You voted. We listened. And we heard a lot. It was clear that the first issue (of the ones listed in the poll) you want to tackle is “dependence on foreign oil,” but you’re passionate about many other issues as well.
First, we want to address a sentiment we heard LOUD and CLEAR: you want to talk about immigration. And we will. And we'll talk about a lot of other issues here, too. But let’s all agree not to jump to conclusions and to disagree, agreeably.
There will be no special agendas here – every voice is welcome – every opinion to be respected. The last thing we wish to do is stifle debate and discussion about real issues. We'll leave that to the two parties. The issues included in the first poll were based on the findings of a research survey we commissioned weeks ago. We're not out to exclude one issue over another. We'll get to them all.
The Unity08 movement is not like the two parties - that's one of our key strengths. We will not point fingers and accuse each other of some slight or hidden agenda. We're here to focus the country, our leaders, and the parties on the issues that need serious, sober discussion and passionate discourse. Some critics claim we're here to force everyone to "just get along" for the sake of just getting along. Not a chance. We will debate (and frequently disagree on) the solutions to the critical issues with all of the passion our blog contributors can muster - but it will be about the critical issues and not the emotional wedge issues, which the parties manipulate to their own benefit.
We need you to help everyone who participates in these blogs to understand what Unity08 is all about by continuing to encourage and cajole those who would rather just rant and rave to get on board with what we're doing. Enough said?
On with the blogging!
So you want to talk about America's dependence on foreign oil. As a primer, here are a couple of recent commentaries about the subject: One from Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, and the other from Mike Rosen, a commentator from Denver and columnist for The Rocky Mountain News.
Friedman, among other arguments, says (taken from "A Million Manhattan Projects" column found here - subscription only, we're sorry to say):
When you're talking oil, you can't just say, "Let the free market work," because there is no free market in oil: the producers have a cartel, and governments -- like ours -- subsidize oil, so we don't pay the full cost.
If the government would just do a couple of things, the energy start-ups we're seeing today would turn into real products, Mr. Sridhar said. One, the government should institute a carbon tax or gasoline tax that would ensure that the price of gasoline never fell below $3.50 to $4 a gallon, which would make a host of new technologies competitive. Second, the government should set high goals for mileage and CO2 emissions for its own vehicle fleet, as well as high goals for eco-friendly, low-energy electricity generation for every government building -- and then promise to be the first customer for whatever company reaches those high goals.
"The federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the country," Mr. Sridhar said. "It's time for the government to lead by example and flex a little consumer muscle. It's time for government to use its buying power when buying power."
President Bush remarked the other day how agonizingly tough it is for a president to send young Americans to war. Yet, he's ready to do that, but he's not ready to look Detroit or Congress in the eye and demand that we put in place the fuel-efficiency legislation that will weaken the forces of theocracy and autocracy that are killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan — because it might cost Republicans votes or campaign contributions.
This whole thing is a travesty. We can't keep asking young Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan if we as a society are not ready to make even the most minimal sacrifice to help them.
On the other hand, Mike Rosen says, (taken from a recent column, "Our silly little 'addiction'" found here):
...the point is that all oil production becomes part of the world supply, and the price of oil is a function of aggregate demand for that finite supply. Changes in the amount supplied or the amount demanded cause the price to go up or down. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from or what it costs to extract it from the ground. So, lower cost producers, like Saudi Arabia, make more profit per unit of oil than higher cost producers like the United States. OPEC doesn't set the price of oil; the world market does that, although OPEC can influence the price by controlling its production.
It's silly to talk about our "addiction" to oil. We're no more addicted to it than we are to food or water. It's a commodity. We use it as an energy source and petrochemical raw material because it's abundant and a better value than other alternatives. We could have horses pull our cars but it wouldn't be as efficient - and you'd have to feed and house them, anyway.
It would be nice to find economical alternatives to petroleum and we no doubt will some day. Perhaps we'll solve the puzzle of nuclear fusion and figure out how to harvest water for its hydrogen power. General Motors and other automakers are working feverishly on developing fuel-cell technology. Conventional nuclear energy is a viable alternative for more power generation right now but environmental extremists have succeeded in sufficiently demonizing it to scare much of the public and politicians away - at least for the time being.
Once upon a time, whale oil was a major energy source and people worried, then, about demand outpacing supply. Petroleum solved that problem - temporarily. In President Bush's State of the Union address he talked about accelerating the pace of technological research into energy alternatives. That's a necessary and obvious remedy.
The history of human progress is the history of solving today's problems with tomorrow's technology. And we will do just that once again. But don't kid yourself about kicking our oil "addiction" or ending our dependency on foreign petroleum any time soon. For inescapable economic reasons, we're stuck with that for the foreseeable future and with all the international political complications that go along with it.
So what say you? Have at it.
Subscribe
Dan;
Agreed. That would be the simplest solution if you assumed that there was some unlimited supply there waiting to be found. I assumed the point that the supply was limited and largely depleted was pretty much taken for granted. Isnt it?
