Yep, all you rocket scientists ought to be listening to two of the rocket scientists running for president. You know. 'Cause that helps...

Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 30, 2008

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Gas Prices, taxes, and profits from the Califonia Energy Commission.

Let's say that the average eeeevil oil company makes 10 cents profit per gallon on average (in comparison to the gov't, which makes almost 60 cents profit per gallon guaranteed).

You could take away 100% of the so-called record breaking profits of the oil companies, and your $4.00 dollar gas, would drop to $3.90. No real change at all.

Well except that whatever oil company you do that to will no longer be in business. Hence, supply will fall, and guess what, prices will go even higher.

Think that helps? Or hurts?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

My goodness me Rush! are you STILL writing them long screeds?
I have been away from these boards for more than 630 days ... that's how long it took me to read that last one of yours!!!
And now I have a whole heap of catching up to do ...:)) :))

---

ITI SAPIS
POTANDA
TINONE

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

Obama for change!!! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

Obama for change!!! ;)

Do you really think one man can reduce the gas price?

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

Obama for change!!! ;)

Do you really think one man can reduce the gas price?

LOL!

Americans already pay much less for gas than the rest of us. Perhaps they shouldn't have made their country so reliant on the car.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Americans already pay much less for gas than the rest of us. Perhaps they shouldn't have made their country so reliant on the car.

Yeah, "they" designed it to be oh, say, 50+ times the size of everywhere else.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Americans already pay much less for gas than the rest of us. Perhaps they shouldn't have made their country so reliant on the car.

Yeah, "they" designed it to be oh, say, 50+ times the size of everywhere else.

Maybe they should have stolen a smaller country then? :p

..and there are alternatives to the car..strange an idea as it seems.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Maybe they should have stolen a smaller country then? :p

Why, who the hell WANTS to be Burkina Faso?

"Hey, I've got an idea, let's leave this place to French and English to keep, and we'll go take over Burkina Faso!!"

Yeah, that's some brilliant planning there.

..and there are alternatives to the car..strange an idea as it seems.

Feel free to use any of them that you wish. Go nuts.

Overwhelmingly, those that live in 80 - 90 % of the land mass of the US will not choose any other option. Mostly because those options do not exist or are not practical given a country this size.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Maybe they should have stolen a smaller country then? :p

Why, who the hell WANTS to be Burkina Faso?

"Hey, I've got an idea, let's leave this place to French and English to keep, and we'll go take over Burkina Faso!!"

Yeah, that's some brilliant planning there.

Give it time and I am sure you guys will get around to invading there too.

..and there are alternatives to the car..strange an idea as it seems.

Feel free to use any of them that you wish. Go nuts.

Overwhelmingly, those that live in 80 - 90 % of the land mass of the US will not choose any other option. Mostly because those options do not exist or are not practical given a country this size.

Given that research on those areas has been suppressed by the oil companies so as not to compete with their 'market'.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Hey, I've got an idea, let's leave this place to French and English to keep, and we'll go take over Burkina Faso!!"

Yeah, that's some brilliant planning there.

Give it time and I am sure you guys will get around to invading there too.

Since this is just flights of fancy: Hey, we're just following your lead.

Feel free to use any of them that you wish. Go nuts.

Overwhelmingly, those that live in 80 - 90 % of the land mass of the US will not choose any other option. Mostly because those options do not exist or are not practical given a country this size.

Given that research on those areas has been suppressed by the oil companies so as not to compete with their 'market'.

Yeah, maybe, who knows, whatever. I don't know how an oil company could suppress any research anyone does, oh, well, except by lobbying the gov't to not fund such things. But hey, that's their right, just as it's your right to lobby the gov't to fund such things. The best plan would be to have Greenfarce, or DirtFirst! or Sierra Schlub do their own research because the oil companies then cannot control it. Seein' as it ain't theirs and all.

In fact, the best thing to do would be to take all dis' suppressed research and just build 300 mpg cars. Just offer people 100% clean energy. Because if you sell it at an economically competitive price, they'll buy it. Instantly.

Regardless, those that live in Nebraska, or Oklahoma, or Iowa, or almost anywhere but some large urban/some suburban area have few options other than a car. C'est la vie.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yeah, maybe, who knows, whatever. I don't know how an oil company could suppress any research anyone does, oh, well, except by lobbying the gov't to not fund such things. But hey, that's their right, just as it's your right to lobby the gov't to fund such things. The best plan would be to have Greenfarce, or DirtFirst! or Sierra Schlub do their own research because the oil companies then cannot control it. Seein' as it ain't theirs and all.

It helps if your presidents are put there by the oil companies.

In fact, the best thing to do would be to take all dis' suppressed research and just build 300 mpg cars. Just offer people 100% clean energy. Because if you sell it at an economically competitive price, they'll buy it. Instantly.

Regardless, those that live in Nebraska, or Oklahoma, or Iowa, or almost anywhere but some large urban/some suburban area have few options other than a car. C'est la vie.

So you are talking about a minority of the overall population? ..and the rest who can use alternatives?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yeah, maybe, who knows, whatever. I don't know how an oil company could suppress any research anyone does, oh, well, except by lobbying the gov't to not fund such things. But hey, that's their right, just as it's your right to lobby the gov't to fund such things. The best plan would be to have Greenfarce, or DirtFirst! or Sierra Schlub do their own research because the oil companies then cannot control it. Seein' as it ain't theirs and all.

