John McCains Energy Follies

[telcoman]

The New York Times knows what it is talking about

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 7, 2008EditorialJohn McCain’s Energy Follies The industries that create energy — coal, wind, nuclear, ethanol, and, of course, oil and gas — all clamored to be heard at the Republican convention. At cocktail receptions and in hundreds of ads, each claimed to welcome the challenge of creating a cleaner, greener energy future.

A lot of that was corporate boilerplate. But one advertisement, from Chevron, seemed strikingly on point. “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil,” it said. “We’ll use the next trillion in 30.” This nicely framed a big part of the energy challenge. It was also a reminder of why John McCain is proving, so far, to be such a disappointment on issues he once seemed to understand better than almost anyone else in his party.

The world is consuming oil at a ferocious pace because of runaway demand in India and China and because America — the world’s largest consumer — is only beginning to confront its addiction. This cannot go on forever. Even the conservative United States Geological Survey predicts that oil production will peak by midcentury, meaning that future prices will make today’s $3.70 gas look like chump change.

Emissions from fossil fuels — not just oil but the coal and natural gas used in power plants — are the main drivers of global warming. Mainstream scientists have warned that unless they are sharply reduced the planet will face rising sea levels, prolonged droughts, widespread famine and other frightening consequences.

Global problems obviously require a global response. As the world’s most profligate user of energy, and as one of its most technologically gifted nations, the United States can and should lead the way by developing more efficient vehicles and by expanding carbon-free energy sources like wind and solar power.

The John McCain of a few years ago understood this. He sponsored a bill with John Kerry that would have aggressively raised fuel economy standards, and another that would have put a stiff price on carbon emissions to encourage investment in cleaner technologies.

Unfortunately, that John McCain has receded from view just in time for the presidential campaign. He has dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, pandered shamelessly by urging a gas tax holiday, and missed several crucial votes on bills extending credits for wind and solar power.

And while his acceptance speech promised “the most ambitious national project in decades,” including efforts to improve energy efficiency, increasing oil production remains the centerpiece of his strategy.

These positions divert public attention from an unavoidable truth: a nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while owning only 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness or self-sufficiency. And they trivialize the very hard work that lies ahead.

Mr. McCain’s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate raises even more worrisome questions. Her strategy is drill here, drill there, drill now.

She would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a heartbeat — something Mr. McCain continues to oppose. She has sued the Bush administration for declaring the polar bear a threatened species, fearing it would interfere with oil exploration in Alaskan waters. She has questioned whether humans are responsible for climate change. Governor Palin’s views are alarmingly out of touch with reality. No less alarming was Mr. McCain’s decision to welcome them into his campaign.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is too much bs coming from the right that is just plain wrong on energy. Even T Boone Pickens warns we cannot drill our way out of the mess we are in.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

As usual, a wonderful fear-mongering article as usual there Telco.

McCain is pressing for more oil, more wind, more solar, etc etc. He is not _just_ calling for drill drill drill. Something you and the Times seem to like to ignore.

I love the part about global warming and talking about mainstream scientists ( IPCC hockeystick anyone? ). Standard doom and gloom which cannot be backed up via those same scientists.

The polar bear? We have discussed that in depth here and the concensus is that it was pressed into being in order to give a means for the enviro-whako's to stop oil exploration. It's beginning.

Take your drivel and go home. 99% of your crap is debunked and you simply ignore it to post some other BS crap spewed by the NYT or dailykos.

[rn79870]

As usual, a wonderful fear-mongering article as usual there Telco.

McCain is pressing for more oil, more wind, more solar, etc etc. He is not _just_ calling for drill drill drill. Something you and the Times seem to like to ignore.

Yes, after he listened to Obama's plan and saw the support it had, he did come around.

I love the part about global warming and talking about mainstream scientists ( IPCC hockeystick anyone? ). Standard doom and gloom which cannot be backed up via those same scientists.

We know it's cyclic, but we also know that man is playing an ever so slight part in tipping that scale. So we should throw out all the scientific studies just because they differ? Perhaps we need to let CalTech get to the bottom of the issue.

The polar bear? We have discussed that in depth here and the concensus is that it was pressed into being in order to give a means for the enviro-whako's to stop oil exploration....

Funny thing, the Dream VP also thinks the polar bears are not endangered. She knows because...???

Take your drivel and go home. 99% of your crap is debunked and you simply ignore it to post some other BS....