Dan made this pithy comment:
"[T]he simple answer to reducing foreign oil dependence is to produce more of it domestically, but this option is blown off in favor of expensive civic projects, higher taxes, and social engineering."
Duh, on me.
I was assuming we couldn't produce significantly more oil domestically or else we would be.
The lesson to Dan is "Don't assume an agenda when simple ignorance is a sufficient explanation."
The lesson to me is "Don't overlook the Obvious!"
According to the EPA, the US is the 3rd largest producer of total oil products* in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.
We produce 15% of the worlds oil and consume about 25% of it. The gap represents 10% of the world's oil production.
Hm. These numbers don't add up.
According to the same EPA table set we use 20M barrels a day (consistent with past posts) but that amount is supposed to represent only 25% of the world's production. Either there's a really long tail of small oil producing nations that adds another 30M barrels a day to the mix or we really consume closer to 40% of the total world's production.
Hm.
Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the numbers would add up if we had all of them.
We use about 20M barrels a day.
We produce about 8M barrels a day.
We import about 12M barrels a day.
Is Dan correct? Does the US have the reserves and capacity to make up some significant portion of that importation -- say cut it in half by simply increasing production by 6M barrels a day??
How can we find out?
Capt Obvious, signing off.
* "Total Oil Production includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids" (from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html).
Captain;
I dont want to dismiss anyone's thinking here, but this is why I wont even look this info up.
For the past 2 years or so we have seen a big oil driven congressional effort to open up ANWAR for drilling, which I heard optimistical could yield 1.5 M/day if it pans out. At the same time they tell us that the original alaskan pipeline has passed peak and production is declining at about the same rate.
Sounds to me that this must be the best prospect that they have found in years. If not, why would they be pushing it so hard while ignoring the better ones?
So, If thats the best they can offer in the way of domestic production then there obviously is pretty much a consensus that under no circumstance can we drill our way out of today problems, let alone 10 years from nows.
"I assumed the point that the supply was limited and largely depleted was pretty much taken for granted. Isnt it?"
Nope. If you check out this link
you see that is very far from the truth. Fact is, we have more known oil resources now than we have had in the past. There is undoubtedly more oil in the earth that we have not discovered. It just comes down ro whether it is cost-effective to extract at the current market price. As prices rise and the cost of exploration and drilling go down, it will become more economical to drill in places that cost more. The concept is similar to this example in regards to gold extraction.
The fact is we do not have a completely accurate count of the amount of oil, spurred by the fact that OPEC does not allow open audits of their fields.
Anyways, here is a very extensive resource on national energy policy, if you have the time.
Somethings to think about.
Dan ...
Thanks for the info.
Hmm .. talk about having a conspiratorial edge ..lol, sounds like some interesting reading, I'll get back to you later after I have a chance to go over the info.
Right now I better do some work or the boss will have me carved and served for lunch. :)
Oil is a global market, meaning that the increasing demand in other developing nations will effect the price here domestically. Considering this, crunching US numbers for fuel usage seems to only show one part of the entire picture.
We can't produce more oil domestically largely due to government rules and restrictions, which drive up the cost of extraction beyond what is economical-unless the price per barrel continues to rise.
The logical answer to uneconomical cost of domestic drilling due to these reasons would be to relax those regulations to a more common sense-level, rather than knee-jerk environmental overkill.
Well, this has certainly taken an intriguing turn.
I've known about the Proven Oil Reserves issue for a while, but I hadn't really connected that to rate of consumption. And, somehow, the rate of consumption seemed important to the question. I'm not so sure now. The framing of the question becomes important again.
What IS the problem with being dependant on oil imports? Is it a strategic defense issue? Our economy can be thrown into turmoil by political unrest in areas of the world beyond our control? Is it the price of gasoline? Is it important to us if we burn $1.2B a day in our cars or is it just a reasonable cost of doing business? Is the "dependence on foreign oil" thing just another red herring issue?
Dan has pointed out some really good information that appears to be as credible. If Kovarik's data from the USGS is correct (and I have no reason to dispute it), then some of the largest petroleum reserves in the world may well be in the western hemisphere. And we're not talking marginally larger but an order of magnitude larger.
Some anonymous poster suggests that the reason that these reserves haven't been developed has to do with legislative blockages in the US Congress. One important point that Kovarik makes in this regard is that the cost of developing these other reserves makes the gasoline too expensive in the current economy. Now, this can't be strictly due to US regulatory obstacles to development of the estimated 1T barrels in Venezuela's reserve. In theory, the US regulatory environment hasn't had much effect on the illegal drug trade in Venezuela ... (maybe we should make gas illegal so we can assure supply. j/k). Some of this must be technological.
But this takes me back to Dan's accusation of Personal Agenda. I guess I didn't think of it before, but perhaps I *do* have a personal agenda. I am more concerned that we're using 400M gallons of gas a day in the US than I am that we are importing over half of it. We're burning $1.2B a day and producing a lot of polluting by-products in the process that will cause more problems for us as time goes on. My apologies to the group for letting that unconscious agenda drive my logic.
