edge of having a shortage, with demand chasing supply, and a glut, of supply chasing demand, is very thin.
And if you think even the thugocracies enjoying the >$100 oil can afford to slow down production for any significant period of time, you are kidding your self.

our idiot overlords in Congress, too: We're through being docile about this crap. We want our country back and we're not taking "no" for an answer this time.

The free exchange of ideas inevitably yields both heat and light.

Forget that the GOP has been calling for nuclear for decades now.

And maybe you also haven't been paying attention to the fact that they are calling for oil for the short term needs. Then we would use the revenues from oil to invest in alternative sources of energy. But that doesn't fit with your KnownFacts™.