I haven't the foggiest idea how big of a problem global warming is, whether we are looking at a degree or two difference long term, just a return to the temperatures of the Medieval warming period, or something far more drastic and dangerous. I don't know how much of it is caused by human activity. I don't think you do either, though you might vehemently disagree with this.
What I do know is that the people who have the most oil for sale (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela etc) do not have America's best interest at heart. They are flush with oil profits and in position to cause harm to our interests. If we can reduce our oil consumption---this funding of our enemies, it would be in our interest to do so. We could do this by finding something other than gas to put in our cars. Thus for national security, we should maximize our efforts to change our economy over to one based on renewable energy.
It so happens that the various forms of renewable energy produce fewer greenhouse emissions than our current fuels do. Thus by doing the right thing for national security, we do the right thing for the environment. Let's encourage our Unity08 nominees to push a Manhattan Project/Apollo Program type program to get this done.
I think that you can get 70 or more percent of Americans to agree with the energy direction I have stated above. As the party is called Unity08, we should probably not go farther than that on environmental proposals. Every step you take farther than that, such as elaborate carbon tax schemes, carbon offsets (or carbon indulgences as I call them), and Kyoto type restrictions tend to be much more divisive and you would lose the eponymous Unity of the party name.
Make it about security and cost. We can push that it may cost more to develop, but then could be a stable commodity, unlike oil. I don't think there is anyone out there that would disagree when put that way, and as you say, the deaper you dig, the more divided it becomes.
It would also be good for the economy by could create good paying jobs and companies could make money by selling this tech to other developing countries like china. This is a win win for all concerned, except oil companies. They would be forced to get on board and start investing some of those profits in new techniques.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Though I have seen this technology develop separately. It can be great together. I always seen the opportunity to invest in hydrogen power, even though it can be tough to make because of the high energy needed. But what about working on better solar technology so the energy from that can be used to split water to for storage as a fuel and used where and when needed. I understand this will not happen tomorrow, but if we could encourage government/private research, an opportunity for a whole new industry could exist in a decade or so. I hope energy companies would be wise to expand their investments in this field.
I do agree that we should put much more effort into developing alternative fuels - and I think we should wean ourselves away from buying energy products from people who hate us.
But any movement on this issue is going to be tied to putting a cost to the price of energy; not just the price at the pump, or at the meter, but the TRUE COST.
What is the cost to the environment? What is the cost in blood and treasure? What is the cost in terms of our relationship in the world community?
If the price of corn goes up because of ethanol-based fuel, how does the higher price of a tortilla affect a family's decision to stay put in Mexico, or to illegally cross the border into the US? At first that argument may seem farfetched, but think about it for a minute.
If you can't afford to eat, then you can't afford to live. And if we were put into that position through a circumstance that we had no control over, we would take steps to solve our problem. How do you factor a scenario like this into the cost of energy?
We use more corn, and the price of corn goes up. The price of tortillas goes up. The pollution cost also goes up; every bushel of corn exacts a price in terms of air and water quality. Where do we factor that into the discussion?
The real debate about energy comes down to cost; what price can we afford, and what daily inconvenience are we willing to deal with to be energy independent...
If we want security, we will have to pay for it - and the security issue isn't really a seperate question - it is (and it should be)factored into the debate about the true price of energy.
Global warming is no different - we can ignore it for a while, but when we talk about energy, sooner or later we have to factor in the cost of global warming.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Your speaking of one type of energy. There are many ideas out there that have been suppressed by the big oil companies. I'm not an expert, but do you really believe we've had no other alternatives for what 30 or more years now. We was once the leader in new technologies. Where is that leadership now? I don't believe there is none, it is being suppressed. Why else would we be giving money to the oil companies and not to the researchers to develop new tech.
Why has solar tech been stalled to the past 10 years? I don't all the different types off hand, but I remember reading about a number of different options. I will try and find those articles and post them.
I do agree this is not a separate issue, energy Independence and national security are related. I think the fact that nothing has been done is a telling sign of the indifference our government has about national security and the influence of money.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
I'm not advocating for big oil...
In fact, I am saying that oil-based enegy comes at a much higher price than we realize. I believe we have to start building smaller, more efficient autos that average mpg figures in the high thirties-low forties.
However,
Alternative forms of energy have a high price - mainly because most alt forms of energy don't have the same thermal efficiency as oil-based/coal-based energy. Solar technology is much better than it was ten years ago, but the pricing has (pardon the pun) gone through the roof.
I am totally in favor of cleaner, US made energy, and I think we should spend whatever it takes to develop our own sources of clean energy.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
I think the best way wean America off the oil mainlining would be to get the price up to say 4 or 5 dollars a gallon over the next 5 years or so thru a graduated Fed Tax that could divert funds to other basic and applied energy research. And Then let the markets provide the adjustment - they the markets will do that adjustment and much more efficiently than many government mandates. At THAT level people will adjust their driving and gas/energy buying habits. THAT oil price hike would be the biggest incentive to going more solar, wind, bio, cellulosic ethanol, nuke, battery, mice power or whatever IMHO - much more than say subsidies andclunking along at the present low (in historical terms) price. Plus I can think of nothing better than $5 gallon gas to put our present inane "fund the oil dictators" policy finally in kybo.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I would not favor the tax on the gas; rather a very very highly graduated annual gasoline passenger vehicle registration fee. That would start at about $8000 per year at 15mpg city rating and scaled upward to about $20000 per year at a rating of 5 mpg. Credit for low milage could temper the following years cost of registration. Deisel can also be scaled but a load factor would have to be included in the rate ajustment.