But that leaves the larger questions ...
Why IS "the dependence on foreign oil" the most important subject for this group? What ABOUT dependence on foreign oil?
Intriguing indeed. Sorry if I read a little slower than most but if this info is not new to you than you can understand why it might take me a while to digest something that completly upsets the CW about proven reserves. I'm about half way through it but here is my intitial impression.
If we assume that the data given is correct and that the actual recoverable reserves would be enough to sustain us for the forseeable future then we need to view this as merly a competative industry issue. Why favor one over the other if there is no proven extra benifit to either.
With oil, we have the benifit of already being geared to use it. No retooling required, just looking out at escalating cost. But I note that the escalating cost is likely true of any energy source. Most alternative designs I am familiar with require the use of catalysts which are even more rare and cost restrictive than the likely cost of refining the types of fuels I have seen discussed in this article.
From an environmental standpoint??
We have seen a lot of progress into getting the current fuel to burn cleaner? Can we go further or is this the wall? Is it enough? Have the global warming crowd had one too many? Hmm ...
Intriguing indeed, a virtual spiders web.
I shall read on :)
finito.
If we take off the table that we (globe) are in danger of running out of oil in the forseeable future than I am left wondering if it is even right to be advocating conservation. Isnt this like telling people not to buy coke?
Where are the environmentalists?
Also, what I am uncertain of is:
Doesnt relieve "dependance on foreign oil" also mean Venezuala?
I think its safe to chalk Canadas oil sands up to the friendlies but Venezuala sounds like a whole 'nuther box of worms IMO
Well, at least I learned something new and thats always a good thing :)
Safe Clean Renewable Environmentally Friendly Energy Independence! Yes!
Kick the oil addiction foreign & domestic!
Apollo Alliance at http://www.apolloalliance.org/ pretty much says it all for me.
"Americans have always pulled together during tough times to accomplish great missions. We can do it again. This time we need a moonshot for energy independence and good jobs. A crash program for sustainable energy independence would create three million good jobs, free the nation from imported oil, and promote a healthier environment. States and cities are leading the way toward a clean energy future. Now, the time has come for our nation to take up the challenge."
I see these long winded explanations of how to not be dependent on foreign oil, but it seems simple to me. Either get the oil from our own land or build cars that don't run on gas. I suggest incentives to individuals to be a part of the solution, not the problem. Wait a minute, someone in the middle east sneezed, the cost of a gallon of gas just went up 10 cents.
Hurry up and solve this oil problem, the leader of Iran just farted and the price of a gallon of gas just went up another nickel.
Why Dan: :)
Now we can play role reversal (lol).
Why should we do any of these things? Since you were kind enough to point out that oil isnt as depleted as we think (thanks by the way), then by promoting alternatives arent we just stepping in front of the wheels of the free market? Why should we hinder what would likely be a boom in refinery and extraction technology just so we could fund an equal boom in alternatives :) lol ...
I noticed someone posted some environmental info a few minutes ago, get to check it out in a few ... enjoy
You got the wrong Dan Nomad
Dan B just posted this cogent comment:
"I see these long winded explanations of how to not be dependent on foreign oil, but it seems simple to me. Either get the oil from our own land or build cars that don't run on gas. I suggest incentives to individuals to be a part of the solution, not the problem."
Duh.
This is like saying the team that wins on Sunday only needs to get a higher score. All this long-windery, Dan B, is to try to tease out the HOW part of that game plan.
So Dan B has suggested a two prong approach:
A. "[G]et the oil from our own land"
Given the other information we've been looking at, this might be possible ... if not now, then some day relatively soon. We don't know what the price of that gas might be, because it will require legislative action and corporate response, but it's theoretically possible that we might see some change in the landscape (quite literally in some cases) within 5 years.
Which reserves do you propose we tap, Dan B? And how do we garner the necessary support to bend Congress and Corporations to that notion?
B. "[B]uild cars that don't run on gas."
We already build those. It's just that not many people buy them. How do you propose we encourage additional growth in this sector? And what shall we do to encourage people to buy them?
So Dan B, what's your tactical and operational plan look like? Lay it out here and let's see if we have something we can work with.
Capt Obvious, signing off.
Talk about an agenda!
But this is a slick looking website and they have what looks like a pretty well thought out 10 point plan for a comprehensive energy policy. It doesn't address the issue of foreign oil directly, but rather from the approach that "the best use of energy is the least use of energy" (see http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/ten_point_plan.cfm)
I don't know these people so I don't know if they're credible, but I see folks like the Sierra Club presented and the plan looks reasonable on its face.
Perhaps, we need to link Unity's energy policy there? Are there others with national/international scope that we should look at?
Capt Obvious, signing off.
I'm from California where illegal
immigration is a very sore subject. I am in favor of more stringent controls immediately
before we address "amnesty".And if
we're going to try to form a new
party to vote on AMERICAN issues, all discussions should be in
ENGLISH(AMERICAN)! If someone can't understand our language, how
can they vote on issues that affect
AMERICAN people? I concur, eliminate "en espanol" !!
