Paul, Gore is right. This investment must be made.

The naysayers, most of them conservatives ( I use the term loosely) reflect their value system in their naysaying. By naysaying, they are also saying that as long as they have theirs today, they shouldn't be obligated to those of tomorrow.

It is a fundamental philosophical difference lying at the heart of the values between conservatives and liberals when it comes to environmental protection and preservation.

There is a bug in this comment system. When you leave a comment, it will be saved and published, though you will also get an error message after hitting the submit button below. For the moment, please bear with us and just hit your back button on your browser two times after submitting a comment.

Your comment will show up. We are working on the problem.

Paul,

Another "big" reason to make the investment is that our "carbon based" economy is obsolete.
So what if we have enough reserves to last another 50 years, what do we do then?
The time to make the change is when there is no real pressure to do so.
If we're whining about the cost of fuel in the summer when the greatest demand is for gasoline, diesel, etc, what will we do this winter?

Rocky, you have touched upon one of the most fundamental flaws with the just-in-time inventory and business model which has pervaded nearly all intellectual thinking in America today.

Just in time inventories was never meant to be a model for governance. Proactive preventive, and balancing diligence should always have been the force driving politicians since leaving the days of the horse & buggy and kerosene lanterns.

When the world of social living, culture, business, economics, politics and governance started to become rapidly more complex, it was absolutely the duty and responsibility of governors and leaders to take a less passive, and more proactive balance and checking role.

But, then came Reagan and his cohorts launching the war against such proactive and preventive efforts developed by FDR and grown by the likes of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and LBJ. Don't get me wrong, when attempts are made to be proactive and preventive, mistakes will be made. But, if one remains in preventive and proactive mode, one can easily facilitate the correction of mistakes.

The worst thing is to make such mistakes and then go ballistically laissez-faire, cementing such mistakes for posterity. That is where we find ourselves today. Bush took a very proactive role in his 1st 4 years, making gargantuan mistakes, and the elections of 2006 created a defacto laissez-faire government, with Democrats unwilling or unable to rectify the mistakes, while checking the President against any further unilateral actions.

It is a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in, and harmful too for millions of American citizens reaching to credit cards for food and gas burying themselves under interminable debt.

David,

Bush's problem wasn't that he was proactive. It wasn't even that he made so many mistakes.

The problem was even after the mistakes had been realized Bush found it necessary to "stay the course", and continued to propagate the same baloney ad nauseum.
I'm not someone who believes in conspiracies, but nobody is that stupid.

I do believe that whoever becomes President nothing is going to change much. There are just too many things that have been screwed up in the last few years with virtually no effort to repair the damage.

Rocky

How about Boon Pickens' plan (PickensPlan.com)?
I think it's a good plan.
Wind and solar power make sense, and natural gas is a cleaner fuel, there's a lot of it, and there are inexpensive kits to convert conventional combustion engines (with a switch) to run on either gasoline or natural gas.
BTW, natural gas usually comes from deeper levels where higher pressures tranformed oil into natural gas, and oil sands come from shallower levels where lesser pressures were unable to transform the oil sands into oil or natural gas.

Rocky,

I agree, and I think any rational person would who acknowledges the myriad of messes the Bush Admin. created, that it will take quite some time, and a priority list, to work on rectifying the nation's messes.

Which, of course, means that you are right, whomever is the next president will not clean up all the messes in 4 years. It is debatable whether they can be cleaned up in 8.

But, is there any doubt whatsoever, that the next president MUST begin the clean up, in earnest and with the right set of priorities as to which to tackle first and which can wait?

David,

I think it's time for the American people to set the agenda.

One of the truly big problems is the people that revel in, and make a profit from the polarization that has been so prevalent in America for the last few decades. Stirring up the masses for fun and profit does nothing to solve the problems that we all as Americans face. IMHO it does more harm than good.

I can't say if either of our "candidates" is quite prepared to take this issue on because of the potential freedom of speech issues it raises.

That said, listening to the loony far right pundits eviscerate McCain for not being conservative enough, and hearing the equally loony left asking if Obama is black enough, it leads me to believe that the agenda needs to be set from the middle out, not from the fringes in.

There are far too many people in this country that believe that there are sides to take.

Rocky

As an addendum,

I truly think that cheap energy is probably one of the least of our American issues.

If we can't confront and solve the social issues I mentioned above, all of the other issues facing this country will begin to pale in comparison.

Rocky

Rocky, I think you just stumbled into a contradiction. First you say the people should set the agenda, and then you say the people are too divided to set an agenda.