If the process was mandated federal, it could hardly be consideredan unfunded mandate if the revenues stay in the state. That would be particularly good if the states removed thier other taxes on fuel to elevate these fees.
Bill"for what we are together"
personalrights@sbcglobal.net
What kind of administrative costs/complexity would that entail to implement that at the state and local level? How complicated would such a program be (load factor/rate adjustments)?? I'd like the KISS principle if we can. That is an interesting option to throw in the valid/doable options mix though. Anyway Bill I think yours and mine are better than mandating CAFE standards and all. If the price remains relatively low people will just drive more with the new gas sippers and we will not do that much to reduce imports and wean off oil and be back at square one.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The processes are in place now between state inspections and registrations. Take the data...they do anyway....take the money....they do anyway. I don't think the first book has been written on this idea so may be any response is speulation...but any taxing that is not a trade off of other taxes is going to destroy more than it creates. It's much easier and voter friendly to trade taxes at the state level where regional issues can be put in the balance.
Bill"for what we are together"
personalrights@sbcglobal.net
Deliver the cure for the Disease - Partisanship Paralysis, I'll keep Pounding away at this UNTIL I GET THE CONCENSUS IT TAKES TO MAKE IT HAPPEN !! NOT ONE OF YOU HAVE OFFERED A SOUND ARGUMENT OR A BETTER SOLUTION !!!!!!
POPO
What you asking takes a knowledge of the law, which most do not have. I don't know enough about what you suggest to make an intelligent response because I don't know the legality of it. I'm not saying it doesn't sound good, but I believe it is something you the leaders must hash out. I only can remark on what I believe is wrong, it will be up to the candidates to make any suggestion made here a reality.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
I think what we need is to maybe provide to the delegates a range of doable options full costed out as much as possible on many of these issues. Want to do nuclear? This what it will take. Want to do wind power/synfuels? Want to do full energy independence?? Want to do universal health care? Want to make Social Security/Medicare actuarially sustainable for 60 years? This is the best-estimate cost of what such an an option will entail revenue wise and oragizational/implementation wise where the rubber meets the road,etc. This is HOW we can do it and WHAT it will cost Implementation is 90% of the policy success game here in Washington. Lay it all out for the delegates, candidates and nation to decide on. Voters frustration in the past 30 years is that they see all these wonderful policies promulgated and the implementation is found wanting or the "hidden" costs are sprung on them out of the blue.
I think we need to get away from platforms (like the other parties have foisted upon us) that just lay out one policy scenario that is not costed out (that will come later)and implementation maens are not delineated. And as a result these traditional platforms are simply feel good palp and not worth the paper they are written on and ARE the most disregarded/ignored documents in American Politics. We here at Unity need a different typeof platform that provides a RANGE of centrist doable options on all mega-issues and maybe a range of TRADEOFFS where delegates, candidates and ultimately the American electorate that shoes clearly that policy ends do entail means and costs so they can maybe choose the best mix of tradeoffs/options (means)to achieve the desired ends.
My hope is that such a different platform that could result will be better equiped acknowlegde upfront the costs/means/ the how and get voter buy-in an effectively bridge the vast ends-means disconnects that our present policies in government suffer from. We need a platform that at least realistically attempts to match our wonderful "Oughta dos" with our "Can dos". "Ought in implies can". Our platform and candidates need to be the best to sync both those up and present tothe American people who are are reasonable and are not DUMB and can handle the truth if parties and candidates with true political courage are willing and able to give it to them. http://unity08.com/node/1016
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
What your asking for is what I hear over and over again, give us details. The current political parties state the stand on an issue but go no further. I want to know what you intend to do and how you intend to do it, including what we will gain and loss as a result of that policy. I think most Americans what this as well. I just put what you said is more simple words, I think.
The only way to do this is to get away from 30 second sound bits that currently dominates the political arena today.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Much like maybe a Business Plan but on issues - tying up and bridging the ends and the means to effectively address the impinging problems and stop the can-kicking Wizard's curtain charade. It would be totally up front and honest as much as possible with the voter and give our candidates at least something to sink their teeth into and add to. It could be a real differentiator from the other parties' palp, could really make Unity stand out and mean something, and above all could really make a difference in actually effectively addressing the nation's problems!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I don't want to scare you - but if you are seriously interested in understanding how much like a House Of Cards - America now is ..
Click on newsmax.com, they publish reports from the best sources from America and Overseas ..
Its plain language - they don't mince words ..