Immigration is no more nor less than the subterfuge by which the right has always galvanized its base under euphemism. I was raised in smalltown Prairie Texas, and I recall how Welfare and Wetback were the more overt keywords for distracting the unwary from more critical concerns. So today instead of Iraq and Katrina and gas prices and deficits and incompetence we again are directed towards the wetback issue. It's only surprising how gullible is the press and the public.
You're right, the team with the most points will win. It's simple. Whoever makes plays will win. You can draw up all the schemes you want, but ya gotta make plays. Same here. Someone's gotta make the play. I'm not qualified solve the oil issue. I at least got the guts to say that.
You added this "And how do we garner the necessary support to bend Congress and Corporations to that notion?"...........Congress and corporations? The 2 main reasons people are sick and tired of politics today.
When someone builds a vehicle that can perform as good as a gas-run one, people will buy them. But they have to prove it to the masses.
Has anyone seen this movie yet?
What are your thoughts?
Dan B has some valid points here:
"Whoever makes plays will win. You can draw up all the schemes you want, but ya gotta make plays. Same here. Someone's gotta make the play. I'm not qualified solve the oil issue."
We have to MAKE the play, but we can't make it until we plan it. You can sneer at the schemes all you want, but without some idea of what we intend to do, we can't even get on the field.
"Not being qualified" is a wienie answer. What makes any one of the people working on the problem more or less qualified than any one of us? We've seen what the "pro's" have done.
You need a brain. You need the ability to use it. You need the willingness to think about the problem from a variety of perspectives and be willing to adapt, adopt, and abandon as needed. Anybody lacking ANY of those qualifications is free to disqualify themselves and STFU.
Everybody else (including you) is in the pool.
You have the guts to think -- and announce -- that you don't know the answer, fine. Then you've just proven your first qualification for helping to solve it. Have the guts to help!
You think any of US have any idea how to get around it? I'm not convinced we even understand what the question is yet. But I'll be dipped before I'm gonna wienie out and wait for somebody else to do it.
Then Dan B said:
"You added this "And how do we garner the necessary support to bend Congress and Corporations to that notion?"...........Congress and corporations? The 2 main reasons people are sick and tired of politics today."
No doubt, but the problem is that the energy policy and practice is tied up in knots created by the legislatures. We either need a Solomon and a Big Darned Sword to cut this Gordian knot or we need to figure out how to make this politically viable enough that we can convince Congress to overturn the problematic legislation.
We have to use the tools we got, man. For any of this to work we need laws, we need support, and we need the machinery to make it happen.
Wishing is not going to make it so.
Finally Dan B said:
"When someone builds a vehicle that can perform as good as a gas-run one, people will buy them. But they have to prove it to the masses."
Ok. THIS I can accept.
Now.
How do we get it built in sufficient quantities at an affordable price?
At least lay out your parameters of performance "as good as a gas-run" vehicle might be.
Gimme a plan. Lay out something we can take onto the field and try to make a play with.
Fish or cut bait, man!
Capt Obvious, signing off.
Not being qualified is not a "wienie " answer. It is an honest answer. I don't know where to find the oil, what it takes to get it out of the ground, and the rest of the loopholes that it takes to get it done. So I am not qualified to come up with a solution.
A good leader is not someone who knows how to do it, but knows who the people are that know how to do it and can get them to do it. We need a good, honest, serious leader that doesn't speak in generalizations, like most politicians do, so they can appeal to everyone cause no one knows what they are actually standing for.
We need discipline in the people and the government. I believe that's the basics of what the people are looking for and why they are seeking a different kind of leadership than what they are getting now. As the quote goes, "We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them".
Dan B maintains that:
"Not being qualified is not a "wienie " answer. It is an honest answer. I don't know where to find the oil, what it takes to get it out of the ground, and the rest of the loopholes that it takes to get it done. So I am not qualified to come up with a solution."
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but here's my problem with your stance on "qualified."
According to your definition of qualified .. somebody who knows where all the oil is, somebody who knows how to get it and turn it into viable product, and somebody who knows all the legislative ins-and-outs .. that person doesn't exist.
Some people know pieces ... some people know other pieces ... you get together and you find out the parts that are missing. That's how it works.
There is not a oilman in the world that knows all of it. There's not a legislator, lawyer, or lobbyist who knows all of it. Everybody has only a piece. They all have their own agendas and we see where that's gotten us.
Nobody's asking you to dish the Final Answer, but I dare you to at least help find the question!
We've drifted from the issue of "Dependence on Foreign Oil" but I think it's important that if we're going to be active in the political life of the nation, this issue of "qualified" gets examined. If you're a citizen, then you're qualified to ask questions. If you're a citizen, then you're qualified to try to find answers.
So, Dan B, contribute SOMETHING other than a sneer and a flip answer.
You made the statement that if somebody produced a car that didn't burn gas but performed as well as one that did, then people would buy it.
Ok. Put it on the table.
What are those performance factors?
What do you think it should use for fuel?