The President is the one elected official whose job it is to represent the interests of the American people as a whole. Congress persons are elected to represent their geographical constituents. The Judiciary is appointed and confirmed to represent the Constitution and rule of law. Only the president is elected to represent the best interests of the vast majority of the American populace, and the nation's posterity. It's one of the reasons the Founder's gave the President the veto.

So the question in this election regarding the president, is which candidate is more likely to honor that responsibility without deference to political party, wealthy special interests, or faddish political polls?

IMO, Obama is the only candidate capable of winning the election and best living up to the responsibilities discussed above.

David,

"Rocky, I think you just stumbled into a contradiction. First you say the people should set the agenda, and then you say the people are too divided to set an agenda."

I did say that the agenda should be set from the inside (middle) out.
It is an interesting paradox. I truly don't trust those on either fringe to take all of America into consideration.
We have to do what's best for the country, not just what's best for the most vocal minority.

Rocky

Rocky, when you say, "We have to do what's best for the country,...", who is 'WE'?

Someone must act to effect the best for the country. Who exactly is in a position to act toward what's best for the country? Certainly not the splintered public. Nor the splintered Congress. The S.C. has a narrowly defined role and cannot act on its own. That would leave, it seems to me, only the President as the person defined as "WE" in your statement above.

There are only 2 potentially winning candidates vying for the office. Seems to narrow the "WE" by logic, down to "HE", whichever one is elected.

One can argue for more and better choices in a future election AFTER 2008, and I would join. But, for this election cycle, there seems to be a very narrow choice for "WE" to act for what is best for the country, John McCain and Barack Obama.

For me, that means no choice at all, since, McCain is a one trick pony, soldier. He is not educated in law, economics, social institutions, sociology, education, or another area of expertise except waging war.

Obama's limited education is considerably more expansive than McCains, giving him more knowledge and experience across a range of issues facing the nation, than McCain, whose only claim to education was War College.

David,

It doesn't matter a whit who the "decider" is if the decisions they make are wrong for the country.
The next President whoever he is will need to roll back some of the executive fiats put in place by this administration that have been Constitutionally wrong, or they aren't doing the job as defined by the Constitution.

Remember the saying "what's good for GM, is good for the country"?
I didn't believe it then and I bellieve it even less now. What's good for GM is really good for the stockholders of GM, but only marginally good for the rest of us.
If a company makes the mistakes that GM, and the rest of our domestic automakers have made on a continuing basis, I don't know if I want them to have influence in Washington. The same goes for the bankers, and the oil industry.
Any forward thinking CEO wouldn't have put their company in the straits they are now, and as a result not put the country in the position we find ourselves.
I am no economist, but it seems to me it don't mean squat how high the median wage has risen if a bushel basket of dollars won't buy you a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk, or a gallon of gas.

Rocky

Rocky

If a company makes the mistakes that GM, and the rest of our domestic automakers have made on a continuing basis, I don't know if I want them to have influence in Washington. The same goes for the bankers, and the oil industry

I share the same sentiments. I have been listening to the talk shows since Gores speech and am amazed at the amount of naysayers to his agenda. Of course they all are advocates of the fossil fuel industry. And no doubt most are lobbyists for those industries. Just today I heard one opponent on the Diane Rhem show indicate that we should be advocating the use of clean coal pretty much just because it is there. My first thought was why should we first consider coal when there are much better long term solutions available. It is that antiquated republican mindset of profits before sensibility that drives me nuts. Obviously our biggest hurdle to responsible energy and environmental responsibility is getting beyond the politics of profits.

Rick,

I hate to say it because it sounds so cynical, but.....
It's about the money, it has always been about the money, and it will always be about the money.

You and I both know that after a certain point the more money one seeks the shallower one's life becomes. Unfortunately, that isn't what's taught in this country.
We are taught that "the one that dies with the most toys wins".
My belief is that the pursuit of toys is a colossal waste of time. The one that dies with the most toys is just dead, and has no use for any toys.

Rocky

Rocky, that is cynical, but, nonetheless true. Our government has evolved from being a manager of power and laws, to the manager of economics, and when that corner was turned in the FDR years, government really did become about the money.

That said, there are many who believe energy, a necessary component for life, should be free or as low cost as possible, and never metered out for a profit if alternative means of making energy free or cheap are available. I am one of those persons.

I think the government's role here is to interfere with the energy companies attempts to block entrepreneurial efforts to develop and market free, or very low cost, energy sources. Not to take over energy and nationalize it, but, to block private efforts to keep non-profit energy producers from existing. In other words, to keep the entire area of energy research and development for alternatives competitive.