Don't get bogged down in details - just get an idea of the Extent Of Our Indebtedness and the Fact The Bubble Can Burst At Any Time ..
And then remember WHO WE HAVE TO THANK FOR THIS - THE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I THAT WERE SO BUSY ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF OUR LABOR - we made it easy for the Government to play fast and loose with our money and our lives ..
Don't think for one minute - just electing new members is going to change a damn thing, we either demand our right to establish reasonable and proper controls - before the Elections OR FORGET IT AND GET ULCERS AND MAYBE WORSE in 2024/10 etc etc ..
Read my response to Jeff today - about what can be accomplished How & Why ..
Hang in there - we'll get this done one way or another ..
popo
I'm sorry Popo, that is a way right wing paper. Not my style.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
My post is a specific response to a specific topic. The topic revolves around energy independence and security...
Peter,
John milligan says you are a good man - and I believe this to be true. I know you believe in your contract, and I hav e read it more than once. I have been on your website (today, in fact), and I understand your point.
I just don't believe that your document/contract is constitutional; I've said this before, and I don't know how to put it in any plainer language.
I disagree with you on your idea to hold representatives to account. If the document isn't constitutional, then it isn't enforcable. It's that simple.
I believe we should hold representatives to account at the ballot box.
This year, every house seat is up for election, 30% of the senate seats are up for election, and there is a wide-open presidential race with no incumbent running, and no sitting vice-president running with the de-facto power of the White House factored into the equation.
No employment contract would be as effective at reigning in government as an election where the re-election ratio fell to 50% - down from the 90% that is currently the norm.
You have presented this idea to Doug Bailey at least twice; he will either implement your idea, or he won't.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
I march to a different drummer than most people - I've found by relying on my natural instincts and experience - I CAN & HAVE changed the way things are done ..
I changed the way The Defense Department Deals with Small Business on Government Contracts - in the face of much opposition from some heavy hitters ..
I'm a lousy debater - I don't read newspapers - I'm stubborn as hell and not a good listener ..
The key here - and I seem unable to communicate this to enough people - is : When The Stakes Are High Enough - And The Conditions Are Right - CHANGE EFFECTIVELY PRESENTED & SUPPORTED CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED against all kinds of opposition ..
Let's examine the criteria we have in this case : THE STAKES COULDN'T BE HIGHER - the Conditions Couldn't Be More Urgent & Demanding ..
Our Constitution DEMANDS THAT WE THE PEOPLE HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT ACCOUBTABLE FOR CONDUCT THAT THREATENS OUR LIVES, LIBERTIES AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS .. Nowhere does the Constitution Say : In The Face Of Immenent Danger - We Must Wait To Act Until The Next Election !!
Jeff, I don't have to tell you, we live in a complex, violent and rapidly changing world - our Constitution and Bill Of Rights Properly Interpreted : provides us both the opportunity and the responsibility, to act in the face of threats to our Nation's Social and Economic WElfare and Security ..
If you don't agree that we are in fact - facing grave threats to our Social and Economic Welfare and Security, I can direct you to an Overwhelming List Of Both Visible and some Not So Visible - Sources Of Evidence to support my claim.
Jeff, if Humanity is to survive on this planet - some of us must be willing to explore and fight for better ways to do things, if we allow ourselves to be shackled to outdated ideas, principles and procedures, our future on this earth promises to be bleak and short lived.
We need people like you to question people like me : and the world needs people like you - to listen to people like me, so we can have a Pete Evans "Sit Down - Walk About" and come up with answers that are best for our Country and people of goodwill averywhere.
Sorry, to get so long winded - I'm just glad you created the opportinity for me to explain myself to you, the Founders, Staff and fellow Delegates.
Forgive the spelling I've been hard at it here and on the web for the past two days.
Pete
Also check out this new Princeton University Carbon Mitigation Initiative game on Climate Change/Energy one that was touted on NPR this morning listen and read at -
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.html?storyId=11253361
Youhave 7 technology wedges you need to balance as you get 1 hour to decide the fate of the world...
Interesting conclusions:
- we have the tools alraedy to provide a solution to the carbon problem and no matter who played they seem to come out with basically the same conclusions. Do I smell a supermajority "solution"??
Listen at : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.html?storyId=11253361
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Scientists have been saying that the average temperature of the world has gone up by several degrees(F). I have discovered a way to reverse the effects of global warming without cutting back on greenhouse gases. The same group of scientists that modeled nuclear winter, have recently said that even a regional nuclear war involving a few dozen nuclear weapons would throw enough dust into the atmosphere to cool the earth by several degrees(F). So what I am suggesting(not entirely seriously, but it would work) is that we have us a good 'ol fashon nuclear war(now, I realize there hasn't actually been a two-sided nuclear war yet, but there's no reason we can't start now), not between us and Russia, but some smaller countries, say, Pakistan and India. It might also give Bush a reason to nuke Iran though...well, good thing he doesn't read then. I for one vote we do it next 4th of July. It would be the best fireworks a country can buy! Again, it wouldn't be the U.S. in the war, so there's nothing to worry about.