What will it take to get it going?
If you don't have the answers, find them. If you haven't really thought it thru, think for a few minutes and put 'em down.
This is a brain storm, man! Gimme something other than a sneer and a flip answer.
I dare you.
Capt Obvious, signing off.
So you are just waiting for a leader?
To qoute someone famous who's name I dont recall "if you are waiting for an anonymous white knight to ride to the rescue and make things better, than more often than not you will wind up waking up in some alley wondering what happened to your shirt and your shoes".
How can we expect politicians to stay focused on issues when we cant do that ourselves?
Can it be safe? Can we trust profit oriented corporations will do the job right, or will tempting shortcuts lead to more three mile islands?
1) Stop using Capt Obvious. It's childish. You want to be taken seriously, use your real name.
2)I didn't say there was "ONE" person qualified. I said, "A good leader knows the people (that's plural)......Do you know for a fact there's no one person that knows all the ins and outs? I don't.
3)Just the fact that I am paying some attention to politics and the issues means I am "ACTIVE" in the political life of this country. Most people don't know what's going on or care. They're more concerned of who's going to be the next American Idol.
4)I am a citizen and, as you believe, may be qualified to try and find answers. I know nothing about the oil industry so I wouldn't want me to help solve it. I want people that are honest and knowledgeable to solve the problem. No offense Capt, but I don't want your input to solve a problem if you have no experience in the field.
5)Performance factors for cars? The answer was in my post. They must perform like the vehicles today. Power and acceleration. What kind of fuel? Water. How's that for an answer. It's abundant and probably pretty cheap. But since I don't know about making an internal combustion engine operate, I'm not qualified. How's that for flippant. I prefer it be called sarcasm.
You seem to believe it's ok for anyone to just throw out ideas. I don't. I want people knowledgeable in the subject throwing out ideas. In that respect, do we agree to disagree?
Are you talking to me Nomad? I don't know what you're talking about. There's a Dan and a Dan B posting on this site.
Dan, we tried that. I think that work is the basis of todays Bush "Hydrogen" cell initiative. Its really a basic chemical reaction. Problem is you need one powerful catalyst to make it work and the only thing we have that comes close is PLATINUM. Umm, last I looked that was trading at 1200-oz. ish.
Probably nobody is an expert on the oil industry, how it works, and what we can use instead. But I work in the oil industry, so I know a little bit. Others know other things. Among us all, we know, or can find out, just about anything known about anything (outside of Dick Chaney's office, of course). Let's start with this:
the Democrats want to cut our dependence on oil, using the Brazilian model, but apparently using corn instead of sugar cane. I have heard that sugar cane has 8 times the ethanol as corn. Does anybody know anything about this?
When it comes to biodeeisle the rage is all about the cannola seed
Dan B *finally* comes thru with:
"1) Stop using Capt Obvious. It's childish. You want to be taken seriously, use your real name."
Your point is a good one. It IS childish. It's why I picked it. I don't care if I'm taken seriously or not. All I want to do is get done with this topic and onto something that approaches "Crucial." For the moment, then, I'll leave the Capt Obvious mask on. But thanks for noticing.
Dan B also said:
"2)I didn't say there was "ONE" person qualified. I said, "A good leader knows the people (that's plural)......Do you know for a fact there's no one person that knows all the ins and outs? I don't."
Knowing for "a fact" is a very nebulous concept. I'm going to have to plead statistics on this one and say I'm about 99% sure that no one person knows everything from geology to legislation ... just like I'm similarly certain there is no one person who knows how to make all the parts to a plane, assemble the pieces, and then fly it. Oh sure, some idea about the theory, but the skill and knowledge to DO it all ...
I don't think so.
And as soon as you open the door to more than one person who might have some valuable input, you open the door for yourself, so this argument falls away.
Dan B goes on to say:
"3)Just the fact that I am paying some attention to politics and the issues means I am "ACTIVE" in the political life of this country. Most people don't know what's going on or care. They're more concerned of who's going to be the next American Idol."
Amen, brother.
But I would argue that you're not active unless you're actually DOING something ... Running for office, helping shape public policy, whatever ... you may be more active than the average sheeple, but you're still a spectator.
All I want is for you to get off the bench. Or at least, if you're gonna stay on the bench, stop heckling the home team.
Dan B is on a roll:
"4)I am a citizen and, as you believe, may be qualified to try and find answers. I know nothing about the oil industry so I wouldn't want me to help solve it. I want people that are honest and knowledgeable to solve the problem. No offense Capt, but I don't want your input to solve a problem if you have no experience in the field."
None taken. We're all just talkin' here. Neighborly, like.
The oil industry isn't my field either. But we've got to wade thru this pile of muck until we get down to my specialty area. What I DO know how to do is ask questions, find answers, and examine them for logical flaws. I suspect you have at least that base level of skill -- as everybody else who's following our little soap opera does.
