Archives

Faced with public unrest over soaring energy costs, President Bush once said he wished he had a magic wand to provide relief. The next president may wish that, too, in his first 100 days in office, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26110084/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/mccain_obama_0329.jpgAP – Aug 9, 2008

Much easier said than done...a poll uh oh... - Ed.

Washington - No matter who moves into the White House in January, energy problems will hit him with the punch of a winter storm.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, agree that the era of cheap energy and abundant supplies is over. Both have called for breaking away from the nation's overwhelming oil dependency while dueling bitterly over how to do it. Neither has suggested heavy-handed government intervention such as price controls imposed in response to the 1970s oil crisis.

Their broader visions of where U.S. energy policy should go in the long run are strikingly similar, but they would take some different routes to get there.
… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26110084/

I don't want either of them...

90% of the country probably feels the way you do.

The tire gage thing does not exactly inspire voters to think they could be more than marginally better on energy.

Would having something amputated be a choice? Being thrown into a viper pit?

No confidence either way. Sound energy policy doesn't turn a quick profit for the contributors, so it won't be on either of their radar screens. I expect them both to make a lot of noise with no progress.

very good summary on the current issues of American energy problems.

They both like to talk as if the price of gas/oil is something a president can actually control.

They both would make horrible presidents. Ideologically speaking John McCain is comparable to Dianne Feinstein or Teddy Kennedy. And Obama, I'm not even exactly sure, but Euro-socialist for sure.

Their energy policies are both utterly incompetent. Although I like John McCain's gas tax holiday idea, I would prefer to cancel the federal gas tax altogether and fund highways from the general fund. His opposition to drilling in ANWR turns me off, though. And I'm going to wager he's a puppet to the ethanol lobby just like Bush and the other neo-con elites.

And Obama? He would rather see us driving Yugos and cut down to the rest of the world's living standards before he tried to solve anything.

Hey, Barack. Hope doesn't fill the gas tank.

They both like to talk as if the price of gas/oil is something a president can actually control.

I think a broad mass transit program for the greater U.S. would be a good addition to the rest of Obama's energy policy.

They both like to talk as if the price of gas/oil is something a president can actually control.

That is close to how I feel.
IMO government doesn’t have all the direct control over things like gas prices as many people think they do. Government can encourage activities with tax breaks, or government can tax to try and discourage activities.

I really don't feel the government allowing drilling in Alaska or any where will really solve the gas problem, at best it will just push the issue further along.

And Obama, I'm not even exactly sure, but Euro-socialist for sure.

Europe does a lot better on environmental issues than we do ... environmentalism isn't just a government policy for them, it's a way of life for everyone. They recycle EVERYTHING and use cheap mass transit, well, because it's cheaper than driving a car and paying for insurance. Efficiency is their lifeblood. So if Obama's energy plan is anything like that of European countries, I'm all for it.

But Euro-socialism? We have pretty much the same thing here in the U.S., but nobody calls the U.S. a socialist country - it's more properly called social democracy. Think about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Public Schools under the administration of the federal and state governments, Welfare, Food Stamps, the GI Bill, WIC, U.S. Postal Service, the Federal Housing Administration, 100% health coverage for members of Congress and some government employees and state workers, tuition support for kids entering college, the minimum wage, & etc. --- all these, plus the 40 hour week plus overtime, anti-discrimination laws, pro-union laws and anti-child labor laws. The difference is that in Europe, all these ideas have long been agreed upon. So instead of debating so-called "socialism vs. the free market" they have been working at reforms to prevent issues from arising from these freebies -- like welfare moms who have kid after kid after kid. That's one reason why you don't see as many of the problems we have in Europe.

I think if we had people in Congress who understood how to administer a social democratic system such as ours - and if the most conservative among them didn't spend all their time campaigning against creeping socialism to win elections - then we could get some real work done and perhaps even lower taxes considerably (or use the surplus for environmental programs). Think about how seriously we need to fix social security, medicare etc., and the welfare problem where people who are certainly able to work are just living for free off the government and having kids to get more money. The answer is not to eliminate the system. That would destroy the American economy because at least 98% of Americans have benefited from social democracy. What we really need to do is reform it.

(P.S. Besides, the real socialists are saying Obama is just another tool of the bourgeoisie.)

Hey, Barack. Hope doesn't fill the gas tank.

But it does get people active, and it does get a popular mandate. Not much will deviate from the status quo, no matter who is in office, without broad support for new ideas, because there are people with a lot of power who like the status quo right where it is. The status quo got us into the energy crisis, what makes you think it will get us out of it?

To all out there, regardless of who ends up in office and regardless of who you support and ultimately vote for, it is up to us to apply pressure to actually make inroads on this . I often dampen the responsibility of the general population, since we don't make cars, we don't pass laws, and we don't have a large singular budget for R&D or construction projects, but political and social pressure is one area where the general populace does have direct influence, and it needs to start being used.

The energy crisis is not just a campaign tool; let's make sure that holds true.

That is close to how I feel.
IMO government doesn’t have all the direct control over things like gas prices as many people think they do. Government can encourage activities with tax breaks, or government can tax to try and discourage activities.

I really don't feel the government allowing drilling in Alaska or any where will really solve the gas problem, at best it will just push the issue further along.

The government could artificially lower prices if there was enough support. All they need to do is give each American a certain quota of gas per week - depending on how much you had to drive to provide for yourself (groceries, work, medical needs). But if you go past the amount of miles you need to drive, you don't get any subsidy. That alone would cut U.S. fuel consumption by 50% or more, I'm sure!

Man, if only good ideas ran the government instead of poll-happy nitwits.