It helps if your presidents are put there by the oil companies.

Let me know when that happens. The point still remains: The best plan would be to have Greenfarce, or DirtFirst! or Sierra Schlub do their own research because the oil companies then cannot control it. Because then it doesn't matter who the president is. It doesn't matter whether it gets gov't funding or not.

In fact, the best thing to do would be to take all dis' suppressed research and just build 300 mpg cars. Just offer people 100% clean energy. Because if you sell it at an economically competitive price, they'll buy it. Instantly.

"I concede," or "exactly," or any argument at all would have been a more effective response. Frankly, nothing is stopping anyone from building such cars as to put every other manufacturer of them out of business. Or say Toyota, Priusing every other maker to death. Are the eeeevil oil companies suppressing dem Priuses too? If so, they're doing a terrible job.

Regardless, those that live in Nebraska, or Oklahoma, or Iowa, or almost anywhere but some large urban/some suburban area have few options other than a car. C'est la vie.

So you are talking about a minority of the overall population? ..and the rest who can use alternatives?

I have no idea what the ratio would be between say, the three largest metropolitan areas as that compares to total population, population density in particular areas, and how those individuals in them choose to run their daily lives. They choose freely, just as you do. By no means does that suggest that they will all choose as you think they should.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

LOL I think there are many alternatives to cars: like trains, busses, tram, subway... They only have become less and less because of the politicians lobbied by the oil and car industries.
Even car-sharing could be an alternative, since most cars are standing around most of the time anyway...


As the saying goes: If there is a will, there's also a way...

---

Account frozen...

LOL I think there are many alternatives to cars: like trains, busses, tram, subway...

Oh yeah. Lincoln, Nebraska is known for it's massive public transportation system. They have one of the largest subway systems in the world, an extensive commuter light rail system, and the tram, well, the people there swell with pride as they see hundreds of thousands of people use the tram system everyday.

Oh, wait, none of that is true. I made that up. Lincoln, Nebraska doesn't have any of those things. I must have been thinking of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Oh, wait...

They only have become less and less because of the politicians lobbied by the oil and car industries.

That's the system you support: gov't meddling. Since you have to right to lobby for whatever you want, those people have the right to lobby for whatever they want--which is, of course, the exact opposite of what you want. They have that right. Or, would you take that right from them as well?

Even car-sharing could be an alternative, since most cars are standing around most of the time anyway...

Maybe some of them make that choice, I have no idea. And neither do you.

As the saying goes: If there is a will, there's also a way...

Get going then.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I live in an area that doesn't have any train, subway, tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be ) or bus services.

The town I live in is small enough to get around on a bicycle, but if I want to get to any major department stores, or even a Wal Mart, I have to drive there.

The large cities such as New York and Los Angeles ( even Detroit ) have services like that available. But here where I live, and in the small cities in the surrounding this area, those options are simply not viable economically.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I live in an area that doesn't have any train, subway, tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be ) or bus services.

The town I live in is small enough to get around on a bicycle, but if I want to get to any major department stores, or even a Wal Mart, I have to drive there.

The large cities such as New York and Los Angeles ( even Detroit ) have services like that available. But here where I live, and in the small cities in the surrounding this area, those options are simply not viable economically.

That's the reasons why some of the bus and train lines in my former home area have been deleted: They engaged some ppl who counted the passengers in the late morning and in the afternoon - and despite this time being when almost everyone was at work who used these possibilities to get to their work (or home from work), they just erased these connections between the bigger town and several smaller towns and villages, everything with the excuse of "being not viable economically". If they had counted the passengers between 5am and 8 am, between 12 and 3pm, and between 9pm and 11pm - the main traffic times, when people go to their shifts or travel home from their shifts, they would have known that these connections were important. But those ppl who made the decision only think short-term profits, not long-time advantages...

tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be )

see here. ;)

---

Account frozen...

That's the reasons why some of the bus and train lines in my former home area have been deleted: They engaged some ppl who counted the passengers in the late morning and in the afternoon - and despite this time being when almost everyone was at work who used these possibilities to get to their work (or home from work), they just erased these connections between the bigger town and several smaller towns and villages, everything with the excuse of "being not viable economically". If they had counted the passengers between 5am and 8 am, between 12 and 3pm, and between 9pm and 11pm - the main traffic times, when people go to their shifts or travel home from their shifts, they would have known that these connections were important. But those ppl who made the decision only think short-term profits, not long-time advantages...

tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be )

see here. ;)

I hate to break the news to you, but economic feasibility isn't just an "excuse". If the train ticket costs you 10 Euro's a kilometer, then it wouldn't be economically feasible for you to take it to and from work everyday either...

...and complaining about "profit" all the time just shows your ignorance about the world around you. If the train doesn't turn a profit, then there's no money for repairs, maintenance, upgrades, or wages/raises for employees. Importance to you or that community is irrelevant if the monetary income doesn't cover the payroll, fuel consumption, or a new section of track

---

Sounds like with the rising cost of fuel..driving will no longer be economically feasible. Time to think of something different.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Sounds like with the rising cost of fuel..driving will no longer be economically feasible. Time to think of something different.

Yep. As costs for gasoline rise, other more expensive systems become economically viable.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...