All I'm saying is use the skill and knowledge you have to get more and then apply it all to the problem at hand. Maybe you have a piece, I have a piece, nomad's sin tax is part of it .. and that guy in Des Moines who hasn't posted anything ... maybe HE has a piece. I don't know ... but I DO know that if "we the people" don't come up with something, we sure as fishhooks are gonna continue to get the government we appear to deserve.
Dan B continues with:
"5)Performance factors for cars? The answer was in my post. They must perform like the vehicles today. Power and acceleration. What kind of fuel? Water. How's that for an answer. It's abundant and probably pretty cheap. But since I don't know about making an internal combustion engine operate, I'm not qualified. How's that for flippant. I prefer it be called sarcasm."
At last ... Sarcasm works for me. I prefer "sarcasm" myself, but most just find me flippant.
As for your actual performance definitions, I was hoping for more ... like
- it has to be able to travel 200 miles between refueling
- it needs a top speed of 75mpg
- it needs to carry 5 people comfortably
- it needs to be able to accelerate from 0 to 60 in under 10 seconds
- it needs to cost less than $15K
- AND it needs to use water as fuel.
But I'll take what I can get.
The hydrogen cell technology people can probably work with water as fuel.
Or perhaps we can use the water to charge batteries ... there are a lot of options.
But since I'm not an automobile designer, perhaps you think that I'm not qualified to have an opinion about what a viable alternate vehicle might look like.
Dan B wraps up with:
"You seem to believe it's ok for anyone to just throw out ideas. I don't. I want people knowledgeable in the subject throwing out ideas. In that respect, do we agree to disagree?"
You are correct, sir. I *do* believe it's ok for just anybody to throw out ideas. I do NOT want the same stupid ideas being tossed into the mix. I want new stupid ideas. One of them might just be the answer we need. Last, I want the people who know why they won't work to *prove* that they won't work, not just tell me "that's not the way we do it here."
The reality that every NEW idea comes from the fringes ... from the people who are crackpots on the edge. Quantum physicists know this only too well. Last year's crackpot may win this year's Nobel prize. Who's to say what hairbrained idea may not be the right one? We haven't got a really good track record with the experts working on their own.
The common wisdom is that the American public is too stupid, too apathetic, and too easily led to really understand ANY of the problems of modern society. I don't happen to agree with that, altho it appears to be the crux of your argument.
We can agree to disagree. But I'm not going to stop participating just because *you* think I should sit down and shut up.
Somebody voted for this stupid topic and I intend to beat it to death if I need to so we can get onto something worthwhile. Sooner or later some of the guppies who DID vote for it are gonna come out of the weeds and engage us. Personally, on a scale of Pointless to Crucial, I'd put this down as an amusing symptom of a deeper problem and move on, but I'm not the one that's choosing and I'm gonna keep hauling on this line until they give me a new one to work with.
Capt Obvious, signing off.
Our movement is put down by experts who think we have no issue and no charismatic leader.
Friedman thinks energy is a great issue and that if Bush addressed it as his "Manhattan Project", he would recover his popularity.
We should not accuse people in love with a pet solution, like a Manhattan energy project, of having a hidden agenda. Such people may just be angry that unity08 will flounder like both parties -- looking for a trivial wedge issue of its own -- and not really willing to making a difference in energy, the economy, war or peace, etc. Such accused people may really want necessary change to be our goal -- they may not have any hidden agenda at all.
If energy is not the biggest issue wnat is? If we cannot make a dent in our political stalemate with it -- what is a bigger issue?
If I think "financing change" is the biggest issue, financing energy independence comes close to being nearly as big.
Friedman is fired up over it and he's right.
Rosen is a voice for doing nothing -- accepting the political stalemate and focusing on matters very close to home, family and personal not national concerns.
Sure, I'm for Friedman: if we can buy energy independence with brains and technolgy, we can buy peace, quality education, health care, and meaningful politics too.
It is true that only money will buy national influence for this movement -- so we better raise a lot of it.
But brains and technology can buy money -- if we seek new ways to finance a nation -- which are, in fact, the old ways of World War II and the financial power of the outlawed by Congress Treasury/Fed accord.
Click on my name above and read more.
While this isnt my favorite topic either, Richard Davis writes us about the topic ETHANOL.
Okay, i will bite (again).
Let us assume that the supply of oil is not going to run out soon.
However, it seems the bulk of this new supply is located in places like Venezuala. This is not domestic. Sheik Abu or Hugo Chavez. Doesnt matter to me. Either way our economy isnt well suited to price instability. Thus ... we could sure use a domestic power source that we can be certain will supply ample power at a stable price.
I HATE ethanol. I am reminded of when it was first introduce, lousy performance, no power ... just a whimpy alternative to the real thing.
However ... I do like the idea of Bio-Deisel. Willie Nelson likes it, how bad can it be.
So say .. stealing rhetoric from democrats playbook, instead of paying farmers to grow nothing like we do now, or as some would like, grow corn ... we LET them grow canola? We can make lots of bio deisel, a nice powerful clean fuel ... and everybody is happy and we can move on :)
I would think the money we save in payment of farm subsidies to grow nothing could be used to build the plants that make the deisel.