I think it was the NY Times that wrote that. I think 99% is a bit high. Maybe 20%.

crap spewed by the NYT or dailykos

You don't like the NY Times, Kos, MoJo, the Huffington Post and sometimes MSNBC. Are they all wrong?

[Jimefam]

He's questioning the validity of an article written by the NYT but on the community organizer thread. Somebody posted an article by rightwingnut.com and everyone took it as scripture. The bias on this board is ridiculous.

[audtatious]

Yes, after he listened to Obama's plan and saw the support it had, he did come around.

I don't know who flip-flopped first as long as they report it properly

We know it's cyclic, but we also know that man is playing an ever so slight part in tipping that scale. So we should throw out all the scientific studies just because they differ? Perhaps we need to let CalTech get to the bottom of the issue.

The 4% of the 4% is what is making the earth heat?

What's CalTech going to do, create another incomplete computer model?

Funny thing, the Dream VP also thinks the polar bears are not endangered. She knows because...???

Maybe she has read the same reports from lifelong Polar Bear, Alaskan and environmental scientists that I have? I went over it indepth in a thread a couple months ago and actually changed some minds after members tried to pick my information apart. Might actually be in the big Global Warming thread itself.

I think it was the NY Times that wrote that. I think 99% is a bit high. Maybe 20%.

If you go back and look you should see where his information is called to the table over 90% of the time and he simply ignores it when he's caught and simply creates more threads instead.

You don't like the NY Times, Kos, MoJo, the Huffington Post and sometimes MSNBC. Are they all wrong?

In most circumstances their slant is intentional, at least the articles he posts. I do regrain from posting TownHall and other such sites on here (even Fox News) and believe it or not there are a lot of articles I don't post because they come from sources that would be deemed "highly suspect" or I call BS on their direction/claims.

Granted, I have posted some articles that are kinda "out there" in order to stimulate discussion, altho constantly getting jumped on has gotten me not do that anymore. Obviously I will also post articles that directly relates to points that have been made here in the past as well.

[audtatious]

He's questioning the validity of an article written by the NYT but on the community organizer thread. Somebody posted an article by rightwingnut.com and everyone took it as scripture. The bias on this board is ridiculous.

The bias goes both ways. One link to rightwingnuthouse vs. 20+ links/articles from Dailykos? NYT is caught spreading one-sided viewpoints all the time and they are supposed to be a bi-partisan newspaper. I actually posted up where they had to do a retraction on a Palin article recently. It actually surprised me that they would do such a thing although they blamed it on having the wrong information at the time (shouldn't newspapers be fact checking instead of trying to beat each other to the punch by posting tabloid-style articles?).

[srellim234]

The New York Times knows what it is talking about

Why?

This is strictly an opinion editorial that does not contain any numerical or dated facts. This reads a lot more like propaganda junk put out by political parties during an election, designed to incite, rather than a piece based on fact.

What actually indicates they KNOW what they are talking about?

[ishkabibble]

He's questioning the validity of an article written by the NYT but on the community organizer thread. Somebody posted an article by rightwingnut.com and everyone took it as scripture. The bias on this board is ridiculous.

[szh]

The bias on this board is ridiculous.

I know!

The obsession that the folks from the left have with denigrating Gov. Palin is just amazing to me too.

Z

[ishkabibble]

We're just all a bunch of sexists who are part of a giant media conspiracy.

[szh]

We're just all a bunch of sexists who are part of a giant media conspiracy.

Really?

What happened to the giant right-wing conspiracy that we must all belong too?

Z

[ishkabibble]

And the vast centrist conspiracy. Why are those Independents so secretive about their party choice? They must be up to something

[audtatious]

They are trying to centralize the Gov. You know, move them from Washington, DC to someplace more centric. Maybe St. Louis....

[The Wicker Man]

And the vast centrist conspiracy. Why are those Independents so secretive about their party choice? They must be up to something

I know! There's nothing I despise more than people who claim to be independent but are really, for example, republican. Why be disingenuous in the first place?

[szh]

I know! There's nothing I despise more than people who claim to be independent but are really, for example, republican.

Curious: do you actually know somebody who does this and actually despise them for it?

Why be disingenuous in the first place?

My wife is registered as an Independent, but always votes Democrat, fwiw. When she first registered, she picked Independent because she was not sure which party she wanted to be affiliated with.

No issue of disingenuity there. She simply never got around to changing it one way or another. No big deal.