The people would like to have very low cost energy. The people therefore should invest in the low cost or no cost energy source conversion technologies, via their agent for such activity, their government.

David,

I don't have a problem with the energy companies making a profit, that is after all, what they are in business for.

However.....

The price of everything in this country, from apples to toilet paper, from cars to refrigerators, is affected by the price of energy. When the price of energy doubles in a short period of time, as it has recently, we all take it in the shorts.
Nobody can tell me with a straight face that this entirely the result of supply and demand, and just expect me to roll over and accept it without laughing in their face.
Supply doesn't just evaporate overnight, and demand doesn't just explode.

Somebody is playing with the price of energy.

Opening up America's coasts and wildlife preserves to drilling may make Wall Street ecstatic, but it doesn't truly change the situation for those of us that depend on a stable source/price for energy for our livelihood.

If anybody ever thought of forcing people to use mass transit, this would be the way to do it.

Rocky

Rocky

I personally don't find your stand on profits cynical. Perhaps those who own energy stock or are blind to reality may. But I and I assume many many others do not see the energy industry as an honorable entity worthy of praise. I contend that they would sell their first born in the interest of profits and maintaining a monopolistic stranglehold on the industry. They have only their long term interests in mind. I get a kick out of the commercials they run on tv presenting themselves in the image of an environmentally responsible entity with only the best interests of all concerned. While at the same time one can listen to an energy related talk show and hear their well payed lobbyists advocating against renewable alternatives. What a bunch of hypocritical bull.

On a lighter note I have really noticed a large surge in the amount of high mileage scooters and people on bicycles in my area. I am also noticing more vehicles with more than one person in them in the mornings. I guess there is nothing like high cost to change peoples habits. I personally have been writing my representatives letting them know how I feel about the rapid advancement of alternatives. To hell with the fossil industry. I find it extremely foolish that anyone would advocate fossils as the answer to our energy problems. Especially in light of the fact that they are the crux of our problems.

Sorry for the rant but I apparently have a lot of pent up venting since watchblog went down. :)

RickIL said: "I don't have a problem with the energy companies making a profit, that is after all, what they are in business for."

Even if their lust for profits bankrupts the nation's future? We can invest in free and cheap energy and pay down our national debt with the savings, or, we can fund the shareholders and go bankrupt as a nation at the hands of the execs who will fight cheap and free energy with every dollar at their disposal.

David,

The comment you attribute to Rick was mine.

As a percentage of the gross, just how much profit would you define as not obscene?

Rocky, that's a trick question, right?

There are times and circumstances when profits should be a negative. Others a positive. By what percentage depends on a host of variables, but, the American tax payer SHOULD NOT be one of those variables, as in subsidies to the Exxon Mobil during record profit years.

This politicians who authorize such wasteful abuse of American taxpayer dollars must be voted out of office before America's future prospects can improve. And that includes most of those currently in the U.S. Congress.

Voters have to quit listening to what politicians say on their web sites, in town halls, and in press releases, and look at what their votes have caused in America, and vote according to those results, not their words.

David,

No really.

I don't have a problem with the oil companies having a 9% profit margin (if that is what it actually is).
I do agree with you and I do have a problem if the oil companies are making billions as a result of that 9%, and are still getting subsidized by the American taxpayer.

Rocky

Rocky, my greatest complaint against the energy industry is its oligopoly influence over government and monopolistic defenses against alternative and cheaper profit margin energy technologies which our nation's future absolutely must have to survive economically.

That influence was fostered and nurtured like never before under the Bush/Cheney Administration. And Republicans in Congress are still playing the Oil company's song in Congress, drill on the E. and W. coasts, despite the fact that the long term effect of doing so will be only to retard progress on fossil fuel independence.

Check this out.
This could have huge implications in the not too distant future!

There's still a lot of engineering needed to capitalize on the science, but this may be the best way to split hydrogen and oxygen from water.

But splitting the oxygen away from the water was the hard part, and Nocera has done it. "Now we can start thinking about a totally distributed solar [photovoltaic] system," he said. "We couldn't have a solar economy unless it could produce energy 24/7. Now we can."
:
His hope is that because unlike traditional electrolysis devices, which are expensive and require toxic alkaline solutions, his system is so cheap, simple and benign that scientists and engineers around the world will be able to improve it quickly.
:
For his part, Nocera says he will work to understand and improve both sides of his new discovery. His lab will try to learn every detail about just how his catalyst is making the oxygen. And he is going to work with his engineering colleagues at MIT to try to integrate his storage device into systems that he hopes one day will power homes and cars all day and all night.