Now open for critisism :)
Sorry if I posted over your thoughts. Now I will have to check out who you are :)
Enjoy
I'll be glad when we can move on to more interesting discussions.
On a side note: I'm not thrilled about the latest poll either, but I guess we must start somewhere.
Time will tell if the discussions just glance the surface, or continue to evolve, and address some fundamental questions.
Hopefully it will remain an interesting source of social communication. (communion?)
I agree that this is not a crucial issue but an amusing sympton to a deeper problem. Also, I never said you should sit down and shut up. You can talk all you want, I don't care.
According to the survey, education of our children seems to be the number one issue on our minds. Followed closely by the terrorist threats and energy independence. Just a few ideas: Make 4 year college educations part of the mandatory education system in our country - just like high school. And to cut costs, I say we go with virtual colleges. I've always thought a better educated population is also the best defense. Isn't it all connected? Better educations, more artists, engineers and thinkers to help develop better ideas?
Next, we need to be energy independent, ethnol, wind, solar, bio-fuel, and yes, even oil - let's use it all. Why go back into the single fuel trap again?
You'd be really sad if you found out how many engineers we now employ painting houses, how many PHds we now have working at Home Depot. Lets talk energy. Thats why we're here.
I agree with some here that this should not be a major issue, particularly for a third party. This issue will only serve to distract the creation of a major unity movement. Not to mention that it is a relatively simple problem with potentially complex solutions that we can go 'round and 'round with.
BTW, I am not opposed to alternative fuels and increased fuel-efficency, hick I don't even mind mass-transit options, but I don't believe that truly effective solutions are found in the halls (or the backrooms) of government.
IM, for Unity to succeed it needs to pinpoint the problems with government itself, shed heat and light on the roaches and determine/analyze what can be done about it. Above all, there needs to be education and clear, concise, and common sense education of the crap our 'leadership' is pulling on the people.
Granted people have been doing this for years, but with the potential for serious organization within Unity '08, there's a chance that people can have an effect.
For instance, are you aware of the pork barrel spending? Doesn't it bother you that your tax money goes to pay for what is essentially a bribe to buy votes?
OR how about the government setting minimum pricing?? If private businesses do this on their own, this would be called price fixing, and is illegal. Pay a congressman and you can do what is considered an illegal business practice legally.
Stuff like this is what is wrong with our politicians. Yet we get distracted with what is essentially a periphreal issue (which IMO, is one caused by politicians in the first place).
So to to jump-start Unity, I think the best thing we could do first is to get educated. If anyone feels the government screws us in any specific way that really riles you, please post it.
Check out this report.
Tells a sad tale about 20 years of bogus government economic data.
http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn
Thats what erks me. Number one thing is I dont like to be lied to.
Although readers will probably laugh me to scorn for being ridiculously unreal, I think it's important to put forth ideals. All human activity arises from ideas, so here are a couple I'd like to see some enthusiasm generated for: 1) All people engaging in political behavior should seek what they deem is "the most good for the most people", and nothing else; 2) Everyone,as they seek to earn their living, should consciously decide, "I'm going to do what I'm capable of to earn an honest living for myself and/or family, up to a level at which we're comfortable (not suffering, and we have enough to spare for normal pleasures: vacations, etc., and are as secure as we can make ourselves for the future ((nobody needs to be a billionaire---at least not yet)). Beyond that point I will devote my "worklife" to helping those who are struggling to achieve what I've achieved."
We are the frog sitting in the pot of water on the stove. (Thanks Al, for that wonderful analogy.)
The problem is to put enough heat under the pot that people start thinking farther ahead than tomorrow and start thinking 10, 20, or 50 years ahead.
Even if we're not really running out of oil, can we really afford to stay on our present course, given global warming, being held hostage from whatever nutjob is sitting on the oil (Chavez doesn't strike me as being the most stable individual in the world) and the impact of oil on the environment from spills, etc?
What I hear is a lot of people making excuses why we can't change from a petroleum based economy as opposed to how we might do it, if that is the best way to make this country energy independent.
1) Conservation is the first key. Use less oil and get people to think about energy use more carefully.
2) Making the move to other sources of energy is going to require market forces to determine the most cost effective way to make us energy independent the quickest. Ethanol may not be the final answer, but it has the advantage of being renewable, and once cellulosic ethanol becomes feasible, it may end up being the best choice, in terms of low input, hi output.
As far as ethanol providing poor performance, that probably has a lot more to do with the current state of automotive engineering than ethanol as a fuel. Indianapolis is moving to 100% ethanol next year. I'd be hard pressed to believe that those folks would fuel their cars with something that didn't have good performance.
Bio Diesel is also a strong contender because it is renewable. We can use it and then turn around and create more. No matter how much oil is left in the ground, there is a finite supply.
Biomass fuels have the advantage of being renewable. Growing more plants, means more carbon dioxide removed from the air as well. Everybody wins.
I happen to live in Iowa, so I know there are some hog confinement operations that are using pig manure as an energy source by capping the manure lagoons and burning the methane given off to heat the buildings.