I am a registered Republican, fwiw, but centrist in my beliefs. I try to vote for the right person for the job - no matter what their party affiliation might be.

Z

[The Wicker Man]

Curious: do you actually know somebody who does this and actually despise them for it?

Yep. I know lots.

[szh]

Yep. I know lots.

And, you actually despise them for it?

Sorry to belabor the question, but I am just surprised that it matters that much to you!

Z

[The Wicker Man]

Yes. I thought I already said this.

Yes it matters to me that much because than said person is a liar and I refuse to associate with such people especially when it comes to matters of my country.

[AZhitman]

Hmmmm.

Guess you'd better refrain from voting.

If you hadn't seen the previews, it's an old white liar vs a young black liar.

[The Wicker Man]

I've just got this to say: "Independents" who truly aren't what they say they are douchebags and should get their heads kicked in for Lying!

[AZhitman]

I think people who call people "douchebags" and wish personal harm on people who do something that's none of one's business in the first place have a serious mental disorder.

Glad you're not in charge of anything.

Kicking people's heads in is kinda barbaric.

[The Wicker Man]

Why are you sensitive about my posts?
Modified by The Wicker Man at 12:29 AM 9/8/2008

[Jesda]

You are all fat.

Anyway, posting links and threads from DailyKos or FreeRepublic is a good way to lose your credibility in a debate.

I used to be a regular FreePer until they went off the deep end. I posted links there to promote traffic to my web site for my AM radio talk show. They used to be libertarian-friendly, then... yeah. They're about as bad as DailyKos now in terms of being rabidly ideological and hateful to outsiders.

[szh]

Anyway, posting links and threads from DailyKos or FreeRepublic is a good way to lose your credibility in a debate.

Agreed.

I did not know that about FreeRepublic though ... not that I know any better, so, I will take your comments on them at face value.

Z

[The Wicker Man]

I'll go one more further and say the bias from the staff on this board is ridiculous.

[AZhitman]

Feel free to go elsewhere.

We did without you before, we'll be OK this time.

[srellim234]

I know! There's nothing I despise more than people who claim to be independent but are really, for example, republican. Why be disingenuous in the first place?

And YOUR definition of Republican is?????

I was a Republican for over 30 years. The current administration, coupled with our local Republican representative (who I know personally and voted for for years) who has developed from a conservative to a George Bush and Republican Party shill convinced me that the Republican Party is no longer a party I want to be a member of.

Personally, I never have hesitated to cross party lines in any direction having voted for as many as 7 candidates from 7 parties for various offices on a ballot.

I have many friends that have left the Republican Party, too, but can't bring themselves to vote for candidates they don't believe can win ("If I don't vote for the Republican, leftist Democrat will win! A vote for a third party is a wasted vote!"). It stands to reason that on Goldwater type conservative values, the Repubicans are still closer to those people than the Democrats. They just don't want to be counted on the registered rolls any more because they would like to see the party return to what it used to be and that's one way to voice their displeasure.

I don't hold that against them; they've already made a first "baby step" in the right direction by no longer registering as a major party member.

[srellim234]

Related to the energy issue, take a look at this article on Reuters today about the city of San Antonio, TX.

http://www.reuters.com/article...80909

Another great "out of the box" idea to move the city away from burning fossil fuels that makes an incredible amount of sense. I wonder how much oil we could save if more cities started harvesting the methane from their treatmant plants.

Kudos to San Antonio for actually doing something and not just talking about it.

[AZhitman]

Keep in mind, VERY little of this has anything to do withy the POTUS. These measures will be undertaken by communities and municipalities acting on their own... Just like certain cities were at the forefront of recycling efforts and it spread.

I've been doing a lot of reading on the feasibility of the "food tower" concepts... Seems to be something we can implement fairly soon...

Energy production, water treatment, livestock raising, crops grown, waste recycled, and products to market all in one facility, occupying less than a city block....

It's pretty interesting, read up on it if you get a chance.

[srellim234]

I'll try to make time to read up a little on the food tower concept.

While I'm a believer in the free market, I think the time has come for a POTUS to make a "move from foreign oil" energy commitment like Kennedy's "We will put a man on the moon by the end of this decade". I'd much rather see the money invested at home in renewable energy plants like this than in foreign oil. This energy source will not disappear or get more expensive; people will always eat and poop.

I don't see anything wrong with opening up our drilling but I prefer saving most of the oil for our strategic reserve to be available for military use only.