The government could artificially lower prices if there was enough support. All they need to do is give each American a certain quota of gas per week - depending on how much you had to drive to provide for yourself (groceries, work, medical needs). But if you go past the amount of miles you need to drive, you don't get any subsidy. That alone would cut U.S. fuel consumption by 50% or more, I'm sure!


Hmmm interesting idea.. I think I like it... how about like this? :rolleyes:
Raise the gas tax, then let every licensed driver to by xx? gallons of tax free or low tax gas. After they can buy the gas at the full tax rate. If you were a driver that did not use all his low tax gas you could sell those low tax rights to someone that needs more.

You could start a situation were someone could even make $ by not using any gas, and selling there gas tax credits?

I think power plants are doing something like that with pollution credits. Anyone know?

I agree with ascribe2thelord that if a president wants to impact energy use, he needs to get a broad mass-transit system going...

Although I like John McCain's gas tax holiday idea, I would prefer to cancel the federal gas tax altogether and fund highways from the general fund.

The federal gas tax, along with state gas tax, helps discourage overconsumption of gasoline. Taking tax off gasoline will only encourage more consumption, and with tight supplies, will quickly raise the price of the gasoline even more than the tax that was removed. In other words, McCain's idea of a gas tax holiday was just plain dumb.

Fund highways from the general fund? You mean the one that is running huge deficits already? Not a good idea, to put it mildly.

Harry

Regardless, I wish the media would stop using the phrase "oil and natural gas PRODUCTION" since for all practical purposes such a procedure does not exist. Yet, by mentioning so and so is "for increased oil production" that makes it sound better than saying they are "for a faster consumption of the limited commodity"

Hmmm interesting idea.. I think I like it... how about like this? :rolleyes:
Raise the gas tax, then let every licensed driver to by xx? gallons of tax free or low tax gas. After they can buy the gas at the full tax rate. If you were a driver that did not use all his low tax gas you could sell those low tax rights to someone that needs more.

You could start a situation were someone could even make $ by not using any gas, and selling there gas tax credits?

I think power plants are doing something like that with pollution credits. Anyone know?

While appealing at first sight I think is would bloom into one big mess once congress or whoever got to putting the plan on paper with all the loopholes and exceptions they would want for the salesman who needs his car to work, for the pizza delivery guy, and the low income people who of course cannot be hurt by such a tax. Plus they would have to figure out the business side of the equation. It would not be too long before the execs with their big cars would find that the company is supplying them with their gas.

Right now you drive more or drive a FSP, or don't hypermile you end up paying more in gas taxes. That does not seem like all that bad a system.

I think Obama has a decent policy about the energy issue. Mccain seems confused. There are improvements that can be made on obama's policy however. Sometimes people don't know or agree with what is better for everyone as a whole. Those who are rich and can afford it wont buy the mass transit deal and will lobby against such even though it's a very nice prop.

Whatever the solution will be, a lot of people will not be able to understand as they only look out the window through their house and not their neighbor's.

Another thing to consider is that it's still just the campaign season. None of the candidates currently have the power to put their plans into motion, much less commit to specific mechanisms to implement their general policy. Right now, and understandably so, it's just broad policy proposals (reduce greenhouse gases, increase clean energy, reduce foreign oil, etc.). How exactly the next president is going to do this is in flux, and personally I don't mind that (it's the computer scientist in me talking...hooray separation of policy and mechanism). It's not necessarily flip-flopping (oh, how I hate that term), it's being flexible and open.

More importantly, the next president will not do it alone. There are other people and bodies involved, like Congress, the DOE and secretary of energy, lobbyists, citizen groups, and state and local governments. While the president will have a lot or power and responsibility to address this, placing all the onus on him is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

But it does get people active, and it does get a popular mandate. Not much will deviate from the status quo, no matter who is in office, without broad support for new ideas, because there are people with a lot of power who like the status quo right where it is. The status quo got us into the energy crisis, what makes you think it will get us out of it?

To all out there, regardless of who ends up in office and regardless of who you support and ultimately vote for, it is up to us to apply pressure to actually make inroads on this . I often dampen the responsibility of the general population, since we don't make cars, we don't pass laws, and we don't have a large singular budget for R&D or construction projects, but political and social pressure is one area where the general populace does have direct influence, and it needs to start being used.

The energy crisis is not just a campaign tool; let's make sure that holds true.

That's how steam powered locomotives were put out to pasture. These were the dirtiest foulest source of pollution from coal. A movement was formed in the 20's and they were eventually replaced with diesel-electrics by the 1950's. The same push came from California for catalytic converters in the 1970's and in the end they succeeded.

The CAFE standards will have to be pushed higher than they are but a cost will have to be assigned to carbon based fuels to restrict consumption of gasoline and other carbon based fuels otherwise we will end up with the same result we did when CAFE standards were increased in the 1970's we increased the efficiency of automobiles but those gains were plowed back into more powerful engines and accessories and not into fuel economy.

just select both options and vote. You are able to select one of each ;)

Somehow, increased taxes will have to play a part in fuel conservation. The state and local gov'ts need to be thinking this right now while gas prices are falling. If people get the idea that they can make adjustments while prices are falling, any gains to average FE will be lost. The taxes need to be raised to 'encourage' economy and to send the message that a corner has been turned and there is no going back.

As for a new president, I can't see a guy, albeit an honest hardworking guy, with 6 months of Congressional experience ready to be our Commander-in-Chief. This is serious, heavy-duty stuff. We have the world's most powerful military force, right now anyway, in the world and it needs to be under steady hands. It's a sad note, I think, on America that we can't field real, dynamic, powerful, Godly leaders for president. Nevertheless, this gas thing combined with the mortgage debacle and a recession will likely be the 800 lb issue for this campaign. And, probably, we won't hear much from the terrorists until after the election.

If anyone is of a mind to pray for our country and its leadership, now is a good time to do so. God Bless America!

Faithful and True

......................