Bottom line is that if we don't keep pushing forward, we'll start going right back to where we were and will be having this conversation all over again when oil hits $100 a barrel.
Thomas, The problem with the piss-poor education in this country isn't the lack of college, it's the lack of quality education in the first 12 years. why not just better the education in general? What would tacking on 4 more years do?
This is another thing that I feel the government is screwing the people on.
For more info, read this article by John Stossel.
It's already here... many universities have online education... now we need to replace the old infrastructure of basic eduction, the building, campus, schoolbus, and all the administration and energy required to operate it. Institute each child with a "modem only" computer that does not have a hard drive and costs $20. Each student dials into a wireless local area network which holds all software and files on the school server. Save billions and enable teachers to teach 500 students instead of 50. Require all children to participate in a few hours a week of local activities with other community children their same age, dance or sports it does not matter... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
The most rediculous thing in society is watching a four way stop light in a busy city...all those cars with 1 person in them burning gas and wasting energy and time... face reality, regardless of gas and oil prices individual transportation will soon become the luxury and not the norm, if it survives at all... mass transit will expand as gas sky-rockets out of the reach of average Americans. But we will adjust and build a mass transit system better than all the rest! So get your local bus maps out now! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
More spending? I disagree. Education has been successful long before the advent of computers. The problem is the education itself, not the schoolbuses.
I would love to put my children in a school where there are classes in logic and rhetoric, a decent economics education, civics, western civilization, literature, and business, among others. TAUGHT BY PEOPLE WITH A DEGREE IN THE FIELD OF STUDY.
Of course some of you disagree. But how about we just let some competition in and give the people a choice?
I've often heard from kids that say their teachers hand out assignments and do not explain anything. In some cases this may be true, especially in large classes. Regardless if this is a problem, there is a solution. Send generic teaching manuals to parents based on their children's grade level. From kindergarten to , say 2nd grade, it's free. If they feel it helps enough to warrant cost, the parents will buy at request(keep the booklets at cost) throughout their childrens education. Even single parents have the time to teach some subjects to their children to help with homework. Even if they feel this isn't the case, the kids can use the manuals themselves or have help from their babysitter. I can't think of any sitter that wouldn't prefer explaining a word problem over sweeping up broken lamps from an indoor ball game gone wrong.
Parents get the tools and education to help their kids and can help their kids with homework that they don't grasp in classes with no chance of individual help.
This isn't home schooling. It's using the home to get the best use of public school.
dan; You are cheating.
We have to talk about energy or else they will make us stay after school :)
The executive branch is only as good as the people sitting around the cabinet table when it comes to executive decision making. A good President is one that has clear and solid policy foundation on reform issues. Policy in which the people and the cabinet can work with. President Bush is a good leader and has made some hard core executive decision, any mistakes he made were because of a failure of his advisors and cabinet to provide or negotiate alternatives for policy.... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Who can Afford Healthcare?
Who should pay for healthcare in America? Government thinks it should be employers. Employer’s say they can’t afford it, so the individual should do it. For the same reasons the government and employers can’t afford it, neither can the individual so, they go uninsured. If basic healthcare could be afforded then health would be dealt with as a maintenance issue instead of a crisis issue. In the system we have now the middle class and below have a hit or miss relationship with healthcare insurance. Even if you start with a job that has insurance, there is no guarantee your company will keep it. Once dropped by insurance companies or a pre-existing condition is excluded and you or one of your family members should become severely ill, a family catastrophe is set in motion. Many times it will take years of financial recovery to offset this situation if recovery is possible at all. Bankruptcy is a possible solution to massive medical bills but this does not take into consideration on going medical situations nor medication needed. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare may be available after other exhaustive financial decisions are made but this tends to lock the individual in a depleted, dependant situation as a ward of the state.
If the business of government is to do what the individual cannot, why does it make sense to anyone that we should have a devastating merry-go-round healthcare system in which the constituents are the victims? Our national government should take its responsibility from the onset and provide the coverage needed to prevent major healthcare problems from arising instead offering too little too late later.
We should develop a two tiered system of healthcare. The first tier would be basic health care coverage for all citizens. This tier would be an extension of the Veterans Administration. All new medical personnel would intern and establish residency with this agency before serving other medical agencies. As part of a military/civilian medical organization, this group would handle everyday care in each of their jurisdictions but could be mobilized within 72 hours to respond to any major catastrophe, such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic or war. The second tier would be similar to today’s medical system. It would encompass advanced medicine, medical research and elective surgeries. Insurance policies would be crafted to these selective needs, lowering cost. Medicare would cover catastrophic care.
Healthcare will not fix itself. We need a fundamental change to bring this basic service in-line with the needs of the American public. We have the finest medical system in the world, but should it only be administered to those who can afford it? Does the crippling of our individual middle-class families make sense to our nation as a whole? Doesn’t government come back into the picture once the individual can’t help themselves? Make no mistake, this is a tremendous challenge but none of us are disposable and all of us are responsible, whether we pretend we are or not.